NeoCons in a panic: "Democracy Now" (Weekly Standard)

by Robert Kagan and William Kristol

WE DO NOT KNOW how close the American effort in Iraq may be to irrecoverable failure. We are inclined to believe, however, that the current Washington wisdom--that the United States has already failed and there is nothing to do now but find a not-too-damaging way to extricate ourselves--is far too pessimistic, a panicked reaction to the difficulties in Falluja and with Moktada al-Sadr, as well as to the disaster of Abu Ghraib. We are also appalled at the cavalier and irresponsible way people on both left and right now suggest we should pull out and simply let Iraq go to hell. We wonder how those who, rightly, complain about the American mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, can blithely consign the entire Iraqi population to the likely prospect of a horrific civil war and the brutal dictatorship that would follow. Spare us that kind of "humanitarianism."

Thank goodness the president says he remains committed to victory. Thank goodness there are stalwarts like Senators Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, and Evan Bayh in the Democratic party who are fighting against that party's growing clamor for withdrawal. But loss of confidence that the war is winnable goes well beyond left-wing Democrats and isolationist Republicans. The Bush administration seems not to recognize how widespread, and how bipartisan, is the view that Iraq is already lost or on the verge of being lost. The administration therefore may not appreciate how close the whole nation is to tipping decisively against the war. In a sense, it doesn't matter whether this popular and elite perception of the situation in Iraq is too simplistic and too pessimistic. The perception, if it lingers, may destroy support for the war before events on the ground have a chance to prove it wrong.

(snip)

Accelerating the elections would have several virtues: First, it would change the subject. Instead of focusing on their anger at Americans, Iraqis would be compelled to begin focusing on the coming elections, where each and every Iraqi adult will have a chance to participate in shaping the future. Second, with elections coming quickly, those who continued to commit violence in Iraq would be understood to be attacking not only the United States, but also the elections process, and therefore democracy. The insurgents would be antidemocratic rather than anti-American. Sunnis could be told that if they want more power, they should begin organizing for the vote. Those Sunnis who committed violence would be harming the Sunni population's chances of fair representation, since violence that disrupts the voting could lead to nullification of the vote in the affected areas. The impending elections would encourage the majority of peaceful Sunnis and Shia to take sides against the guerrillas who seek power through force of arms instead of through the ballot.

(snip)

As we say, this proposal is not a cure-all. It carries its own risks as well as benefits. If someone has a better idea, we're happy to hear it. But if the administration does not take dramatic action now, it may be unable to avoid failure.

more…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/056mvrqy.asp

pseudo-intellectual chickenhawks

on his forehead and his fingers trembled as he clickety-clacked on the keyboard. They can smell disaster, as well as anyone else.

They see their dreams of glory turning into puffs of smoke. Wasn't it Paul Wolfowitz who said, "They'll be singing songs about us in the future". They'll be singing all right, but it won't be songs. It'll be chants.

For Mr. Kagan's and Mr. Kristol's information, we are now considered to be "the most dangerous people on earth". I just heard from a friend who visited Sweden, a little girl came up to him and asked if the US would bomb her country (meaning Sweden) if they spoke out against the war in Iraq. That's how bad it's gotten.

Truly imperial lunatics.

Accelerating the elections would have several virtues: First, it would change the subject. Instead of focusing on their anger at Americans, Iraqis would be compelled to begin focusing on the coming elections, where each and every Iraqi adult will have a chance to participate in shaping the future.

That kind of sophistry sounds more like something one would expect of Rove than Kagan and Kristol. If things aren't going well, then quick, create a diversion.

The "solution" of elections assumes that the Iraqis will have something to vote for -- and that may not be something Kagan and Kristol would really like. The Iraqi people may have an idea that democracy means they get to pick their leaders and that sovereignty means they get to make their own decisions without interference from neoliberal colonialists.

Second, with elections coming quickly, those who continued to commit violence in Iraq would be understood to be attacking not only the United States, but also the elections process, and therefore democracy. The insurgents would be antidemocratic rather than anti-American. Sunnis could be told that if they want more power, they should begin organizing for the vote. Those Sunnis who committed violence would be harming the Sunni population's chances of fair representation, since violence that disrupts the voting could lead to nullification of the vote in the affected areas. The impending elections would encourage the majority of peaceful Sunnis and Shia to take sides against the guerrillas who seek power through force of
arms instead of through the ballot.

That again assumes that the elections process is not a bunch of handpicked candidates to Mr. Bremer's liking. If that's all they are, expect violence.

There are elections as they are held in the west and there are elections as they are held in banana republics. In places like Colombia, the rich vote in elections and the poor join the guerrillas. Pro-American sophists claim that the guerrillas are against democracy, when in fact there is no democracy to oppose.

If the candidates running in these elections run only with the approval of US administrators, then one could hardly call them free and open. If the elections are not free and open, then they aren't democratic. They're rigged. Just like Florida in 2000.

Third, with elections pending, American military actions could be seen not just as an effort to suppress rebellious Iraqi movements but as a vital support for the elections process, and for democracy. Americans would be fighting to give Iraqis a chance to vote, soon.

Again, only if the elections are truly free and open; we already know what the neocons think of free and open elections. They think they are a nuisance.

Fourth, and not least important, the holding of elections in Iraq within a few months might give Americans here at home greater confidence that things can be turned around in Iraq.

Again, this is an appeal to appearance rather than reality; moreover, it is something aimed at fooling American voters rather than Iraqi voters.

There is absolutely no framework for making this happen. Elections and democracy don't just fly in on a C130, they take literally years to put together. This is totally imaginary.

The only reasonable way out of this trap is to go, hat in hand, to the UN and hand off all real control, while still providing the money and as much of the muscle as necessary to get the process of letting the Iraqis choose their own government started. We broke it, we bought it.

Bushco will never do it. And a lot more Iraqis and Americans are going to die before they figure out how bankrupt their fantasy of the "New American Century" is.

Well put.

Democracy is not a vitamin that can be injected into the arm of the ailing patient.

It must come from within.

The neocons have been wrong about everything else, why should anyone start paying attention to them now?

motherfucker, and explain to all the Iraqis *and* all the American soldiers how the plan would've worked just fine if only they'd just done it your way. Go on! Quick! If you hurry, you can just catch the next flight out to Baghdad!

"Spare us that kind of "humanitarianism.""

Spare us your condescending little 17th century imperialism.

"Thank goodness the president says he remains committed to victory."

Thank goodness there's an election in 6 months.

"In a sense, it doesn't matter whether this popular and elite perception of the situation in Iraq is too simplistic and too pessimistic."

Elite and simplistic - two things you jokers are experts on.

"it would change the subject"

And God knows you guys want that.

"those who continued to commit violence in Iraq would be understood to be attacking not only the United States, but also the elections process, and therefore democracy."

Reminds me of any number of U.S. backed insurgents over the past 30 years - but, who's counting. Once again, your world view is incredibly naive.


"The impending elections would encourage the majority of peaceful Sunnis and Shia to take sides against the guerrillas who seek power through force of arms instead of through the ballot."

Ah yes, Vietnamization! Who said Nixon was dead?

Can we accelerate the elections in this country???

dangerous

http://www.yellowtimes.org/print.php?sid=1155

They, like all the neocons, are living in a fantasy world that has nothing in common with reality.

As if "accelerating elections" would suddenly change everything, make Iraqis (and the world) forget about the criminal war of aggression, about the abuse and torture of Iraqi women, children and men in the prisons by US soldiers and contractors, about the US support for Saddam going back twenty years, about the mess that the US has made in Iraq.

They do not understand Iraq.

They do not understand democracy.

They are clueless.

What fucking idiots.

but enthralled by their own perception of how they might manipulate affairs. The editorial itself is very informative about this, although accidently so: it simply contemplates "changing the topic" on the ground in Iraq, as if this were a simple voltage adjustment.

These people believe that through the organs of politico-military power and mass media, they can mould populations as if they were handling buckets of mud.

I would like to agree "What fucking idiots!" but I am afraid that they are rather more clever and dangerous than that. Their approach works well enough for them, much of the time -- except that they are continually misled by their arrogant dreams of omnipotence.

Hence the ugly pendulum of American politics: the fact -- that they are unable to understand the catastrophes they themselves create -- provides us, as opposition, with openings to dislodge them. But this time they seem to be treading in especially dangerous terrain.

I really liked your last paragraph. It sums it all up.

Yes,we do. We have a month or two at best.

We are inclined to believe, however, that the current
Washington wisdom--that the United States has already
failed and there is nothing to do now but find a not-too-damaging
way to extricate ourselves--is far too pessimistic.

Ah yes, the solution to a failed "faith based" foreign
policy is yet more "faith based" foreign policy. Why not
ask the military experts about the situation? I'll tell you
why not, because the military experts will not agree with
Mr. Kristol.

"If someone has a better idea, we're happy to hear it."

Kagan and Kristol: the Leopold and Loeb of the Neo-Cons.

and the Iraqis are not. That's why it isn't working. This kind of mass hysteria only works on professional Christians, who have put their brains in park and their wallets into the collection baskets.