I find this amusing:
Was Bush Really a Champion of Democracy?
Beinert answers his own question in the negative, in an effort to make President Obama's actions around the globe stiff-arming those who want democracy defensible.
He defends this by saying we worked with autocrats to fight al Qaeda--especially Saudi Arabia--and that we really weren't trying to push democracy in Iraq until pushed by Iraqis for elections.
His analysis is rot. But I have little respect for Beinert's analysis, truth be told. He really just annoys me in a small but persistent sort of way.
The idea that democracy promotion requires a blanket offensive everywhere is nonsense. Was it really contrary to democracy promotion to risk disorder in Saudi Arabia while we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan?
We did push for democracy in the Arab world. We may have pushed for baby steps in some areas, but we did push. Operation "Iraqi Freedom" might have been a clue about that. There was hope that democracy in Iraq would be an alternative to autocracy or Islamism as a means of removing the breeding ground of jihadi recruitment.
And while we pushed for loosening of autocracy in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Lebanon, Bush ran into tremendous pressure from Democrats here to end that "NeoCon" fantasy of democracy for Arabs who "just weren't ready for democracy." Remember that? After 2005, Bush's support for democracy did fade a great deal. But lay that blame on Democrats who became vocally hostile to such things and who suddenly embraced foreign policy "realism."
As for Iraq, we most certainly did want a democracy right from the beginning. Let's try remembering this April 2003 statement by Kristof who denies Beinert's assertion as Kristof attacks hawks:
The hawks also look increasingly naïve in their expectations that Iraq will soon blossom into a pro-American democracy.
So hawks wanted fast democracy? I never expected fast. But it was always a goal.
But if Bush wasn't promoting democracy, just what unrealistic democracy promotion plans (by the dread "NeoCons") did Democrats spend so much time complaining about?
Say, here's a UPI article I linked to back then:
Numerous non-Iraqi observers believe that installation of a successful multi-party democratic political system in post-Saddam could become an example for the entire region. The fact that examples of democratic rule are few, partial and fragile in other Arab and Islamic countries does not mean there is not a popular longing for major changes in governance. Fledgling examples such as Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia are viewed with longing by millions who have lived under autocratic rule for centuries. ...
It is also true that democracy in one country surrounded by autocratic regimes cannot possibly survive. The threat to the old autocracies is too great. There must be positive and strategic interaction among democratically leaning Arab states. Iraq, with Egypt the most developed and influential of Arab countries, is an excellent place to set the example. ...
While there exist fears of a U.S. occupation and limited confidence in American protestations that the main aim of the war with Iraq is to "liberate" the Iraqi people; Washington's promises to introduce democracy are welcomed by a huge majority of Iraqis. There is a firm conviction that democracy can solve the country's problems at home and abroad, and put an end to the quarter century of strong-arm rule imposed by Saddam.
Huh. This was several weeks before we even declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
(And bless you to UPI and the New York Times for having a live link that old!)
Remember that Democrats repeatedly called for putting off elections in Iraq and even turning over the government to an interim government while fighting raged, while Bush kept with timetables despite the violence. We turned over governance to an appointed government that then prepared for elections by drafting a constitution. And then we helped the Iraqis hold elections. Again, Bush did this despite Democratic opposition to "pushing" democracy on people "not ready" for it.
President Bush pushed for democracy with limits on what he could do imposed by the reality of fighting a war with imperfect allies, energy supply realities, and Democratic opposition to imposing democracy on Arabs.
So what's President Obama's excuse? I guess Beinert can't defend the president's record. But pretending to contrast it with the Bush's record just doesn't cut it.
UPDATE: By chance, I ran across a couple more relevant links.
One, here is language from the Clinton-era Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (PL 105-338):
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
And here's an article from the New York Times prior to the war in January 2003:
President Bush's national security team is assembling final plans for administering and democratizing Iraq after the expected ouster of Saddam Hussein. Those plans call for a heavy American military presence in the country for at least 18 months, military trials of only the most senior Iraqi leaders and quick takeover of the country's oil fields to pay for reconstruction.
It's almost like promoting a democratic Iraq was one of our objectives right off the bat.
