Democratic Revolution

[onedomino]

There will never be a better time to "drain the swamp" in the Middle East. Iran next, then Syria. Let's see how quick Saudi Arabia and Egypt can hold legitimate elections. What? You say newly elected representative governments in these countries will be run by maniacs hostile to America? How is that any different than the current situation? We should press forward and free all the oppressed people of the Middle East. If we do, then 200 million people will be added to the side of freedom and democracy.

Watersheds
We Live in a Time of Democratic Revolution

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200502140945.asp

Has there ever been a more dramatic moment than this one? The Middle East is boiling, as the failed tyrants scramble to come to terms with the political tsunami unleashed on Afghanistan and Iraq. The power of democratic revolution can be seen in every country in the region. Even the Saudi royal family has had to stage a farcical "election." But this first halting step has fooled no one. Only males could vote, no political parties were permitted, and only the Wahhabi establishment was permitted to organize. The results will not satisfy any serious person. As Iraq constitutes a new, representative government, and wave after wave of elections sweep through the region, even the Saudis (and Syrians, Egyptians, Iranians) will have to submit to the freely expressed desires of their people.


The tidal wave has even reached into the planet's darkest corners, most recently shaking the foundations of the North Korean hermit kingdom. A new leader is announced at the same time the monsters in Pyongyang whisper "We've got nukes" and demand legitimacy from George W. Bush. Given the opacity of the country, and the irrationality of its leaders, nobody seems to know whether the Dear Leader is still alive, or, if he is, why the transition has been proclaimed. But the North Koreans, as tyrants everywhere on the planet, are acting like a regime no longer confident in its own legitimacy. Notice that the world's longest-running dictator, old man Castro, is conjuring up the illusion of American assassination teams planning the murder of his buddy in Venezuela, even as Fidel promises death to anyone who has the nerve to propose popular validation of his own failed tyranny. Such is the drama of our time.

Free elections do not solve all problems. The fascist tyrants of the last century were enormously popular, and won huge electoral victories; Stalin was truly loved by millions of oppressed Soviets; and fanatics might win an election today in some unhappy lands. (That's true, but there are currently untouched "outposts of tyranny" throughout the Middle East. Let's get rid of them. Can the elected replacement governments be worse? Often they will be better.) But this is a revolutionary moment, we are unexpectedly blessed with a revolutionary president, and very few peoples will freely support a new dictatorship, even one that claims Divine Right.

But the wheel turns, as ever. Such moments are transient, and if they are not seized, they will pass, leaving the bitter aftertaste of failure in dry mouths and throttled throats. The world looks to us for more action, not just brave words, and we must understand both the quality of this moment and the revolutionary strategy we need to adopt to ensure that the revolution succeeds. Above all, we must applaud those who got it right, starting with the president, and discard the advice of those who got it wrong, including some of our "professional experts."

The two great elections of recent months were held in Iraq and Ukraine. In both cases, the conventional wisdom was wrong. The conventional wisdom embraced the elitist notion that neither the Ukrainians nor the Iraqis were "ready" for democracy, because they lacked one or another component of the so-called requirements for a free society. Their alleged limitations ranged from historical tradition and internal conflicts to a lack of education and culture and insufficient internal "stability." How I hate the word stability! Is it not the antithesis of everything we stand for? We are the embodiment of revolutionary change, at home and abroad. Most of the time, those who deplore a lack of stability are in reality apologizing for dictators, and selling out great masses of people who wish to be free. And even as those un-American apologists invoke stability, we, as the incarnation of democratic capitalism, are unleashing creative destruction in all directions, sending once-great corporations to history's garbage heap, voting once-glorious leaders into early retirement, and inspiring people everywhere to seek their own happiness by asserting their right to be free.

The Ukrainians are now in control, but the Iraqis still have to contend with the discredited meddlers and schemers who never believed in their democracy, and still seek to place failed puppets in positions of power in Baghdad. Anyone who reads the dozens of blogs from Iraq — which express a wide range of political opinion — must surely see that the Allawi interregnum has failed. The results of the election speak clearly: The Allawi list was outvoted five to one by its major opponents, even though Allawi commanded a treasure chest vastly greater than that of the others. Ambassador Negroponte, Secretary of State Rice, and DCI Goss should tell their "experts" to admit error, and cease their efforts to install a president and prime minister who reflect the consensus of Foggy Bottom rather than the will of the Iraqi people. If they persist in attempting to dictate the makeup of the new Iraqi government, and continue to meddle in the drafting of the new Iraqi constitution, they will turn the majority of Iraqis against us. Despite countless errors of judgment and commission, we have, for the moment at least, won a glorious victory. We should be smart enough, and modest enough, to accept it.

This glorious victory is due in large part to the truly heroic performance of our armed forces, most recently in that great turning point, the battle of Fallujah. Our victory in Fallujah has had enormous consequences, first of all because the information we gathered there has made it possible to capture or kill considerable numbers of terrorists and their leaders. It also sent a chill through the spinal column of the terror network, because it exposed the lie at the heart of their global recruitment campaign. As captured terrorists have told the region on Iraqi television and radio, they signed up for jihad because they had been told that the anti-American crusade in Iraq was a great success, and they wanted to participate in the slaughter of the Jews, crusaders, and infidels. But when they got to Iraq — and discovered that the terrorist leaders immediately confiscated their travel documents so that they could not escape their terrible destiny — they saw that the opposite was true. The slaughter — of which Fallujah was the inescapable proof — was that of the jihadists at the hands of the joint coalition and Iraqi forces.

Thirdly, the brilliant maneuvers of the Army and Marine forces in Fallujah produced strategic surprise. The terrorists expected an attack from the south, and when we suddenly smashed into the heart of the city from the north, they panicked and ran, leaving behind a treasure trove of information, subsequently augmented by newly cooperative would-be martyrs. Above all, the intelligence from Fallujah — and I have this from military people recently returned from the city — documented in enormous detail the massive involvement of the governments of Syria and Iran in the terror war in Iraq. And the high proportion of Saudi "recruits" among the jihadists leaves little doubt that the folks in Riyadh are, at a minimum, not doing much to stop the flow of fanatical Wahhabis from the south.

Thus, the great force of the democratic revolution is now in collision with the firmly rooted tyrannical objects in Tehran, Damascus, and Riyadh. In one of history's fine little ironies, the "Arab street," long considered our mortal enemy, now threatens Muslim tyrants, and yearns for support from us. That is our immediate task.

It would be an error of enormous proportions if, on the verge of a revolutionary transformation of the Middle East, we backed away from this historic mission. It would be doubly tragic if we did it because of one of two possible failures of vision: insisting on focusing on Iraq alone, and viewing military power as the prime element in our revolutionary strategy. Revolution often comes from the barrel of a gun, but not always. Having demonstrated our military might, we must now employ our political artillery against the surviving terror masters. The great political battlefield in the Middle East is, as it has been all along, Iran, the mother of modern terrorism, the creator of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and the prime mover of Hamas. When the murderous mullahs fall in Tehran, the terror network will splinter into its component parts, and the jihadist doctrine will be exposed as the embodiment of failed lies and misguided messianism.

The instrument of their destruction is democratic revolution, not war, and the first salvo in the political battle of Iran is national referendum. Let the Iranian people express their desires in the simplest way possible: "Do you want an Islamic republic?" Send Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel to supervise the vote. Let the contending parties compete openly and freely, let newspapers publish, let radios and televisions broadcast, fully supported by the free nations. If the mullahs accept this gauntlet, I have every confidence that Iran will be on the path to freedom within months. If, fearing a massive rejection from their own people, the tyrants of Tehran reject a free referendum and reassert their repression, then the free nations will know it is time to deploy the full panoply of pressure (Unfortunately, this will have to be military pressure. In Iran, the Mullahs are the ones with the guns.) to enable the Iranians to gain their freedom.

The time is now. Faster, please.
-

 

[Annie]

Excellent, especially combined with the other post. I agree with everything, especially the conclusion that the Iraqi elections, with the Shiite majority, may have begun anew the battle for Iran freedom. Better from within than without.

 

[Bonnie]

Excellent, especially combined with the other post. I agree with everything, especially the conclusion that the Iraqi elections, with the Shiite majority, may have begun anew the battle for Iran freedom. Better from within than without.

Absolutely!! I think there is an undercurrent there ripe for reform. And I'm also hopeful this happens.

 

[no1tovote4]

Excellent, especially combined with the other post. I agree with everything, especially the conclusion that the Iraqi elections, with the Shiite majority, may have begun anew the battle for Iran freedom. Better from within than without.

I firmly believe that this was our intent when we went into Iraq. That WMD was only the smallest of reasons and that our original goal was to surround Iran with Democracies, even if only in name (such as Pakistan). This would detoxify a situation that has been growing in Iran for quite some time all without invading another country.

Here's to our brothers and sisters who hope for freedom in Iran.

 

[nakedemperor]

There will never be a better time to "drain the swamp" in the Middle East. Iran next, then Syria. Let's see how quick Saudi Arabia and Egypt can hold legitimate elections. What? You say newly elected representative governments in these countries will be run by maniacs hostile to America? How is that any different than the current situation? We should press forward and free all the oppressed people of the Middle East. If we do, then 200 million people will be added to the side of freedom and democracy.

You're right, we have leadership in position to do it, and a public that will (for now) seemingly have the stomach for it...

But on whose bank? If we had a leadership that garnered any sort of international support we wouldn't have to foot the entire fiscal and military bill. Invading Iran and Syria and installing democratic governments is the ideal, definitely, but as things stand right now its a fairytale considering a) how much its going to cost b) how many people will die c) how little help we're going to get.

 

[Annie]

You're right, we have leadership in position to do it, and a public that will (for now) seemingly have the stomach for it...

But on whose bank? If we had a leadership that garnered any sort of international support we wouldn't have to foot the entire fiscal and military bill. Invading Iran and Syria and installing democratic governments is the ideal, definitely, but as things stand right now its a fairytale considering a) how much its going to cost b) how many people will die c) how little help we're going to get.

NE, very infrequently I answer your posts, no animosity just your attitude bothers me and I am trying to avoid stress.

On this however, well it seems that you agree but feel compelled to give the anybody but Bush argument. It doesn't wash. He's in there for 4 years, barring some calamity. You should be hoping for the right course, right meaning 'correct.'

 

[nakedemperor]

NE, very infrequently I answer your posts, no animosity just your attitude bothers me and I am trying to avoid stress.

On this however, well it seems that you agree but feel compelled to give the anybody but Bush argument. It doesn't wash. He's in there for 4 years, barring some calamity. You should be hoping for the right course, right meaning 'correct.'

I agree that we SHOULD remove opressive dictators where they exist, but right now we CAN'T.

Anyone but Bush? Where did that come from?

 

[Annie]

I agree that we SHOULD remove opressive dictators where they exist, but right now we CAN'T.

Anyone but Bush? Where did that come from?

From here:

If we had a leadership that garnered any sort of international support we wouldn't have to foot the entire fiscal and military bill.

 

[nakedemperor]

How do you extrapolate: this person thinks anyone else would be a better president than George Bush

From: George has, for better or for worse, alienated us from much of the world


I don't see the connection. If pointing out a shortcoming of a president is enough to indict the critic of an 'anyone but Bush' attitude, then I sure hope you're an anyone but Bush person yourself.

Also, I'm kind of glad you never respond to my posts. You have this weird way of bringing up my sexual orientation whenever you ding my rep for stuff that has nothing to do with sex. But hey, everyone has their little things that set them off.

 

[onedomino]

But on whose bank?

This is a difficult question. We certainly will not receive help from the EU, save a few exceptions. The Russians, Germans , French, and Chinese will make American action against the totalitarian regimes in Syria or Iran as difficult as possible, since they view US hardship as positive for their international interests. These countries cheer anything that depletes the "dollar empire," as the Soviets used to call it. Unlike American behavior toward the French prior to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, those countries should understand that they will suffer very negative financial repercussions if they actively work against the democratization of the Middle East. Since Wahhabism is one of the main reasons that the swamp needs to be drained, maybe we should make the Saudis pay for democratization in the Middle East. That irony would be justice served. Am I kidding? Indeed, the costs will be high to bring democracy to the Middle East, both in blood and treasure. But the costs will be high, and perhaps higher, if we do not.

 

[Bonnie]

How do you extrapolate: this person thinks anyone else would be a better president than George Bush

From:

George has, for better or for worse, alienated us from much of the world

Ross, there is one major factor you and Liberals overlook in this statement when you criticize Bush for not having certain countries on board. Namely France, Russia, and Germany, they ALL had a vested interest in not participating in anything conerning reforming Iraq and most of it was in their very deep pockets. I would suspect the other reason is fear of reprisal from terrorists........either way screw them!! They were never going to come on board with us no matter how nicely Bush kissed their collective asses.

 

[Annie]

How do you extrapolate: this person thinks anyone else would be a better president than George Bush

From:

Ross, there is one major factor you and Liberals overlook in this statement when you criticize Bush for not having certain countries on board. Namely France, Russia, and Germany, they ALL had a vested interest in not participating in anything conerning reforming Iraq and most of it was in their very deep pockets. I would suspect the other reason is fear of reprisal from terrorists........either way screw them!! They were never going to come on board with us no matter how nicely Bush kissed their collective asses.

Bonnie, you are much better at this than I. Having gone on the assumption that even a potato could understand that, I just figure he is an idiot. You have shown me the light, if I can just keep seeing it.

 

[Bonnie]

Bonnie, you are much better at this than I. Having gone on the assumption that even a potato could understand that, I just figure he is an idiot. You have shown me the light, if I can just keep seeing it.

Nah Kathianne, I just had a nice cup of relaxing tea.......

 

[onedomino]

Excellent, especially combined with the other post. I agree with everything, especially the conclusion that the Iraqi elections, with the Shiite majority, may have begun anew the battle for Iran freedom. Better from within than without.

For those interested, the "other post" is this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17733