You are right. Setting up democracies does not equal imperialism.
The problem is, our track record on setting up liberal democracies, is poor. Very poor. Look at the list of qualities you made, qualities we both agree the U.S. should be promoting throughout the world. Where have we instituted such governments? Sure, it's happened in a few, a very few, places. But it's only happened in nations that already had developed economies. For every post-WWII Germany, there are 20 Pinochets. For every post-WWII Japan, there are 20 Shahs. The ugly fact is, we have a consistent track record, going back to the late 1800s, of setting up governments that do the exact opposite of the "good government" qualities you list.
<while it is true that we have supported authoritarian regimes in the past, it was generally with the understanding that we were supporting the lesser of two evils>
This is the classic rationalization used by Imperialists. When the British (and the French, and the Belgians, and all the rest) carved up Africa in the 1800s, they said, "In an ideal world, these inferior peoples could govern themselves. But we have to conquer and rule them, because we have to stop the slave trade. It is the lesser of two evils, we don't do this out of self-interest, it's for their own good. And if they don't understand this, then we may have to kill them, and keep killing them till they do understand. More slaves die through ill-treatment, than our machine-guns will kill, so we are actually saving lives by sending our armies in."
When you say we are going to set up in Iraq a society that "has civil liberties (especially freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion)", this is the "triumph of hope over experience". |
