Democracy, Iraq, and the Muslim World
January 26, 2005
by Dinesh D'Souza
The absence of weapons of mass destruction has created an intellectual and moral crisis for America’s foreign policy in Iraq. Sidestepping that problem, President Bush in his recent inaugural address issued a clarion call for spreading democracy around the world. The tone of his speech echoed President John F. Kennedy’s pledge that America would “pay any price, bear any burden,” to uphold its ideals of freedom.
But today, no less than in Kennedy’s time, the ideal of democratic universalism has to give way to the realities of prudence. Certainly America showed itself unwilling to “pay any price” or “bear any burden” to stop the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 or the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Today America would like to see democracy in the Muslim world, but it cannot risk toppling the Saudi royal family or Hosni Mubarak in Egypt or Pervez Musharaff in Pakistan for fear that these unelected leaders would be replaced, perhaps even by democratic election, by maniacs of the Bin Laden stripe.
What is needed, at the beginning of Bush’s second term and on the eve of Iraq’s election, is not merely the rhetoric of missionary democracy, but also a concrete rationale for what America is trying to accomplish in Iraq. If the goal is worthwhile Americans are likely to commit resources and show patience and be willing to endure casualties. In short, the price we are willing to pay is proportionate to the importance of the goal and the likelihood that we could achieve it.
If someone were to ask Muslim radicals of the Bin Laden stripe, “Where is the kind of regime that you would like to see in the Middle East?” they would reply, “There is one important country that resembles our ideal and that is Iran.” Today’s Iran, founded two decades ago by Ayatollah Khomeini and his Islamic revolution, proves the viability of Islamic theocracy in the modern age. But if someone were to ask Americans, “Where in the Middle East is the kind of society that you espouse?” Americans would have to concede that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a democratic society in that part of the world. There are, of course, democratic countries made up of Muslims: Turkey, Indonesia, India and so on. But in the Arab Middle East, democracy remains an unfulfilled ideal.
This is the great significance of America’s project in Iraq. If three years from now Iraq is a democracy—not just a majority-rule state but a democracy that has separation of powers, checks and balances, minority rights, a largely-independent judiciary—then that will be a remarkable accomplishment. Democracy, even fragile democracy, would refute the pessimism of history and provide an example to the rest of the Muslim world. And if democracy began to spread to other countries—perhaps Iran, perhaps Egypt—we could see the beginnings of an historical transformation no less staggering than the transformation of the former Soviet Union.
The desirability of a democratic Iraq, however, does not resolve the problem, raised by many critics, that there is something paradoxical if not contradictory in a nation seeking to coerce another nation to become democratic. According to this view, freedom cannot be imposed by force; if people want freedom, they should seek it and fight for it and achieve it for themselves.
In theory, admittedly, it seems strange to use force to promote freedom. But history compels us to recall that when freedom has come to a country, it has frequently if not typically come by force. How did America become free? It took a violent revolution in which the enemies of the revolution, both foreign and domestic, were expelled or killed. The reason that freedom often requires force is for the obvious reason that tyrants rarely relinquish power voluntarily—they have to be pushed out.
But what about the objection that in the American case it was Americans themselves who fought to expel the British. Why don’t the Iraqis fight for their own freedom? The truth is that the Iraqis today are fighting for their freedom. Since Hussein’s removal, in the ensuing insurgency, Iraq has sustained more casualties than the United States. Over time, as America’s role subsides and Iraq retains control over its own destiny, the Iraqi portion of risk and responsibility will inevitably increase.
Even so, it has to be admitted that there are circumstances in which people are simply in no position to secure their own freedom. This was undoubtedly the case in Hussein’s Iraq, as it was undoubtedly the case in pre-Civil War America. It took the leadership of Abraham Lincoln, and the invasion of a Northern army, to secure for the Southern slaves a freedom that they were in no position to win for themselves. If America had not liberated Iraq, is there any question that Iraqis would still be living under the arbitrary rule of a bloodthirsty tyrant?
Despite its past failures—failures of intelligence, failure to anticipate the tenacity of the resistance—America’s contemporary goal in Iraq is a noble one. Bush could do a better job explaining his policy. As in any great enterprise, there are risks. Even today, a U.S. military transport helicopter flying in bad weather crashed in western Iraq, killing all 31 Marines on board. Four other Marines were killed in an ambush in Haditha. But the risks in Iraq are far outweighed by the risk of withdrawal which would hand victory to the terrorists. A self-governing Iraq will be worthy of the considerable patience and resources that America is committing to the effort.
From tothesource.com |
