Paul Wolfowitz suggests giving Gaddafi the UBL treatment:
One of the most extraordinary features of the protests that have swept the Muslim world has been the courage of the demonstrators. The great bravery of Tunisians and Egyptians has been exceeded by that of the Libyans and Syrians, while Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi have joined the ranks of bin Laden as killers of the defenseless.
…
For some reason, the president has so far held back from other decisions that would involve no risk to American lives but that could save the lives of Libyans that we have committed to protect—like recognizing the provisional government in Benghazi, providing them with military assistance, shutting down the propaganda broadcasts of the Gaddafi regime. None of these actions would guarantee an opposition victory, but they would reduce the risks of a prolonged stalemate that would cost more Libyan lives and increase the risk that the U.S. would eventually be drawn in deeper than we need to be. For the sake of the Libyan people and for America’s reputation in the Arab world, one has to hope that President Obama has learned the value of boldness.
It’s easy to sit back and pay thugocrat dictators billions for their stolen resources, money that is used to brutally repress their people, and then say “It’s their problem, we shouldn’t get involved.” Never mind that the bullets blowing apart peaceful protesters (some in Syria pathetically screaming they are unarmed as their blood runs in the streets) are often paid for with our dollars.
Too many people seem stuck in 2006, when it appeared Iraq had gone horribly, irrevocably wrong and the neocons’ dream of a democratic wave sweeping the Mideast looked totally discredited and naive. But this is 2011, and while Iraq’s transition was terribly painful and the country still has serious problems, people all over the Mideast are nevertheless now asking why Iraqis are nearly the only Arabs with any semblance of the rights of free speech, free assembly, free press, and free elections — a pro-democracy movement largely as Wolfowitz and other neocons had envisioned.
No one is advocating another full-scale invasion and occupation, but we can offer Libyans and Syrians a lot of support short of that, and help steer they, the Tunisians, and the Egyptians towards a path of less repression and more liberty. Failing to do so could leave us with more messes like that in Iran, in which the liberal elements of the revolution were pushed aside by the thugs and theocrats.
All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Kudos to Wolfowitz, he’s a visionary and a true champion of human freedom, and may every Arab someday get to vote in a free election, criticize their gov’t without fear, and peacefully protest without the danger of being murdered by the state.
UPDATE: A must-read interview with Wolfowitz from James Taranto.
The Arab Spring is a source of satisfaction to Mr. Wolfowitz, whose advocacy of democracy promotion as a “fundamental point of strategy” made him a demon figure for the antiwar left. Typical was a speech delivered by an obscure Midwestern state lawmaker in October 2002, as Congress considered military action in Iraq: “What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by . . . Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”
The speech was typical, but the speaker turned out not to be. Barack Obama left the Illinois Senate in 2004 and now sits in the Oval Office. When I dropped in on Mr. Wolfowitz this week, we sat in a conference room at the American Enterprise Institute, the think tank he joined after a stint as president of the World Bank. He is now an outside critic of the administration in power—albeit, at 67 and with several decades’ experience conducting foreign policy under six presidents, a more seasoned one than the 41-year-old Mr. Obama was.
Comments
8 responses to “The Gander”
Dave,
You may want to reconsider your feelings on the “good guys” in this little affair. Just as I expected they would be, Anti-American Extremists [are] Among Libyan Rebels U.S. Has Vowed To Protect. You mention how Iraq may be a semblance of some success story for us in the Middle East, but I’ll bet my next paycheck that they’ll elect islamic nutjobs like Muqtada al-Sadr to run the country once we’re gone. Just wait and see what kind of <a href="http://www.ramanon.com/forum/showthread.php?83062-Egypt&p=822554&viewfull=1#post822554"?fanatics take over in Egypt, too, despite our cheering for their success.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not one to keep putting my hand on a glowing stovetop to see if it’s still hot.
Sorr, that second link should have been to here. I’m unable to edit my original comment, if you wouldn’t mind inserting this link, instead:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/02/28/cant-buy-me-love/
“Kudos to Wolfowitz, he’s a visionary and a true champion of human freedom, and may every Arab someday get to vote in a free election, criticize their gov’t without fear, and peacefully protest without the danger of being murdered by the state.”
I agree. With one word change. Arab to human. (2 for my reasoning: North Korea, China.)
Stephen — it’s a real concern in the short run, and we need to be involved. There is never a shortage of evil men trying to hijack a democratic revolution. That’s why I hope, as Wolfowitz does, that Obama has learned the virtue of boldness.
In the long run, democracies don’t elect too many nut jobs, which is why you rarely you see liberal democracies at war with each other, as Nobel Peace Prize nominee Rudy Rummel has extensively documented. Democracy is a learning process for the electorate, not just the holding of elections. There’s a real danger, esp in Egypt, of ending up with a regime like Iran’s that wraps itself in the cloak of democratic reform but holds fake elections.
Nov. 6, 2000
George W. Bush
Let me tell you what else I’m worried about: I’m worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place
Later, he used Somalia as an example of why we shouldn’t be involved in nation building.
When we invaded Iraq, the reason given had nothing to do with establishing free elections or a new government. Colin Powell never mentioned that at the U.N. did he? Wasn’t all about WMDs?
“Wasn’t all about WMDs?”
Only if you’re a moron. Or a Copperhead.
And Iraq would have been a stroke of genius: Strategically located base, with oil production capacity enough to replace the production from Iran so the Euros could have cars. Unfortunately, when you have a dedicated Fifth Column who cloaks their love of anyone but America in “anti-war” rhetoric and don’t have a Congress under conservative control, a winning strategy becomes impossible to execute.
SDN, I think the jury is out on the final outcome in Iraq. We can hope that the government there stays aligned with the west, but there are signs of inroads from Iran given the Shia connection.
And yes, I believed that is was about WMDs and not oil. Are you confirming criticism from the left as accurate?
asking why Iraqis are nearly the only Arabs with any semblance of the rights of free speech, free assembly, free press, and free elections
As I suspect you were alluding to, the others would be… Israeli Arabs.
One wonders if anyone in the region has been noticing that little fact, and bothering to mention it aloud?
I suspect not, at least for the latter… bad for one’s health, I reckon.
Frank: I seem to recall many of Bush’s speeches (see, he talked about it too, not just Powell, and not just at the UN – which doesn’t matter and can basically go copulate with itself) mentioning democracy.
Though this one here, to the UN, speaks of a “democractic Palestine”, “democratic Afghanistan”, and “democractic Iraq”.
Admittedly, I don’t know that President Bush ever suggested that it was worth starting a war to bring them democratic government, so it wasn’t a casus belli – but it was certainly being mentioned from before the invasion.