The genesis for this topic was a column that appeared in the Chicago Sun Times written by Mark Brown on 1Feb2005. In this column he states the following:



and the following:



and he concludes with the following:



Just had to throw that one in.....

Ok, in addition to the Iraqi election referenced in this column we have also recently seen people taking a stand for their voices to be heard in the Ukraine, in the Palastianian elections and in Lebanon. Egypt is going to have some sort of election process as is Saudi Arabia.

"What if Bush is right?" Do a Google search on that question in quotes and you'll find at least 271 hits, and like my link to the Sun-Times, they are not all right-wing websites. I've heard on the news that this question is beginning to appear even in publications in Europe - Der Spiegle (sp?) for one. Even Ted Kennedy on one of this morning's news shows grudgingly admitted that the President's foreign policy appeared to be having a positive effect.

If one does a search on the phrase "Middle East Berlin Wall", they'll get 70 hits to that. Among them is this opinion piece from the UK. From The Telegraph, written back in January before the Iraqi elections we get the following:



The right for women to vote in the next Saudi election was re-affirmed this morning by the Saudi ambassador to the US on Wolf Blitzer's show. So, just what's going on here? I'd like to keep partisan politics out of this, I'm not campaigning for President Bush since he can't be re-elected anyway. But I would like for people to consider the recent events in the Middle East and elsewhere (the Ukraine for example) in answering the following question posed for debate.....




Do recent events in the Middle East signal a sea-change towards a more representative form of government in the Middle East? And, if so, could such a sea-change spread elsewhere in the world?

Do recent events in the Middle East signal a sea-change towards a more representative form of government in the Middle East? And, if so, could such a sea-change spread elsewhere in the world?

Hmm. I would certainly like to think so, but firstly let's not rejoice just yet.

Or lobby for Bush to get any Nobel prizes. In common with the science prizes, I think the Peace prize shoud be awarded 20-30 years after the important actions, not while the newspaper headlines are still wet - that's how people like Arafat get to win them. But that's another topic.

Saudi elections will include women voters, but they still won't be able to go to the polling stations unaccompanied by a male member of their family without getting beatn up, jailed or raped & murdered. And (most likely), no Saudi citizen will be able to vote for any candidate who is not a member of the House of Saud.

Mubarak may want to face a political opponent next time around - good for him. But until we know who else goes on the ballot paper, we should not get too excited. Maybe he just can't decide which sycophant to anoint as his successor?

And if the Egyptian constitution can be rewritten on a presidential whim to keep America happy, what's to stop the winner of that election from amending it again to make himself president for life (or to make cheesemaking compulsory, or anyhting else)?

But looking on the bright side, if it does take, I think it could certainly spread from the Middle East to the wider Islamic world - no mean feat, since it goes from Indoesia to West Africa - and perhaps beyond that.

How, I wonder, will the developed world dismiss the complaints (on trade/aid, disease control, climate change, migration, political/military interference, etc.) of freely and fairly elected democratic governments in the Third World without the excuse of unelected dictatorships and corruption to fall back on, as we usually do now?

As for "Bush was right" triumphalism, not only is it too early to say, but ABBers need not despair just yet. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, after all.

Do recent events in the Middle East signal a sea-change towards a more representative form of government in the Middle East? And, if so, could such a sea-change spread elsewhere in the world?

Assuming that a "sea-change" means significant progress, yes, this could be a signal of progress to come, and this progress might have potential to spread across the world.

Meanwhile, many Repubs want to inflate any signal of success far beyond what it really is, and many Demos want to deflate any signal toward its reality. Nobody that I can tell is trying to dismiss the signals of progress, but that doesn't mean dismissals are not going on.

I'll reserve my praise for the day that the troops come home. I'll also remain skeptical regarding the true motivations of the politicians involved with the liberation of Iraq. Meanwhile, some progress has happened. Looked at from another perspective, some problems have been spawned -- like the establishment of opposition that could be plotting with bin laden to attack the US.

How come the alert colors haven't been shoved in our faces? Oh, not election season. Okay.

I would like to beleive it to be so. Or are many of the changes just to get us out and wait out the end of Bush's 4 more years.

I would love to see a real shot at peace in the Israel/ Palestine killing. With Arafat dead--who knows.

I will still worry about the Law of Unintended Consequences--Here is a good question Aquilla--Is a unified Middle East under Islam actually healthy for us? Isn't a few terrorists better than an opposing army? Sure thats down the road a ways--but I have a 2 year old and a 2 week old who will face that question.

I think everyone who opposed Bush really hopes to be proved wrong about the outcome in the Middle east--but the precedent Bush set is still a dangerous one --it is a very tiny step from helping hand to closed fist. As well as that what one sows one will eventually reap.
Here's one for you.. China, Russia and a united Middle East decide that American capitalism is a grave danger to the Free World. The strength of the US military creates imbalance in the world and endangers too many. It would be best to step in and restrain American might--a bit extreme yes--but not really beyond the bounds.


We all probably secretly hope to be proven wrong--because if we are right Aquilla it will be worse than it was.

There is an old proverb that goes something along the lines of

Every journey begins with but a single step.

An alternative form of that proverb might that a long journey can not be completed until it has begun with the first step in the right direction. It is in this context that I use the term "sea-change" in the question posed for debate. Are these admittedly small and tentative steps truly the start of a new journey towards self-determination in the Middle East and elsewhere, or are they false steps?

One must keep in mind that the road towards self-determination (I prefer that term to "democracy") is a long and difficult road to traverse. However, even the smallest seemingly insignificant steps along that road can end up having profound effects. With that in mind I'd like to draw a parallel between current events and recent history - the Cold War.

Having been born in 1952, I grew up in during the so-called "Cold War" - that's what we called it. I was alive, although too young to really remember the Hungarian uprising in 1956 that was suppressed by the Soviets. I certainly remember the revolt against Soviet rule in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the scenes of Soviet tanks rolling through the streets of Prague. And then of course, the Solidarity movement in Poland in the 1970's. Each of these events seemed to be quite profound at the time, yet with the possible exception of Solidarity, they seemed to have little actual effect other than to affirm that the Soviet Union was destined to continue it's control over Eastern Europe. Using the Berlin Wall as a symbol of the Cold War it seemed to me, a child of that "war" that it was destined to continue for at least my lifetime.

But, as we know now, other changes were taking place. Changes that weren't as "spectacular" as Czech's throwing Malatov cocktails at the Soviet tanks in the streets of Prague, but events that in the long run proved far more significant. "Glasnost" for example. At the time it seemed more of a buzzword than anything else, but it now appears it may very well have one of the very few true steps on the journey that continues to this day.

That brings me back to the purpose of this thread and why I posed the question for debate. Is it possible that what we are indeed seeing in the Middle East, the seemingly small and perhaps insignificant changes, are in fact far more profound?

It's rather hard to keep "partisanship" out of this, the way you've presented it, Aquilla.

As noted in a thesis paper by a University of Illinois student, there were 23 different reasons put forth for the war in Iraq by the Bush Administration, or various other government officials in the House and Senate, before the start of the war. The only rationale close to Bush "being right" in this case is "the liberation of the Iraqi people", and even that didn't really come into major focus as a reason until we had troops at their doorstep, just a few weeks before the invasion began.

WMDs, broken UN sanctions, lack of weapons inspectors, the eminent build-up of nuclear weapons, ties to al-Qaeda, and "Saddam is a bad guy" were the major reasons given for invading. If spreading democracy and peace throughout the Middle East was a major priority for this administration, it was a rather well kept secret, buried in and amongst all of the other stuff they through up against the wall to see what would stick.

But I've noticed over the past couple months, a decided revision of history has begun to take place in the conservative camps. Rush, Hannity, et. al., are all talking up the liberation and democracy angle as if it were the only one ever presented.

In fact, I was listening to a conservative talk show host out of Chicago Friday night, and she was discussing all of the changes that have taken place in the ME since we invaded Iraq.

It was her contention that none of this would have happened were it not for GW's "steadfast, laser-like focus on bringing democracy to the mid-east after 9/11, because he knew that that was the only way to bring lasting world peace". That may not be the direct quote, but it's pretty damned close.

I mean, c'mon. Not a word about WMD's, UN sanction violations, "Saddam is a bad man" or anything else. That was it: to spread peace and democracy throughout the Middle East. I mean, to hear her tell it, our troops aren't even fighting there anymore. Funny thing is, they sure as heck are still dying over there.

But that's what you can expect, I guess. The new conservative mantra. It was never about WMD's or anything else other than ensuring all Iraqi's got a chance to vote, and that we could make all of the Middle East over into a semblance of Western style democracy..

Now, believe me when I say that I have no problems at all with the fact that Iraqi's are now getting to determine their own course in history, at least for now. And the fact that some of the other governments are making overtures towards more democratic ends, or at least making noises in that direction appears to be a good thing, as long as they follow through.

And I am in no way minimizing the actions of this administration in sending troops into Iraq as being part of the catalyst to these other changes.

But to say that GWB was right? Because one minor reason out of a multitude of rationales finally pans out? And what was he right about? That people under other repressive regimes in the area want freedom, too? Hey big shocker there! Did we really need to send 130,000 troops into Iraq to find out this little tid-bit of information?

No, Aquilla, my problem is not in any of the results we have seen so far, as they are very encouraging. But some of these things may or may not have occured whether or not we invaded Iraq. We'll never know.

My problem is, and has always been, they way we got here to begin with. And, now, of course, with all of the revisionist history being thrown around, and the willingness of people to just accept it as fact.

You probably remember the Vietnam War as well. Sorry, I know it has little with our topic but I could not resist mentioning.



I believe that this is the wrong question. I would ask, "Is a unified Middle East under Islam good for them?" The US intrest in the Middle East are insignificant. What is important is the wellbeing of those people living there.



This opininon is not limited to the countries you have mentioned. Let me give you an example: According to a recent survey, 59% of the people in my country (Turkey) believe that the US policy today is very imperialistic and benefits no one except the US intrests. I can't say that they are wrong, especially after Abu Graib. That event showed why really the US is in Iraq. Freedom... You got to be joking.

You're probably right about that quote, NiteGuy, it was just too good to pass up though. That's why I put the little smiley thingy in.....

However, it does serve to demonstrate that people, even those opposed to Bush's foreign policy are taking a hard look at events on the basis of the events themselves. Whether or not Bush "gets credit" for them or how much, etc. is not important, that's something for the historians to write and debate about in the future. We've certainly seen that sort of debate about past Presidents right here.

However, if one is able to take off their partisan glasses for a moment and consider the actual question presented for debate on it's own, that might lead to a more constructive debate.



Actually, yes I remember it quite clearly, Fma. And you're right, it's completely off-topic as is the rest of your post.

True, true. And as I mentioned, I have no problem at all with the fact that things do appear to be changing for the better in that region of the world. I don't even mind giving GW some of the credit for it.

But I saw an interesting story on CNN presents last night about this very topic, sort of. They were talking to arabs in various countries in the Middle east, though mainly in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Iraqis of course, are happy with the turn of events in their country, but they are still very wary of how long the "democracy" will last without some sort of protection from sombody like the US or the UN. On the other hand, they don't really want us there at all, because they consider it an insult to their ability to handle their own affairs. Kind of a "catch-22".

In Saudi Arabia, things appear to be changing more because of a push by younger members of the House of Saud, and a high unemployment rate among Saudis (as high as 30% was reported). Still, while the older members of the Ruling House are giving up some control, in terms of allowing "community councils" now, and while women will be able to vote in these elections, no woman is yet allowed to run for any of the offices.

Lebanon is a sore spot as well. Yes the Syrians are pulling out. That may not necessarily be a good thing. Recall, that the reason that the UN and US was there to begin with in the 70's and 80's was because of a massive civil war in that country. we seemed unable to end the fighting diplomatically, and didn't have the stomach for anything more than basic peace-keeping. When we pulled out, the Syrians went in, and while they have spent years occupying the country, and the Lebanese naturally resented it, the Syrians were able to quell much of the infighting in Lebanon. The fear is, even by the Lebanese, that if Syria does leave, will the civil wars begin again?

Also, is Syria leaving because it's the right thing to do, or because we have 100,000 troops withing a few hours drive of their border, and they saw what we did to Iraq? Can you really enforce democracy at the point of a gun?

As to other areas, I doubt seriously it will have much of an impact. Dictators being what they are, I doubt if any of them are going to change suddenly, just because the Middle East may be getting better. The populace in many of these countries may have the will, but not the ability to force change in their countries, without some kind of outside help. How many of these countries are there, and how many of our kids are we willing to sacrifice for further "regime change"?

Do recent events in the Middle East signal a sea-change towards a more representative form of government in the Middle East? And, if so, could such a sea-change spread elsewhere in the world?


It is quite possible. If "democracy" spreads, it would be an interesting development. Remember, we aren't exactly a "democracy" over here. "Representative Republic" is a bit different. I'm not sure what it would look like, I mean what choices would be made in the middle east if "majority rule" were to take hold? It could just end up being an elected Theocracy, sort of like what we have, only Muslim, not Christian...

The idea of representative government is certainly one that seems to appeal to humanity in general. If America is leading by example in this arena, we could be in serious trouble. Like Christopher said:



There are a lot of people that aren't interested in what America is pushing. Fma's statements about the attitudes in Turkey reflect that as well. Perhaps elected governments that strongly oppose the USA's capitalistic greed might develop in many countries? Elected government is representative of what the people feel. If they hate the US, then so be it...If not, then we can play nice together

How old are you, Chris? I thought you were older than I (34), but surely you'd remember that is almost exactly how things stood just a few short years ago, with the exception of some Middle Eastern countries, but including many eastern European.

Do recent events in the Middle East signal a sea-change towards a more representative form of government in the Middle East? And, if so, could such a sea-change spread elsewhere in the world? I think this is a bit premature (you knocked on wood several times before starting this post?). I HOPE recent events point to a change towards democracy which will spread. This would be a wonderful thing. It's too early to tell, IMO.

To be sure, Mrs P, time will tell and should such a sea-change come to pass, we'll all be able to debate the reasons for it at that time. But, that's studying history. My question was designed to enable people to live history by watching events unfold as they happen.

What caused me to think about this was a comment made a few weeks ago by a former Reagan foreign policy advisor - forget his name. He and a number of other people opined that possibly the most significant single event that led to the end of the Cold War was the elevation of Karol Jozef Wojtyla to Pope John Paul II. I remember when that happened and at the time it was interesting and historic, but who would have ever thought it could have been that interesting and that historic? Nobody that I can recall at the time did.

So, I thought this time around perhaps it might be fun to stay ahead of the curve and look into our crystal ball a little bit and speculate about what could happen as the events play out.

Edited to add yet another development.....

There is apparently a women's right to vote movement happening in Kuwait. From this article.....



In the words of the Cheshire Cat, "Curiouser curiouser"....

Do recent events in the Middle East signal a sea-change towards a more representative form of government in the Middle East? And, if so, could such a sea-change spread elsewhere in the world?

The short answer is, time will tell which is sort of a cop out I guess.

There is no doubt that the image of an Iraqi woman holding her fingers up in a V with blue ink on the index finger will live on in our collective memory just as much as two planes smashing into the twin towers, the Berlin wall coming down, man walking on the moon for the first time, or the atomic bomb detonating over Japan.

The Iraqi elections are a great accomplishment and something that muslims the world over can (I hope) look up to and be inspired and emboldened by to dream of a better tomorrow. However, to suggest that some of the events now unfolding in the middle east are a direct result of our action in Iraq thus validating our foreign policy is not something I will agree with.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, Democracy cannot come about at the point of a gun. So while we may have a Democracy in Iraq now, it is not logical to conclude that our invasion there has somehow struck terror into the hearts of the rulers of other nations prompting them to give it a chance.

Instead we have something involved here that generally always brings about change in any society - the youth and the new generation questioning the status quo. This is the case in both Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.

Before the bad action movies like Navy Seals starring Charlie Sheen, Lebanon was called "the Paris of the Middle East" known for its remarkably secular, intelligent, refined and intellectual society. Civil war ruined all of that, but the culture didn't die. What we are seeing now is the younger generation rising up to take back power and try to restore that former glory. Hopefully they have learned the lessons civil war taught and they can work out their differences after the Syrians leave.

The story in Saudi Arabia is much the same. As Nite Guy cited in his post unemployment in Saudi Arabia is close to 30% (and this is a similar problem in other countries). Some are tempted to the dark side and this becomes a breeding ground for extremists and terrorism, but for others they grow dissatisfied with the current ruling members and long to embrace a more modern society. I think that as the younger members of the House of Saud come to power, you'll see more and more changes in this area. If they don't respond the people eventually will, overthrowing the government much the same as Lebanon has done.

I have a lot of hope that things are on the up and up in the middle east because that only benefits us all as a global society. However, if you believe these changes will come about at gunpoint and by a show of force you are sorely mistaken in my opinion. The core problems in the middle east are economic ones (e.g 30% unemployment ) and cultural ones (e.g. attitude towards change, the west, etc) and the hardest changes must come from within. These changes will require the younger generations to become knowledgeable, teach and build and the cultural ones will have to come through progressive clerics preaching to the masses.

There will be some situations that will merit military action to help the change along in the future, but I sort of feel like this question assumes that is always the answer and the Bush's foreign policy doctrine is "the way".

We got really lucky with Iraq, prior planning and meticulous execution had nothing to do with it. When we started the invasion nothing was mentioned about elections until after Baghdad had fallen. "Freeing the Iraqi People" was never even mentioned as a reason until after the war was started. There was no plan to win the peace there, we sort of got lucky and in reality we are still fighting for it. I hope that we'll finally struggle through it and our troops can come home. There are a lot of scenarios where Iraq could have turned out badly (and still can for that matter), there was never any plan predicting this outcome or even shooting for it.

So it is very important not to confuse luck with a winning strategy.

I would agree with you,CJ, in that democracy or self-determination doesn't take place at the point of a gun, that would be contradictory after all. How can a person choose for themselves while they are being threatened? However, I would point out that oppression always occurs at the point of a gun, that's why they call it oppression. Dictators and tryants rule through fear and they must maintain that atmosphere of fear to stay in power. If we go back to my Cold War parallel, that's why we saw such brutal action taken by the Soviets in Hungry and Czechoslovakia against those seeking change. It's what we saw in Tianamen Square in China. This sort of thing is how oppressors stay in power, and they know if the people ever lose that fear....

We recently saw such events in the Ukraine where people took to the streets to protest a rigged election. In the old days, such happenings would have been greated with over-whelming force and violence by the oppressors. This time, that didn't happen. It didn't happen in 1978 in Poland either. From CNN's biography of Pope John Paul II, we have the following anecdote......



It was a great moment, and highly symbolic as many of the other things you listed in your post, but there was a reason for that symbolism. Something caused the people of Poland to lose their fear, and once that happened, it was only a matter of time.

I am wondering if the people in the Middle East too are losing their fear. If so, then it is only a matter of time.

I noticed that you mentioned Ukraine earlier... now you mentioned it again. You're correct, the demonstrations and protests such as they had in Kiev would be crushed... pretty much anywhere in a Western world! We can muse on the subject whether elections were rigged or not - nobody knows. Can you say for sure that first elections were rigged and NOT that the losing party saw an opportunity to overturn the election results knowing that the West will lign up behind them?
People in a big city felt cheated because their candidate didn't win - doesn't this sound familiar? Imagine tens of thousands of New York, Boston, LA, Chicago, and San Fran residents taking it to the streets back in November of 2000, demanding a new vote, blocking government buildings and threatening a complete government shutdown... I wonder, would these groups be "greeted with over-whelming force" or not?
I guess, disrespecting a law is OK as long as it benefits the candidate that Western world supports...
Ukraine is divided between "East" and "West" just as United States is divided between donkeys and elephants. One party felt cheated and the leaders decided to overturn the results of the election - by force. Come on, Aquilla, these are not the signs of a country where citizens respect the law.

Let me also say that I don't like the "East Ukraine" candidate Yanukovich at all - he is a useless bureaucrat without any vision for his country. But I don't like Yuschenko either (even though I sympathize with him being poisoned). He put lives of tens of thousands of Kiev's residents on the line, calling for a revolt.

I sure hope so. Iraqi's election could still turn problematic when the Iraqi population must vote for a President. Just because a country becomes a democracy doesn't mean it will remain one. Let's pray everything turns out alright. That said, I was listening to Sean Hannity trumpet the Lebanon/Syria events as one of President Bush's successes. I truly disagree with this sentiment. Unless Bush himself assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, he shouldn't take credit for what is occurring in Lebanon. As one NPR interviewee put it, "is President Bush a leader or simply jumping in front of the parade?"

I don't know what effect this will have on the rest of the world. I doubt this will do much for China's communist government structure. Or North Korea, for that matter. We'll see...

There are many ways I could respond to this. To be sure we have had violence and death in American streets in the cause of freedom. Nothing close to what happened in Budapest, Prague, nor Tiananmen Square where hundreds, maybe thousands, perhaps tens of thousands were killed. You ask what would happen if thousands took to the streets in the US to protest election results and I would suggest to you that there would be news coverage, maybe some arrests, maybe some people injured if from nothing else than heat prostration. I don't know exactly, but I do know tanks wouldn't show up and start mowing down people.

Five years before what happened in Prague, we did have a gathering of revolutionaries in our own capitol city. It wasn't tens of thousands, but rather hundreds of thousands. They heard a call for a revolution delivered by a man standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. On that day, 28August1963, 250,000 people heard the following......



That man was of course, Dr Martin Luther King Jr. and on that day there were no tanks in the streets of Washington DC killing those who were demanding freedom and justice. There was no "over-whelming force" of the kind applied by the Soviets and the Chinese. So, when you say....



You are quite simply, mistaken.



Well, Sean Hannity is Sean Hannity and you can take that for what it's worth. That and a few bucks will get you a coffee at your local Starbucks. I don't know that President Bush has even attempted to take any credit for all of this, Sean Hannity most certainly doesn't speak for President Bush, but I fear in these highly-charged partisan times, the President even commenting positively about the recent events might be construed as "jumping in front of the parade" by some. Hopefully at some point in the future these events will lead to a better Middle East and we can all engage in a debate about where the credit should go for that. It will be interesting to see which side English Horn might come down on given the following comment in this thread......





In any case, I would like to direct people's attention to this photo of Tuesday's front page of The Independent, hardly a pro-Bush newspaper in the UK.

One can read the entire story here. From that story on the front page, titled "Was Bush right after all?", we get the following.....



And this......





One might think reading through this story that someone at The Independent has been reading our message boards here. I wonder who that might be.....




I am teasing of course, but just remember one thing. Before you read it in The Independent, you read it here first.

So what do you think stopped Yanukovich from moving in troops and ending the protests in Kiev? You do not suggest that he was afraid of Bush, do you? Because I don't think even the most hawkish member of President's cabinet can imagine invading Ukraine.
The protests in United States during the 60s you are referring to - they were quite different from protests in Kiev. They did not blocade government building and prevented employees from geting in or out; they did not threaten to violently shut down the entire city. If they did, believe me, the response would have been different. There (probably) would be no tanks; but the Army would move in and restore order.

I believe that democracy is spreading, through the accomplishments of the US in the Middle East (and the accomplishments of the EU in Eastern Europe.) However, it is still far too early to see where it will go. Hopefully more European governments will try to encourage the development of democratic establishments in the ME as well. Peace & democracy in the ME requires peace in Israel & Palestine, it requires greater democratic representation in Saudi Arabia and Iran, it will require the succesful reinstallation of democracy in Lebanon etc etc. This ISN'T going to be like dominoes - 'solving' one part of the problem may make it 'slightly' easier to solve the rest - but they all require a lot of external and internal pressure to solve.


English Horn

The initial vote was heavily rigged by the government at the time (in favour of Yakunovich) and Russia tried to influence the outcome. It is hardly disrespecting the law to demand a fair election.

I don't know what stopped a Soviet-style oppression of the protests in Kiev, I certainly don't think it was because the authorities were afraid of a US invasion and I never came anywhere close to making that claim. I only know that it didn't happen and for that, I am thankful.

As far as your understanding of the nature of the protests in the US during the 60's is concerned, I can only respectfully suggest that you perhaps might educate yourself a little more about it. My understanding is that you are relatively new to the US and that you have arrived here from a culture with a completely different mindset and life experience. The Civil Rights and Anti-War protests of the 1960's did sometimes end in violent confrontations, and indeed troops were dispatched to quell the violence and restore order, usually the National Guard, but not always. And indeed, at Kent State University FOUR people were killed as a result. FOUR, and I am in no way minimizing that tragedy, but to somehow compare that to what happened in Eastern Europe at around the same time is frankly beyond reason.

Here is a place that you might start in your research, and it happened in 1957......



English Horn, my friend, I defy you to compare this with what the Soviets did in Budapest in 1956, Prague in 1968, or the Chinese in Tianamen Square in 1989.

I think wiser heads prevailed. Kuchma was about to start a civil war and Putin would have found it extremely difficult to justify to Russia why it was necessary to send troops into the Ukraine. Chechnya is one thing, Ukraine is practically 'Western Russia'.

And also the world has moved on. Russia is far more liberal than it was under the Sovets, even if Putin has no time for democracy. And if the West had really objected, then sanctions could have impoverished Russia.

Thank you for interesting links and historical references. While I knew about Kent State tragedy reading some more was certainly helpful and educational.
I never compared Prague, Budapest, or Tianiamen Square to protests in the United States in the 60s. To do that would be, indeed, quite ridiculous. What I asked you to consider is that if Al Gore (who by all accounts considers himself cheated out of presidency up to that day) decided not to give a more or less gracious concession speech back in November of 2000 but instead asked people to take to the streets, asked soldiers to disobey their commander's orders, and threatened to shut down the government of the United States completely until new elections would be held. Also imagine that the heads of states such as Germany, Canada, and Great Britain would announce that they find the election results "unacceptable" and publicly announced about their support for Al Gore. Quite unimaginable, huh? You're exactly right - United States and its people have a very different mindset than people in Eastern Europe - for one, they're very law-abiding and law-respecting citizens. To much larger degree than those who grew up behind the "iron curtain". It's not a critique, that's a praise. It's hard to imagine Al Gore doing something like that because, despite well-known "voting irregularities" in certain parts of the country during 2000 elections, he felt that the law, as it is, must be respected and followed.



How do we know that? This is being repeated over and over, without a shred of evidence. The original allegations that elections were rigged were told by the members of Yuschenko's party immediately after first elections and were repeated in the press over and over and over - to the point that we take it now as an axiom.
The next day (!) after the first election preliminary results were announced, Colin Powell, Blair, Schroeder and others announced that the results were "unacceptable".

Please note that I am not saying that first elections were not rigged... what I am saying is that we accepted this theory as a fact on the next day after elections - without any investigation, without proof - just because the candidate we all rooted for, lost. Come on guys all I am asking is to accept the possibility that elections were not rigged...

I don't think the answer to the question should be pending further ticks of the clock. Was Bush correct back when he first started the war? The fact that things do seem to be turning quite democratic in Iraq should have nothing to do with the question. Admittedly, it was one of his stated goals (the other being WMD), but is the end result that he desired worthy of US intervention?

The fact that it worked is, of course, good. But what if it hadn't worked? Would the action taken have still been the right thing to do?

I wasn't always a conservative. In fact, I'm basically an anarchist if you were to examine my political leanings. But Bush has managed to make a conservative of sorts out of me because I realized he isn't trying to do things because he's an idiot. He's trying to do things because he has a vision of what should be, rather than what is, and I agree with his vision.

Your broken clock analogy is one of the reasons I have so many problems with liberal "thinking". The fact that he was right this time has nothing to do with the vision that our President has. It might have been right this time, and it might be wrong the next time, but was it the right thing to do? The end result isn't important. What is important is taking action which you believe is morally correct.

True elections in Iraq were an incredible thing to witness. Was the desire to see this come about the correct thing to do? Was the desire to rid the world of Iraqi WMD the correct thing to do?

The former turned out fairly well, while the latter appears to have been unnecessary. Doesn't matter. What matters is what we believe was the right thing to do when we did it.

I think a better aphorism would be "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while."

I wasn't always liberal, in fact, I voted for W the first time around. But Bush has managed to make a liberal out of me becasue I realized he isn't trying to do things because he's an idiot. He's trying to do things because he has a vision of what should be, and I disagree with his vision. He is trying to do things for his 'base', of which you, me, and 99.9% of the rest of the country aren't.

Bush is not trying to spread democracy, bush is trying to maintain the Petro-Corporate hegemony. There are other countries with WMD potential and no oil. There are other countries with little democracy, and no oil.

Also, Iraq hasn't worked, yet. When all the boys (&girls) come home, and Iraq is a free and democratic country, I'll concede the point.

The elections were held a couple of weeks ago. The new parliament hasn't even met yet, neither has any PM nor president been elected. We don't know if the new government can rule, if it's stable enough to tackle the most important issues and what I believe is the main factor: Will the new government be accepted by the people?
You know many shiites have not voted, so they are not equally represented. The task of bringing Democracy to Iraq is far from over.

I would not praise Bush before the end of the day. Many things can happen until then.

Besides, I fail to see the connection between the revolution in the Ukraine and Iraq. I would strongly disagree with anyone who states that Iraq or Bush played a role in that regime change. The Ukrainian revolution was triggered by the rigging of the election by the prior administration and has to be seen in context with the revolution that took place in Georgia [the country, not the state]. Please do not mix up these series of events.

Do recent events in the Middle East signal a sea-change towards a more representative form of government in the Middle East? And, if so, could such a sea-change spread elsewhere in the world?

I think a change to more democracy is in progress, as to be seen now in Kyrgystan. We will have to see what happens in Lebanon. Still I do not think the events in Lebanon are directly related to Iraq or Afghanistan. What triggered that process was a car bombing of a popular leader. Not the vote in Iraq.

Remember: Ukraine, Kyrgystan, Georgia have all freed themselves from their authoritarian governments. That has neither happened in Iraq nor Afghanistan.

English Horn:


The many many election observers sent by various governments and the OSCE stated the day after the election that they [the elections] were rather undemocratic and failed the standards of democratic elections. The opposition merely stated the same. The heads of governments you mentioned considered the statement by the OSCE, not the opposition.


Edited to add and rephrase.

Then you disagree with what he has attempted to do, and that means you disagree with all that has been done. All you agree with is an end result.

That's fine for some. For me, I think that the fight is worthy, despite the outcome. What matters is the desire to do good. Not the ability to do good.

See, this is where I diverge wholeheartedly. A world with a middle east that has a population based on civil liberties similar to those in America would be a fine place IMHO. However, I disagree that a western power can impose this from the outside. I think our instrument (an army of occupation) is too blunt for Iraq. I think the baby steps offered by our authoritarian allies are more like the concessions of tsarist Russia before its revolution than the beginning of reforms like those that reformed Britain from an authoritarian monarchy to (over centuries) a democracy.

It does not matter what the desire is. Those that led the Russian revolution and the Cultural revolution desired to do good. Using the logic of the greater good to conduct military operations and civil rights suspensions is a slippery slope. What matters is the ability to do good. Because we did not have to act in Iraq, and we could have increased our prestige in the middle East in a much more positive light by trying to lead the issue of establishing an independent democratic Palestine. The desire to do good is no reason to rush into war. Because war is not good. Armies do not bring democracy they bring military rule and occupation. We did not wage war against Japan and Germany to spread democracy. We did so to preserve our liberty and that of some of our key allies. (Great Britain and France)

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
For us, it seems to be the road to bankruptcy as well.

Like many who have already posted, I would certainly like to think so, but I'm not taking it for granted. Sure, it was supremely encouraging to see Lebanese citizens demonstrating against the Syrian presence and more puppet-like elements in their government, but let's not forget that right after the international news weeklies had run "Democracy in the Middle East?" headlines we saw what were in effect counter-demonstrations by those more sympathetic to Hezbollah. Elsewhere in the Middle East, one not uncommon reaction to the Iraqi elections has been along the lines of "better the devil you know," preferring order, however authoritarian, to the perceived chaos to which Iraq has been subjected. Mubarak seems to be more interested in implementing cosmetic features which look democratic but don't actually erode his own authoritarian power. All in all, it's definitely too early to start cheering.

And true, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process appears to be getting back on track, but that has a lot to do with Yasser Arafat dying, and very little with any statesmanship on George W. Bush's part.

It must be spring as signs of life begin to wriggle up from the ground or bloom upon the trees and so too might the first faint signs of democracy in the Middle East.

It would be very, very good to believe Bush and the neo-cons got it right and all the blood, sweat, tears and money it's taken to get this far in Iraq and Afghanistan has had a unseen side effect upon other nations in the Middle East.

But I'm wary of a sudden cold snap. I'm wary that the U.S. has made as many new enemies as it has friends. It bothers me that we've destroyed a lot of Iraq in the process of saving it and there are thousands of Iraqi children whom are going to grow up hating America.

And it really gripes me that the idea of finding the Weapons of Mass Destruction has been totally discarded and everyone acts as if liberating Iraq was always Job #1. I'd like to see the same kind of interest directed at removing Saddam Hussein be applied to the evil genocide occuring in the Sudan.

But I'll give the president the sound of one hand clapping for the recent successes in the Middle East. I only wish it wasn't coming by bleeding America in such a high price of money, resources and lives lost.

I don't think that a greater good even enters the picture here. It is simply the desire to do good that matters, to those that are desirous of calling actions "good". If you disagree and say that only end results matter, then actions are amoral at best.

What good is it to act as a man if only end results matter? There are so many variables that can take our good intentions and use them to pave the road to hell that we may as well give up and simply hope for the best despite historical observances to the contrary.

This distinction might be the best example I've seen yet of the split between conservatives and liberals. For me, I think most conservatives look at motives and pronounce judgement, while liberals look at outcomes and pronounce judgement. This is an enormous philosophical distinction, which could prove to be of no small matter in the 2008 election.

As for your "slippery slope" judgement, all I can say is that you are absolutely wrong. The slippery slope requires a particular outcome that is at odds with what an individual views as realistic. Your reference to the slippery slope proves that you are looking at outcomes, rather than motives, despite the fact that my argument does not rest at all upon outcomes.

Is this rift between motive and outcome so deep that one cannot even argue for one over the other without the former being ignored by the opposition? I'd like to say that it is just you, but I have witnessed this time and again whenever conservatives and liberals disagree that I have to assume that there is a very distinct philosophical difference which makes any arguments between the two camps forever at odds with one another.

An interesting perspective - ends do not justify means - coming from somone who is attempting to argue that Bush & Blair's outcome in Iraq might turn out to be "right".

Which completely ignores the fact that both of them (though Blair somewhat more than Bush) LIED about the reasons for going to war in the first place, then when those LIES were uncovered, they LIED some more.

Is your position on the justification for the Iraq War (the debate topic, let's not forget) that because their REAL motivations - i.e. not the ones they told anyone in public, because those reasons could only possibly be justified with hindsight if they worked out, laws being what they are - were somewhere close to what actually happened, they were in the right all along?

This is nonsense. It not a liberal position, in this context, to believe that ends justify means - though you are right that this position is almost always WRONG. It is not liberals who had to lie about the means to justify the end, because they knew damned well that their own supporters would not have gone with them for the most part. Heck - they even lied about the END - one minute it was WMD, then, when there turned out not to be any, it was Liberation, then when nobody threw ticker tape in the streets of Bagdhad, it was all part of the War on Terror and about spreading peace, stability and democracy.

Need I remind anyone that elections were successfully held in South Vietnam? It is FAR too early to tell whether Bush/Blair were "right". What we CAN tell is how honest they have been with us so far, and the verdict there is not too bad for Bush but (increasingly) bad for Blair. (If he wins the UK General Election this year, & I think he will, it will be mostly because of the weakness of the Opposition and the residual goodwill towards other senior party figures, specifically Gordon Brown.)

There is so much in this discussion thread that I disagree with that it is impossible to respond to everything specifically. I will confine myself to a few main points.

The departure point of the discussion seems to be that the Iraqi elections were a success and that Bush deserves credit for that success. Both propositions are questionable. The Bush Administration delayed establishing any kind of Iraqi government for over a year while dismantling much of its institutional structure. It opposed direct elections in favor of a parliament selected by regional groups of leaders until pressured into accepting elections by massive Shia demonstrations called for by Ayatollah Ali Sistani. BBC Article So, while the election may have shown the desire of the Kurds and Shia to participate in governing themselves, it was hardly a demonstration of foresight by the Bush Administration. In fact, exit polls showed that one of the major demands of the Shia voters was that U.S. troops leave Iraq on an early time table. Whether the demonstration of courage on the part of the Shia and Kurds will result in a viable constitution and government remains questionable. A number of Iraq experts feel the election has only served to exacerbate divisions between the religious and ethnic communities.

Another theme of the discussion above is that things in the broader Middle East are moving in a positive direction as a result of the U.S. unilateral invasion. It is true that a chance for peace in Palestine opened with Arafat’s death and the promotion of the moderate, Mahmoud Abbas. However, it has always been a fallacy to view the Palestinians as the primary obstacle to peace and it is very unlikely that Sharon will make the necessary concessions for a lasting peace unless heavily pressured by the U.S. That is unlikely. CFR Statement

Another error that pervades this discussion is the assumption that democracy is on the march in the region and that is all to the good. To begin with, Arabs, and world generally, view the U.S. much more negatively than they did prior to the Iraqi invasion and one sided backing of Israel in its struggle with the Palestinians. Arab Opinion
Yaleglobal In fact, the U.S. is viewed more negatively throughout the Muslim World than it ever has been in the past. In most Arab countries bin Ladden has higher approval ratings than George Bush. Real democracy could result in the election of extremely anti-American governments. Furthermore, it is almost a certainty that terrorist recruitment has benefited from this anomosity.

For the most part, the moves that individual government elites have made in the direction of democratic government are inspired by fear of the U.S. and are cosmetic in nature. The exception is Lebanon which has a long standing democratic tradition but also has a history of civil war. Most of events there can be explained by the efforts of various factions to try to position themselves to the best advantage following the assassination of Hariri. The U.S. has done the same and has used the event to pressure Syria to withdraw its troops. Whether all of this will bode well for a stable Lebanon remains to be seen.

Its simply too early to tell how successful Iraq will be at converted the minds of others in the middle east. In a prefect world, all of these countries would simply bend back the chains of dictatorship for a more civilian friendly form of government. Unfortunately, asking a king to give up his crown is really, really hard to say the least. Would an invasion in Iran, instead of Iraq, give Saddam that warm fuzzy feeling in his heart needed to switch his throne with a congress. I doubt it.

So, ultimately, our hopes need to be placed in the hands of civilians across the middle east. If they witness a representative democracy as an escape from tyranny, it would encourage them to make progress towards change.

But the way Iraq functions right now, it seems unlikely any person would want to jump at the opportunity to call themselves an Iraqi. Despite democracy, violence flairs. The state of the government is questionable in the sense that it hasn't really solidified. It takes time to stop violence, and time to reach a consistent standing with the world. When it reaches its peaceful, stable state, then maybe it can be a shinnying beacon of democracy. Until then, we'll have to wait and see. And even then, change will have to occur in other countries for us to know for sure.

That being said, I do think we've left Iraq in an odd position to serve as an example of democracy. By having US play such a huge part in its creation, there will most likely be animosity against Iraq, reducing its influence. Democracy in Iraq might serve to these people as an example of foreign hostility, a breach of their culture, and possible an attack on their religion.

You might want to edit this answer because I can't make heads or tails out of it.

For me, the justification for the war comes from the desire to do some good. If one assumes that democracy is better than the government one is fighting against, then that is good.

Those poor slobs in the middle east deserve better than what they have gotten! They deserve to have a real say in how they are represented. Democracy might be the best of a bunch of terrible options, but it is the best of the options as far as I'm concerned. In other respects it is the worst, but at least it does give the majority some say over how their government is run.

The justifications for the war come from trying to do what is best for the people by dictating democracy. If you disagree and think that there is an alterior motive, then that's fine. In the meantime, democracy is finding some sort of foothold in the middle east.

They aren't having an easy go of it, and if I were Bush, I'd have done things differently, but I don't believe that the means are necessarily bad. In fact, they were necessitated by Saddam Hussein.

Were there WMDs? No.
Was there a reason to go to war? Yes.

Throw your notions of national borders in the garbage can, and just look at it from the perspective of a man of moderate intellect who is trying to do what good he can.

Look at it from that perspective, and Bush doesn't come off looking like the anti-christ. He's just a guy who believes in democratic values. That's it! He's not a genius, nor some puppet of the ruling class, but a regular guy with a job that is bigger than he is. And he's trying to do the right thing.

Now of course, this will result in a bunch of liberals talking about everything else except their own moral values. Look at end results, or realistic outcomes, or mere political realities as being greater than your own moral values and you'll eventually find that Bush is an idiot who shouldn't be allowed to even open his mouth.

Where are the supporters of democracy in the heart of the middle east? And for those supporters, do you believe that the lack of WMD is relevant to your support of democratic principles?

Oyaji, will come with me this summer to Iraq, and speak to the ordinary people on the streets? It is the only way you can have an opinion on this matter because the news we read do not give the full picture of the terrible things happening there. You can say all you want about democracy but your or mine opinion does not matter. The opinion of the Iraqi citizens are important and from what I learned from my last visit very, very few people are happy with the US occupation.

Or better, lets organize a trip together as the whole America's Debate. I believe what we say about democracy and freedom is irrevelant unless we know what happened there from the people living there. We are not the ones suffering so it is very easy for us to give speeches about freedom and democracy.

I'm sure if you visit the Sunni areas you will find very few that are in support of the liberation of Iraq. One must not forget that these people were favored by the old regime.

Whereas if you visit the Kurdish areas you will recieve glowing praise.

Now if you're speaking of the Shia areas; it's more of a fifty/fifty sort of deal.

As it is you make it seem as if the Iraqis wish to return to the time of Hussein's rule and this is clearly not the case. The overwhelming majority do not favor a return of this regime.

Now if you're speaking of the Sunni insurgency; rather nice of them to be targetting their fellow Iraqis now instead of the foreign military forces within the country. I'm sure that's garnering all sorts of support; actually what it has done is turn the tide of public opinion against these individuals. By the way, I hope you are attributing the terrible things that are happening there to the people causing them such as the insurgents that are targetting their fellow countrymen without regard to any innocents that may be near, yet I don't believe you are.

As it is the Iraqis were allowed to vote for the first time in decades (unless you call that farce of an election Hussein won with 99.9% of the vote an election). This has demoralized the insurgency to the point where these groups are now seeking 'exit strategies' and their Sunni supporters are vowing to participate in the next round of elections. Each attack the insurgents inflict after the election is now being rightly viewed by the population as an attack upon them; not foreign forces. Again as evidenced by the fact of civilians turning on insurgents in a variety of ways; from attacking them out-right to providing intel to the Iraqi security forces that are starting to take over.

As to the question posed.

Of course those opposed to the policies of this administration will refuse to see any glimmer of progress in the region. As it is, there is a ripple effect spreading through the region as evidenced by the election reforms occuring. Though not the 'Middle East', even the Iranians are seeing Bush's efforts to promote democracy as evidenced by the shouts for Bush to aid them in the last massive rally they staged.

Also, there have been a few members here that have been to Iraq.

No, Oyaji will NOT be accompanying you this summer to the streets of Iraq so that he may gauge the opinion of the average Iraqi moe. What they think doesn't matter. If what they thought mattered, then I'd have been quite happy to let Saddam lord it over the likes of them because they didn't think enough to get rid of him themselves. They deserve better, and I am the only one that needs to think they do. You see, this is my opinion. And since it is only my opinion, there is no need to disagree with it because disagreement is not going to change my opinion, nor does your mere disagreement constitute a valid argument.

Arguments against democracy might prove to be of a worthwhile nature, but not the accumulated opinions of various Iraqis as they condemn the notion of living in an occupied hell hole.





Of course my opinion matters. It matters to me. Not to you, or Iraqis, or even Martians. but just to me. That's kinda how opinions work.

Is the general Iraqi opinion important? Well, to them, it is. I don't try to live their lives, or to direct their brand of ethics. That's them, I am me, and their opinions don't matter to me.

In a debate, valuing the majority view because it is a majority view is a fallacy known as "ad populum". It doesn't matter if the majority is culled from the streets of Iraq, or downtown Springfield. What matters is an ability to supply logical arguments (not fallacious) in order to provide support for your position.

That to put things simply is just silly.

Thousands of Iraqis died in repeated uprising against Saddam. They thought to get rid of him, he just thought differently.


Well said on that note I don't think it is necessary to travel Iraq to get a gauge on Iraqi opinion. Their actions in elections as well as a number of scientific polls of the nation show that most Iraqis feel the invasion was worth the suffering it brought.

Good point! For those that risked their lives trying to get rid of him, they tried doing what the coalition has accomplished, and if there are a thousand virgins in heaven for every true believer (or whatever), then I hope they are currently enjoying the benefits of their harem. But when I spoke of Iraqis, I was not talking about individuals, but rather as a group. There might have been a few thousand who were willing to risk their lives in order to get rid of Saddam, but I look at them all as one group, and that one group didn't do enough to get rid of him.

I think this new development opens room for more debate.

Kuwait grants women right to vote



Still surfing the wave...