Lounsbury: Reprise of "New Happy Talk"

« On Living in MENA - Open Q & A | Hedge Funds, the entertaining side »

January 28, 2005

Reprise of "New Happy Talk"

Thinking back to this: http://www.livejournal.com/users/collounsbury/269854.html

I refer you to this Sullivan comment:
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_01_23_dish_archive.html#110688929366577681

And my comment

IRAQ'S LIBERALS: "In Iraq, the very centerpiece of the U.S. campaign to export democracy, 'democratic movements and institutions' are dying, the result of illiberalism, U.S. neglect, and, above all, sheer physical insecurity. As it grinds into its third year, the war for a liberal Iraq is destroying the dream of a liberal Iraq." That's Lawrence Kaplan's grim verdict from Baghdad. No doubt he will now be derided as a squishy left-liberal defeatist - but, in fact, Lawrence was one of the most stalwart supporters of the war against Saddam, co-authored a passionate pro-war book with Bill Kristol, and is a card-carrying neoconservative. (He's also a friend). But he's not blind; and he's not dishonest.

This last part is what I was getting at.

However this comment is just plain looney:
The failure is in part a failure to get the U.S. bureaucracy to support liberal institutions and groups; but it is also simply a failure of order and security.

I have to say that I can not figure out where the bloody fuck Sullivan is getting that from. Failure to support liberal institutions?

That makes no sense whatsoever. Rather putting namby pamby frilly building democracy idiocy before delivering saftey and basic services.

Democracy was always going to be hard in Iraq. But democracy amod chaos and violence is close to impossible. And we never sent enough troops or conducted a smart enough post-victory occupation plan to maintain order and defeat a fledgling insurgency while we still could. So we are now left to ask ordinary Iraqis to risk their lives in order to leave their homes and vote. Here's the most heart-breaking passage - an interview with the liberal deputy defense minister, Mashal Sarraf, who cannot even leave his own house, because of the chaos:

"We have to admit the terrorists have won," he says. "People cannot engage in civil society; the war has stopped progress; liberalism is over for now." Asked what, if anything, can be done to revive the liberal project, Sarraf replies, "We need an emergency government that does nothing but security. When there is stability, then liberalism will begin to emerge, but only when there is stability."

I know Paul Wolfowitz has read Hobbes. Did he forget it? CPA adviser Larry Diamond hasn't: "You can't have a democratic state unless you have a state, and the fundamental, irreducible condition of a state is that it has a monopoly on the means of violence." As John Burns has written - again no sympathizer for Saddam or cynic - that simply isn't the case in Iraq. Our predicament is that you cannot have democracy without order and you cannot have a new order without democracy. Do I want the elections to succeed? Of course I do. Only those blinded by partisanship or cynicism wouldn't. Maybe a democratic miracle can occur. But at this point it would be exactly that: a miracle. So pray, will you?

January 28, 2005

Reprise of "New Happy Talk"

Trackback Pings

Comments

Comment Subscription