Challenge to Aziz (And Anyone Else Who Would Pick Up the Gauntlet)
Dave Price
Aziz says this is the principle upon which he bases his opposition of the Iraq war (and, presumably, he must oppose the Afghanistan effort as well, since the same principle applies — yet oddly few seem to make this argument in relation to the more popular war):
- Lasting regime change for the purposes of liberalization/democratization can not succeed if driven primarily by foreign military intervention.I've seen this assertion from war opponents fairly often, and I suspect this is more a case of rationalizing a position ex post facto than a previously held principle because as best I can tell it just doesn't rest on any evidence, regardless of the modifications proposed by Aziz. In fact, it is almost exactly the opposite of what the evidence argues: U.S.-led military operations to enact regime change have actually been incredibly effective in creating liberal democracies, from the obvious examples of Japan and Germany to those where the causation was arguably more indirect such as Italy or Vichy France, and even Panama seems to belong on the list of such successful operations.
In fact, I can't seem to find any examples where such an effort by the U.S. military failed! So here's my challenge:
Name me a U.S.-led military operation enacting regime change with the purpose of creating liberal democracy that failed.
A single example would not, of course, prove Aziz' principle, but surely the lack of any must doom it, given the counter-evidence.
Note that we did not invade Iran in 1953 (nor were we trying to democratize it; quite the opposite), and that in Vietnam we were defending an existing government, not invading to overthrow and replace it.
Let me also note that in all these cases (including Iraq and Afghanistan) there were obviously cassus belli other than the desire to create liberal democracy, but democratization/liberalization was manifestly a factor in all of them as well, as evidenced by the fact we did demand relatively liberal and democratic governments rather than establishing friendly dictators or negotiating for peace under terms that left their leadership intact once the bulk of their warmaking ability had been eliminated.
UPDATE: Aziz replies "Dave, we didnt go into Afganistan with the objective of democratization." Well, obviously the goal was regime change, so if not democracy what can one reasonably assert was our plan for the post-Taliban era? I can guarantee Condi and Wolfowitz were thinking about it, and there was only one possible outcome in their minds.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Foreign Military Interventions Resulting In Democracies
- Challenge to Aziz (And Anyone Else Who Would Pick Up the Gauntlet)
- atomic principles
I would add, "If the people do not have the will or desire to embrace liberalization/democratization."
The people of Germany and Japan embraced the challenges of change. If it fails in Iraq I believe that Aziz fears the failure will be blamed on Islam moreso than anything else.
Is he right to fear that? Well, there are certianly many out there that feel Islam is incompatible with Western democracy. And I cannot believe Aziz will ever say the Iraqi people didn't have the will to embrace democracy. So, I think he's in a tough theological/political position.
If democracy fails in Iraq it can only be logically blamed on two sources - the people and/or the religion.
So, it's easier to blame the efforts of those seeking to free a people. That way, you escape having to explain why a people and/or religion doesn't adopt a philosophy you yourself find appealing.
But I still collect action figures so what do I know?
Blaming the "liberators" and the "liberated" are not mutually exclusive. It could be that democracy fails due to certain conditions of the country -- religious/ethnic heterogeneity, interference by regional powers, and even perhaps just local stubbornness/ignorance, etc. But all such factors should be taken into account as much as possible by the "liberators" when figuring out the likelihood of success of the mission.
After tens of millions of their people died, yes.
If the people do not have the will or desire to embrace liberalization/democratization.
Well, in their defense, Iraqis stood in line to vote despite very credible death threats, and without the incentive of massive civilian casualties that Japan and Germany, er, enjoyed.
Well, you've pointed out one major thing exceptional about our successes in Germany and Japan. Do you really think the US should use the strategy of bombing civilian populations into submission like in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki? What if these tactics are not morally acceptable (they are hardly different from terrorism, really) but were necessary for success? That would change the viability of future American-led regime change efforts, would it not (assuming we want to design more moral military policies)?
I mean we didn't invade, conquer, and replace their government.
Do you really think the US should use the strategy of bombing civilian populations into submission like in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?
Gods, no! I'm just giving a reason why Iraqis might be less beaten into submission and willing to accept anything their conquerors imposed than Japanese and Germans were. Germany was also actually on the edge of mass starvation for a while.
Don't see much evidence for that. We established democracy a lot sooner in Iraq and Afghanistan than in Japan and Germany, if with more resistance. Also, Panama had almost no casualties.
That would change the viability of future American-led regime change efforts
True. However, I'm not advocating any more, so it's a non-issue at this point.
First of all, I don’t think the US has ever started a military operation “with the purpose of creating democracy.” The US certainly did not enter WW II for the purpose of creating a democracy in Japan and Germany any more than the Vietnam war was to create democracy in Vietnam. You do remember the US approved coup during the Vietnam war?
Enacting democracy was sometimes mentioned as one of many reasons for invading Iraq, but it was not the main reason. If it had been the main reason, I doubt that Congress would have authorized the war. I don’t remember creating democracy in Afghanistan every being mentioned as a reason for the Afghanistan invasion.
In both Germany and Japan, the people clearly understood that their governments had started WW II and had been defeated. In Iraq the people never believed that they started the war. You could argue that the 2003 war was just the continuation of the 1990-1 Gulf war which Iraq started by invading Kuwait, but the Iraqi people don’t believe that, and they don’t trust the US motives.
There are places in the world where US military intervention to support or restore democracy will work. Iraq is just not one of them.
Are you saying there's a connection because that new to me! If you know anything about Japan during World War 2 there were many military leader that wanted America to invade mainland Japan. Training regements were put into place to have civilians fight off American forces. Military leaders in America knew an invasion of mainland Japan would be won but at a staggering cost. They knew Japanese forces simply wouldn't surrender.
We're lucky Japan surrendered when they did. They followed their emperor. They would have died for him if he asked. This is why his some of his generals tried to assasinate him. Not because they thought they were losing the war but because he wanted to surrender to America!
You really have no idea what you're talking about here. None at all.
I'd suggest starting here.
You are right. But, as I said, France "invade[d], conquer[ed], and replace[d] their government," and then we came to help out. I'm just wondering if, in your opinion, France had done something horribly wrong and irreversible by the time our troops got there.
You obviously didn't read the Iraq AUMF or my Panama link.
Yes, because they thought they could inflict enough American casualties to negotiate a surrender and stay in power. The atomic bombings and the Soviet declaration of war changed their minds (they knew what a Russian occupation would be like).
We're lucky Japan surrendered when they did.
Not nearly as lucky as the Japanese.
You really have no idea what you're talking about here. None at all.
I think I have a better idea than you. Why do you suppose the Japanese never re-armed? The firebombing of Tokyo was horrendous, and could easily have been classified as a war crime.
The fact they were willing to fight didn't mean they weren't terribly traumatized and humiliated. They did surrender, after all.
Developing a plantation economy to promote the exports of tobacco, indigo, tea and coffee, the French largely ignored increasing calls for self-government and civil rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam
The stated reason for Panama is "defending democracy," not establishing one where none existed. In Panama the right institutions were already in place; all we did was to remove the force that had subverted those institutions. So there seems to be no good precedent for what we did/are doing in Iraq, except perhaps for the Mandates given to European powers after WWI, which did not work out too well.
Cuba: we invaded (Spanish American War) installed a President, and a few years later (like 2 if I remember my history), we had to reoccupy and it shortly became a military dictatorship.
Democracy did not exist; Noriega was a dictator and had just cancelled elections.
In Panama the right institutions were already in place; all we did was to remove the force that had subverted those institutions. So there seems to be no good precedent for what we did/are doing in Iraq,
Sure, Panama was easier, but Iraq was once a parliamentary democracy under a monarch. Saddam even held elections. See, all we had to do was remove the force that subverted those institutions!
And again, I assume you must oppose our military action in Afghanistan on that basis as well.
So whenever we go to war, whether stated or unstated, we're looking to spread democracy. Sorta like Soviet Russia with communism.
The goal was never regime change resulting in democracy. We were just kidnapping warlords here and there.
The emperor surrendered. The nation would have fought to the last child if he told them to. The nation of Japan wasn't broken. The people still believed themselves invincible.
It was the surrender of their god-emperor that finally broke them. It wasn't our military prowess.
So, really, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. How about reading a book about Japan? I can suggest more from my library on the topic if you like but I think my original suggestion would serve you well.
And even when we don't go to war!
Good point, though.
Our prowess is irrelevant to the point. Why did the Emperor surrender? It wasn't divine inspiration, it was the massive casualties they'd suffered and would continue to suffer if they didn't surrender. Whether the Japanese people broke directly or through their Emperor, the practical effect was the same.
And they're still quite skittish about re-arming, with the specter of the horror they suffered constantly referenced whenever the subject comes up.
Apparently you missed my comment where I explained my support of the mission in Afghanistan.
If you fail to see the distinction between Panama and Iraq, I think you are being willfully blind. In Panama the US invaded to secure the results of a recent election. In Iraq, when was the last election? The difference is pretty clear.
I have read the Iraq AUMF. Democracy is one of the reasons, but it was certainly not the featured reason given in most of the debates leading up to the Iraq war. Iraq was a “gathering threat” to the US, and it wasn’t the lack of democracy that was the threat.
Defending democracy was one of the official reasons given for the Panama invasion, but only the incredibly naïve believe that the US would have been so interested in defending Panamanian democracy if it had not been for the Panama Cannel and the treaty that would turn complete control of it over the Panama in a few years.
Ah, thank you.
Yes, but as I already pointed out that explanation means you don't support the mission to democratize Afghanistan and would be just happy with a friendly repressive dictator.
And only a fool would demand all motives for good deeds be unselfish.
If you fail to see the similarity...
I support the mission to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and I hope Afghanistan becomes a liberal democracy. If the former helps to bring about the latter, then I will be more than pleased.
Similarities and differences noted. As I've stated before, I don't think foreign-led efforts at democratization are good policy. It seems like Panama was successful because it was most of the way democratized by the time we got there. Not true in the case of Iraq.
Question: what democratic institutions were in place in Panama?
I thought it was a military dictatorship from the late 60s on.
though i will note that having the opinion that we have failed in Iraq/Afghan is by no means equivalent to accepting the dogma of the far left on the matter. Obviously my writing here is only viewed in an "atomic" sense and not in the context of my previous work; hence I dont see much point in continuing debate here on this "attack" post. I'll restrict myself to discussion on my own thread, where I think your point might equally well have been raised inline rather than fragmenting it.
amazing what i learn about myself on these threads. am i right to believe what you say I believe? how illogical of me!
I'm glad I cleared that up for you! ;-P
--|PW|--
So, the fact that it resulted in the election of Karzai was just a coincidence? I'm sure you can explain to me why the Northern Alliance isn't ruling the country. Or perhaps you're arguing they were always democratic idealists, yearning for free elections?
Honestly Aziz, you are smarter than this.
Yes, in fact I made the same point above. Of course, we should hasten to add that's a feature, not a bug: we don't want to kill millions of people.
Um, you may not be aware that TallDave = Dave Price. We're the same guy.
nor do I particularly care for the lack of benefit of thedoubt you are extending me by implicitly endorsing Tall Dave's assertion that my essay "transparently exists only to tar the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq as failures"
I don't extend benefit of the doubt because I don't have any doubts. As I explained in the post, there's no historical evidence to support that principle, and therefore I am quite sure it exists only as an ex post facto rationalization of the antiwar position.
Related aside - that gets back to one of my criticisms of Aziz's atomic principles (again, a concept I like, they just were not well illustrated). Two of them weren't really philosophical principles and were instead empirical assertions.
There's room for empirical assertions in figuring out the ends, but I view it sorta like an optimization problem where the principles are the objectives and models and empirical facts define the solution space.
Dave, I've mentioned this before, but you cannot use subsequent democratization as evidence for US intent to democratize that country in gathering data for a test on how effective our attempts at democratizing are: that will inherently bias the result of the test.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.