Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (60564)	12/8/2002 11:36:05 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nice post. Thanks. On Bush and Afghanistan, I was harkening back to two things. First, his oft repeated campaign statements that he was not "into nation building." Which I took to mean it was among the many things he wished to distinguish himself from Clinton. Second, Afghanistan is clearly a country in need of serious resources simply to bring it back to the state of play in the late 60s and early 70s. The US has not organized a major effort to do so. (Note I'm not focused on democracy here because I don't know enough to know whether you are right about it not being ready but I do think it's unlikely for some time.) But Pollack and his writing companion (can never remember his name and am too lazy to check it out) argue that the US is seriously in need of demonstration projects, ones that project good will, and Afghanistan, they argue, is a good starting place. As for whether the Bush administration is interested or could be constrained to work on installing democracy in Iraq, I don't see much evidence of either. The few comments I've seen in that regard, most recently from Wolfowitz and from Perle, don't strike me as serious attempts to mobilize Bush to mobilize resources to do so. But are rather political rhetoric to gain supporters for the invasion. What do you see that I don't? Bush, in my view, has no principle-based commitment to the installation of democracy in Iraq, but he has good reasons to do so anyway. I agree with this formulation save for David Reiff's commentary that democracy is not something that is installed. It must grow up from the bottom. My fear is that, in the interests of "regional stability", meaning largely global oil prices, the first priority for the US will be to install a regime it can have a large amount of control over. From their point of view, a democratic state would quickly get out of control, given the demographics.

To: carranza2 who wrote (60564)	12/8/2002 1:53:48 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

Bush, in my view, has no principle-based commitment to the installation of democracy in Iraq, but he has good reasons to do so anyway. One interpretation of my post that great circumstances make great leaders is that, when called, those leaders make a virtue of neccesity. I have no expectation that Buss will make the effort to instill a democratic system in Iraq because it is the right and moral thing to do. He will do it because he understands that it is in the self-interest of the US that it happen. I would much rather have a reluctant pragmatist than a passionate idealogue take on the task. The pragmatist is much more likely to ask hard questions about how to get it done. Paul