February 2005 Issue
Peace through Democracy
EditorialIn years past, the US had a national security policy dictated by the immediate demands of the Cold War. Supporting anti-communist dictatorships was official foreign policy and the US intervened overtly or covertly in nations throughout Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
From Chile to Guatemala to Vietnam, the U.S. had a hand in how foreign nations chose their governments. The rationale was that anti-communist governments would contain the spread of the Soviet empire while providing us with reliable friends throughout the world.
Some argue that US had no business intervening in other nations' affairs. Others say that the US supported abusive military dictatorships with poor human rights records. Conservatives argue that the US actually prevented more egregious human rights abuses that communist governments would have surely committed. Right or wrong, American policy toward subversive communist forces propelled two things: total victory in the Cold War and, later, the strengthening of enemy governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was only a matter of time before this policy, one that had proven effective under once set of geopolitical circumstances, would prove obsolete and dangerous. Former President Clinton's foreign policy misadventures in Somalia, Korea, Bosnia, Iraq, Haiti, etc. were a manifestation of no clear foreign policy vision. That all changed in the wake of September 11.
Today, the Bush Doctrine has reversed the course undertaken by presidents from Eisenhower to Reagan. Rather than support friendly dictatorial regimes, the US is pledged to support the cause of democracy in nations that pose the most immediate threat to our land. Idealistic, perhaps, but not impossible. Toppling enemy governments is something the US has gotten quite good at. The American military is so powerful vis-à-vis third world militaries that unseating enemy governments has become a routine task for the Armed Forces. The Taliban and the Saddam each fell in roughly a week each, with minimal American casualties.
Setting up democratic, human-rights friendly governments has proven somewhat more difficult, however. It would have been easy to install dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan: a Shiite leader or an Afghan warlord would have done quite nicely in the two countries. Covertly providing arms to the opposition rather than committing thousands of troops to a policing action would have saved American lives. But eventually we would have found ourselves at the start of the dictatorial cycle once again: opposing tyrants who no longer are friendly to the US.
The difference now is that the US is committed for the long haul: work hard to spur the creation of strong, genuine democracies throughout the world. America has found it in its best national interest to support governments that take their mandates from their peoples, not the CIA or State Department. And the US must not hesitate to use force when necessary to fulfill the intersection of two goals: strengthening national security and advocating democracy.
The last time Iraq had elections, the results were a bit different. The Guardian reported on October 16, 2002 that Saddam had held a referendum on his presidency that year. The ballot was simple: "Do you want Saddam Hussein to be president for the next 7 years? Check yes or no." According to a spokesman for the old regime, all 11,445,638 eligible voters cast ballots and all of them were marked "yes" for Saddam. Many evidently marked with blood as a sign of loyalty to their leader.
What an incredible event: 100% for Saddam and 100% voter turnout. Given this powerful result, how could the imperialistic, capitalistic Americans justify an invasion of Iraq and run new elections themselves?
On January 30, Iraq held their first free and fair elections in 50 years. Yet some say that the legitimacy of the election was compromised by low voter turnout among the Sunnis. Yet why did the Sunnis boycott? Did they fear that the elections would be unfair? Or because they knew that any outcome would mean less power and favor than under Saddam? Or perhaps because they were afraid—insurgents have made a special point to target Sunnis who collaborate with the new government or the US. Encouragingly however, Fallujah led in voter turnout in cities of the Sunni Triangl,e with 8,000 votes cast—and it is also now one of the safest cities in Iraq after a month long urban campaign by the Marines.
In any case, it is crucial that the Sunnis be given a voice in writing the new constitution after having secured only 5 of the 275 seats in the new National Assembly seats. The Shiite and Kurdish parties must extend an olive branch to the underrepresented Sunnis who comprise 20% of the Iraqi population.
Commentators on the far left have an attitude of, "see, we told you so...these elections did nothing." The left appears almost gleeful after an Islamic Shiite slate won a plurality of the National Assembly seats, putting an obstacle in front of US hopes that the secular Shiite party would have a greater say in writing the new constitution. Yet this is precisely the outcome of the Bush Doctrine: that those nations most friendly to the US would be democratic, even if their governments are not subservient to American interests.
The Iraqi people undoubtedly welcome American efforts to plant democracy and rebuild their country. According to the Christian Science Monitor, Marines in Fallujah gave $200 to 32,219 heads of households to help rebuild their homes, with future compensation packages of up to $10,000 per house. Besides reestablishing security, the US is improving the lives of ordinary Iraqi citizens in direct ways.
Yet we must remember that not all Iraqis are comfortable with the strong US military presence. "Americans are sleeping [in a base] near our house—it's a problem," an Iraqi man says. "When will they leave?"
"You've just elected a new government," replies Capt. Tom Noel, commander of the 3/5 Weapons Company from Lenexa, Kan. "When they ask for US troops to leave, we will leave."
Bruce Gago
Editor-in-Chief
*Quotations from the Christian Science Monitor, Feb 14, 2005.