| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Neo-conservative ‘Globalism’
For the neo-conservatives, the democratisation of Iraq was central to their call for war, while WMDs were to some extent secondary, since they felt that America could never be challenged militarily by the Saddam regime. They thought that the conflict would turn Iraq into a beacon state for the rest of the Middle East, or that the mere overthrow of the Hussein regime would itself inspire uprisings against the corrupt despots of the region. As far as they were concerned, it went against American interests to continue to work with these regimes, as these states contribute to the problem of Islamic terror. Such support could be direct, in terms of funding, logistics and training, both military and ideological; or it could be indirect, because as these regimes crush dissent and monopolise economic activity, the frustration that builds can only be expressed in anti-West, anti-American sentiment. Such views are espoused by Charles Krauthammer, a columnist for the Washington Post and one of the leading conservative commentators in the United States. In his essay entitled Democratic Realism, available on the website of a leading neo-conservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, he states, “There is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the monster behind 9/11. It’s not Osama bin Laden; it is the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world—oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism. It’s not one man; it is a condition.”ii
Since most of the leading lights in the neo-con movement view the UN system as a brake on the use of unilateral American power, they were not overly concerned with presenting their case in terms that would conform to international law. Going to war solely for the aim of installing democratic governments might not conform to international law, but in their view such action is imperative. An international system that doesn’t recognise these priorities doesn’t deserve American support. As Krauthammer puts it, “By what possible moral calculus does an American intervention to liberate 25 million people forfeit moral legitimacy because it lacks the blessing of the butchers of Tiananmen Square or the cynics of the Quai d’Orsay?”iii
The neo-conservatives reject the claim that democracy cannot be introduced to countries as a result of military conflict; they point out that since people around the globe yearn for freedom and democracy, they are not exporting their own values by force but rather creating the conditions in which people can live these ideas themselves. From their point of view, once the U.S. uses its overwhelming firepower to crush the authoritarian regimes which rule the people by fear, the new polities that emerge will be liberal democracies, because that form of government is closest to man’s natural inclinations. As Paul Wolfowitz states in relation to fears of American empire-building, “It’s a funny empire that relies on releasing basic human desires to be free and prosperous.”iv
Furthermore, the war hawks claimed to have two exemplary models of stable democracies that emerged successfully from a prolonged period of U.S. occupation: Germany and Japan. According to Krauthammer, it is essential that the U.S. engage in serious efforts to introduce democratic values and government when, as today in the Islamic world, her security depends on such action. Previously this had been the case elsewhere, “Establishing civilized, decent, nonbelligerent, pro-Western polities in Afghanistan and Iraq and ultimately their key neighbors would, like the flipping of Germany and Japan in the 1940s, change the strategic balance in the fight against Arab-Islamic radicalism.”v
The neo-cons believed, and still believe, that the US has to take robust measures to ensure the spread of her values around the globe, not only because those values; democracy, liberty, free markets and so on, are worth exporting to the world, but also because the birth of stable, responsible states produced by the application of such values is in America’s national interests. As expressed by Krauthammer, “The spread of democracy is not just an end but a means, an indispensable means for securing American interests. The reason is simple. Democracies are inherently more friendly to the United States, less belligerent to their neighbors, and generally more inclined to peace.”vi
The situation in Iraq has proved to be considerably worse than even the most pessimistic forecasters had expected. The neo-conservatives have turned their fire, when necessary, on the administration of the peace following the initial conflict with the Saddam regime. They point to insufficient troop levels and the decision to disband the Iraqi army as key factors that have led to many of the major setbacks, such as escalation of the insurgency and the slow pace of reconstruction. However the idea that by overcoming procedural and tactical errors the US can achieve the same outcome in Iraq as it did in Japan and Germany ignores the absence of key factors that had a significant impact on the success of democratic institutions and processes in those two countries.
| |
| |
| |
| |
< 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Page 2 of 6 pages
| |
|
|
