A Victory for Democracy, not for the Democrats...

[mcgillianaire]

"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"
-Dick Cheney (then Defense Secretary) to the NY Times in 1991
George F. Will is a Washington Post columnist and he has correctly diagnosed that even presidents can fall prey to "irrational exuberance". I don't know enough about American history to agree with him that Iraq is the "worst foreign policy disaster in its history" but Iraq is THE perfect example of irrational exuberance in action.

Luckily in a democracy there is a predictable forum in which such "irrational exuberance" can be (somewhat) marginalized. The American system of fixed mid-term elections is a wonderful one. It has given the electorate (read: 'swing voters') an opportunity to voice their displeasure over neoconservativism.

Irving Kristol, the founder of this extremist conservatism, described himself as "a liberal mugged by reality". That may have been true of neocons out of power, but in the last 6 years it is obvious that in practice, neocons are really: "liberals mugged by an illusionary-impractical-idealistic realism".

The Democrats have regained control of the Congress for the first time since 1994. When Dick Cheney said what is quoted above, the Democrats were in control of Congress for nearly 40 years and there had not yet been WTC Part I, WTC Part II, the USS Cole etc. Unfortunately, it was these very incidents that contributed to the perverted expression of American anger towards such events.

I don't believe the Democrats have a clue how to resolve Iraq, but I take solace in the fact that the neocon presidency has been weakened, and through their proxy, the Republican Party, has lost control of Congress. I sincerely hope that the midterm losses empower the real conservatives, (those who believe in economic liberalism and traditional-family-values) to marginalize the neocon excesses.

Jai American Democracy!

Comments

[smilingbuddha.livejournal.com]

agreed

[swimanubis.livejournal.com]

anytime someone says 'this is the best/worst in US/world history' they show a distinct lack of knowledge about the past. people always like to believe they are living in the most important time because it makes them important, much like conspiracy theorists are at the center of international plots -- it makes them important.

US foreign policy vis-a-vis iraq is bad but not the worst; we've had too many other bad blunders.

I personally would lean towards the US entering world war one as one of the worst foreign policy events. you'll notice I hedged and said one of the worst because really it is hard to say with authority since there are sections of US history I am less familiar with than others. a convincing argument could even be made for joining nato as one of the worst foreign policies.

passage of time is really necessary to see the full impact of certain decisions.

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

a convincing argument could even be made for joining nato as one of the worst foreign policies.
Could you make (or sketch) such an argument for me?

[swimanubis.livejournal.com]

I can try to make one in brief.

The founding fathers of the US were against foreign entanglements. Be friend with all but ally to none (good old Jefferson!). They saw how alliances and wars had caused so much destruction in europe and figured that it was best to just stay out of everyone elses problems. Also wars in europe carried over to the rest of the world. The French and Indian War (Washintong's first military experience as a Virgina colonial officer) was really an extension of the Seven Years War between England and France. In a sense this was the first 'world war' because French and English colonies around the world got involved.

Nato is pretty much the opposite of avoiding entangling alliances. Nato didn't even work well back in the heyday of the cold war. France and to a lesser degree other European nations were uneven allies and made America foot the bill for defending them. Yes my American perspective.

ya I know its not really the strongest arguement; its just an idea that popped into my head. I thought it would be fun in my previous comment to take something most ppl hold as a truth and say it might not be so.

As a related train of thought, why does Nato even exist anymore? What is its purpose? What does it accomplish? From an American perspecitve, why are we still in it?