Interesting articles. I lean much more toward the opinion presented in the Simes piece, partly because it is closer to my own preconceived point of view, partly because his arguments are more solid than those Krauthammer presents.
Krauthammer refers to the war in Afghanistan as "the template" for a war in Iraq, with no reference to the obvious and considerable differences between those situations. If he feels that those differences are not so significant as many believe, he should have presented a case for that; failing to acknowledge the differences weakens his argument considerably.
Krauthammer then declares that America's mission is to "reform the Arab world". Again, he ducks away from the obvious objections to this proposition. The closest thing he presents to an argument that this is a feasible proposition is this observation:
remember when it was said that Asia was resistant to democracy. It too had a "special culture" and there was no way that we could impose Western democracy. Yet, lo and behold, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong are examples of modernizing and democratizing parts of Asia.
He fails to note, of course, that none of these cases involved an attempt by an outside power to impose democracy. As an argument to support a US effort to impose democracy in Iraq or across the Arab world, this is extraordinarily weak.
In a 1300 word essay you expect an author to present the strongest arguments available. If these are the best Krauthammer has, I'd have to say his case is pretty weak.
The entire question of what the US can and should do to promote democracy and how that effort will interact with the more specific goal of reducing terrorism deserves a lot more discussion than it's been getting. There are a couple of interesting-looking articles in the new Foreign Affairs dealing with this issue: "Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror" by Thomas Carothers and "Iraq and the Arabs' Future" by Fouad Ajami. I've only skimmed them so far; when I've had the opportunity to read them and think them over a bit I'll post comments here. I did notice that Carothers refers in his opening statements to "an incipient, albeit unsurprising, case of split personality: "Bush the realist" actively cultivates warm relations with "friendly tyrants" in many parts of the world, while "Bush the neo-Reaganite" makes ringing calls for a vigorous new democracy campaign in the Middle East." It of course seems odd to anyone who spent the '80s in Mindanao and Manila to hear Reagan's name associated with "ringing calls for a new democracy campaign", but I'm willing to hold fire until I read the whole thing.
I've an opinion or two on the subject myself (surprise, surprise), which I will presumptuously include.
Stuck in the lowland heat now, recovering from a day spent shopping in Manila. In the unlikely event that anyone is ever tempted to shop in Manila on the Saturday before Christmas, take my advice and roast yourself over a slow fire instead. It will be far more comfortable. Sailing tomorrow, then back to the mountains to entertain guests and maybe even write a post or two, sooner or later.... |
