Was George Bush right?

[lordtwinkie.livejournal.com]

I was thinking about the awesome craziness happening in the Arabic world, and how its spreading far and fast. Then I realized wasn't this the very thing that ex President George Bush said would happen?

"Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?"

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."

"As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export."

At the time people laughed at him for being naive. The prevailing belief, this past week, was that while most of the world craved freedom, the Arabic countries were the exception. Was he correct? Obama and company have been totally caught off guard by the events that happened in Tunisia, happening in Egypt and spreading to Jordan, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, and others. They initially were backing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak but then were forced to change their tune.

For decades we've supported despotic rulers to benefit our interests. Realpolitiking, selling out our morality and principles. It was the Bush Doctrine that changed it, and a lot of people thought it was idiotic and naive, but I have to beg the question was he right? Are current events, the rising of the people demanding freedom against oppressive governments, vindication for George Bush?

I was curious and did a Google news search on Was George Bush Right? and apparently I'm not the only one who remembered Bush's push for democracy in the Middle East.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/02/egypt-proves-bush-right.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012806833.html

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/02/george_w_bushs.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0201/Democracy-uprising-in-Egypt-Vindication-for-Bush-freedom-agenda

When Bush left office many said he was the worst president in history. I believed that this judgment came too quickly and to easily heaped upon him. I believed some time would have to past before we can truly judge him because we don't know what the true ramifications of his actions would be. I'm wondering if its possible for his stature to rise if these despotic countries fall and are replaced by free and open societies?

Only time will tell, but for now to me at least it looks like Bush was right about this.

Comments

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Bush was right

Lol. Good luck selling that one. For most people it is a ontological category error.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> At the time people laughed at him for being naive.

That wasn't my narrative.

Was he right, saying that nations in the middle east are capable of democratic self rule? Sure, I'll give him that. Of course they are capable.

Was his policy the way to do it?

Nope.

Do you contend that the current popular demand for political change is in some way caused or enabled by specific Bush policy?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

No one ever called the Iraq invasion and the removal of the Hussien regime a democratic revolution. Ever.

[thies.livejournal.com]

next you'll tell me that someone found saddam's nukes

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

They are in Damascus... under Bashar al-Assad's bed. I have it on good authority from the Heritage Foundation.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Uh, let me think... OH YEAH! He and his family have been best buddies with the Saudi elite!

Does that count?

Person number 43 asks:

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Who told you the invasion of Iraq lead to the Egyptian revolution?

I mean, it's a nice narrative, but where is the proof? Are Egyptians saying "well we saw what you guys did in Iraq and we thought to ourselves We Want Some Of That?"

And so what if Bush said "Democracy is cool, everyone should have it"? So did I and have for years. Doesn't mean I caused the fall of the Iron Curtain.

What Paul Wolfowitz had to say recently about Iraq and democracy in the middle east

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

We did not go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan to promote democracy, but rather to remove regimes that were dangerous to us and to the world. Having done that, we have attempted to enable the Iraqi and Afghan people to enjoy the benefits of free and representative government.

It is wrong to say that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought to promote democracy. Whether right or wrong, they were fought to protect ourselves and others from dangerous regimes, but once those regimes were removed we could not reimpose dictators. At the same time, we did believe that peaceful democratic change, of the kind I’ve mentioned earlier, could help to change the conditions in the Middle East that were breeding terrorists and support for terrorism.

Support for peaceful reform by the people themselves is the right way to promote democracy, not the use of force. To repeat again, we did not go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq to promote democracy.

And now we've got that out of the way, just for a laugh, why Sarah Palin should invade Egypt

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

http://christwire.org/2011/01/as-egypt-descends-in-chaos-should-sarah-palin-support-a-us-led-invasion/

Governor Palin needs to speak out publicly and forcibly for an American-led invasion to protect our interests in North Africa. As the largest recipient of foreign aid next to Israel, the United States has a tremendous investment in keeping Egypt stable and relatively terrorist-free. There are many sympathizers on the ground who have not been able to express their allegiance to democracy and freedom for fear of repression by the rioters. The Governor could become the center of their rallying cries. Upon her direction, other Western nations are sure to join us.(...)



Did you catch that last bit? Here it is again.

Upon her direction, other Western nations are sure to join us.

Umm...what did you just say?

Upon her direction, other Western nations are sure to join us.

Err..ok

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

To clarify what might seem like a leap on my part...

If the assertion is just that "Bush was right! Democracy can work in the middle east!" then this is a trivial assertion, along the lines of "See, Bush was right, the Earth DOES rotate!"

As predictions go, it simply expresses the conventional wisdom. The idea that middle eastern people's or cultures are somehow intrinsically deficient such that they cannot support democracy is the minority position, and an unsupportable one in my opinion.

So, when I see statements in the OP like "wasn't this the very thing that ex President George Bush said would happen?" I assume that the person saying it doesn't intend it as a trivial statement; it makes no sense to laud a prophet who foretells the rising of the sun! I then think, what is distinct about Bush's predictions or guidance, or acts that are the fruit of that guidance, that have to do with the middle east? What leaps to mind? Oh yeah... there was that war thing.


Getting back to the propensity (or lack thereof) for Democracy in the region: if the great historical question has been, "why are there so many oppressive, unpopular regimes in the middle east?", the typical answer from Bush's typical political opponents was NOT "the people or cultures of the middle east are just different". Much more typical answers might be "the lingering effects of colonialism" or "manipulative interference by resource greedy external forces". These two later theories do not preclude a democratic flowering, they only explain why it has been delayed.

Generally, it seems top me like unabashed revisionism to re-frame the political conflict of the time (those who opposed intervention in Iraq, say) as a conflict between realpolitk operators and Bush idealism. The conflict was between American unilateral military intervention (pundit-zed as "The Bush Doctrine") and general anti-war sentiment and multilateralism.


Then we see statements like...

For decades we've supported despotic rulers to benefit our interests. Realpolitiking, selling out our morality and principles. It was the Bush Doctrine that changed it, and a lot of people thought it was idiotic and naive, but I have to beg the question was he right? Are current events, the rising of the people demanding freedom against oppressive governments, vindication for George Bush?

And now I see that the "Bush Doctrine" has been repackaged as an idealistic belief in the inevitability of Democracy.

Which forces one to ask... if a local flowering of Democracy are inevitable, and preferable to invasions, how can one use Democratization as a justification for War?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"but I have to beg the question was he right?"

The short answer is: no.

The long answer is: there's so much alternately wrong and deeply problematic here that it's difficult to know where to begin.

An obvious starting point is "freedom", by which you evidently mean something sufficiently close to both American government and American values appearing as if on a blank slate. This is, well, obviously a contentious operationalization.

Second, you say "the prevailing belief [..] was that while most of the world craved freedom, the Arabic countries were the exception." Where are you getting this idea? One of the biggest stories of recent years are how the capitalization of China, Russia, and to a lesser but significant extent India isn't in fact coinciding with the government and value changes Americans think go along with it. These countries aren't heading for your American freedom. Another huge story has been the difficult tension between liberalization and nationality that has been an immense issue in Europe, perhaps most famously in France. This is a problem which really goes back to the origins of the modern idea of a nation, and again radically problematizes the entire American narrative about freedom. Let's look at the situation in any number of African countries--are they plainly following a trajectory toward American styles of government and values? The only thing special about the Middle East in this regard is that it's been a focus of American interest. But anywhere you look in the world you will find challenges to this narrative about freedom.

Third, essential to this entire narrative is that some version of democracy as a political organization will naturally produce some version of liberal social values as Americans recognize them, and the American concept of a natural trajectory toward freedom inherently includes both of these poles. But there's simply no reason to believe that these two go hand-in-hand. Again, China and Russia challenge the idea that American style politics, economics, and values go hand-in-hand. In the Middle East the entire handling of Iraq and before that the outcome of the Iranian revolution challenge this narrative.

Fourth, an explicit assumption of this narrative is that American freedom can in fact be imposed anywhere in the world as if on a blank slate, that these sorts of things don't need to develop historically, but rather American style social structures and values are a kind of default organization for human beings which transcends culture and history, and which has failed to appear in any modern country only because of the meddling of despots. But this is a ridiculous assumption, it's a ridiculous narrative even of the history of American freedom in America, which of course did not appear as if from on high, but developed through the particular historical experience of Americans and the American nation. The assumption is all the more ridiculous, then, when it gets transposed to wildly different cultural and historical contexts. This is one of the reasons why, against American dreams about political destiny, the relevant political, economic, and values developments have not in fact happened hand-in-hand.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Sustained applause. Well said!

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

You call it "Realpolitiking" and "selling out our morality and principles", but the above point is something that was better understood in the past. Setting aside whether or not we might want to agree with them, secularists and western liberals supported regimes like the Baathists not simply out of a gamble to balance power, but out of a belief that such organizations, while not being themselves the model of an American system, were a natural development of politics local to the area (rather than transplanted there artificially), which in time would lead towards the kind of regimes westerners wanted to see. Secularists have in the past been keen to look at, for example, the history of Turkey as a model for how the Middle East can becomes what the west wants it to be. Again, whether or not we like this "solution" (this is a whole other can of worms), it arises out of a recognition that politics develops out of and in a history. The dominant narrative in the past has been to conceive of western liberalism as a kind of end-state to which such histories would progress, but recognized the need for this kind of a development. Contrast this with the present narrative which imagines that some kind of western political structure can appear out of the blue and will immediately produced western economics, values, etc.

These newer narratives are naive. Notwithstanding the serious problems with the narrative of a historical progress towards secular liberalism, such a narrative at least has the value of understanding the meaning of history and local context. The loss of this understanding is devastating. This is a point of theory.

In point of observation: no, the narrative you associate with Bush here has not been vindicated by the events since. Numerous counter-examples have been given above.

[anadinboy.livejournal.com]

thats because the newer narrative thinks it no longer has the ussr on its back, it thinks previous attempts at modernising the middle east failed because of russia currupting the process. When the ussr colapsed the neo cons thought "yay no-ones ever gonna model themselves on stalin again, they can model themselves on us"!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, because military occupation and continuing to prop up Mubarak and the Saudis certainly would lead to a flowering of freedom there. If freedom shows up there it will have nothing to do with Bush's idea of "freedom."

[anadinboy.livejournal.com]

i think its the recession thats caused these protests, it can only be a matter of time before bankers try and take the credit lol

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

So Bush drove the US economy into the ground, causing a collapse of the global financial system, causing poverty related unrest to start up, causing regimes to be overthrown (it's still far to early to decide if any of these uprisings will result in anything democratic, history would suggest no).

Ta dah! Bush is the real hero of the Egyptian rebellion.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Even a blind squirrel gets an acorn every now and then.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Right that Arab nations can foster democratic Institutions? Sure.

Right that it can be done well via foreign Invasion? No.

The last time we successfully did that we flattened the countries and rebuilt from the ground up. Bush and history are not on speaking terms.

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

Right that it can be done well via foreign Invasion? No.

The last time we successfully did that we flattened the countries and rebuilt from the ground up.

Those two statements seem to contridict themselves. Clearly we have succeessfully invaided a country and turned it into a Democracy with a constitution through the means of invasion. Why would it not work this time?

6 years of representative Democratic government in Iraq.

How many years does Iraq need to be a Democracy before we consider that part of the campaign a success?

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

The important thing to remember is that Bush was a politician. It was his job to say what he believed his audience most wanted to hear. Therefore, when discussing whether or not he was right about democracy in the Middle East we should look at what his policies and actions did to contribute to it, not just his speeches.

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

we should look at what his policies and actions did to contribute to it, not just his speeches.

Didn't he help create a democracy in the Middle East?

If people are saying Obama's speech in Cairo helped fuel their desire to over throw their dictator, how is Bush's actions not attributed to Iraq's freedom? How can we say that he did not believe what he said when most people at some point strongly disagreed with the war. Did he stick to his beliefs or do you see that as something else?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Yeah I'm pretty sure the Domino Theory is as stupid as it ever was, regardless of what you call it.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Was George Bush right?

No.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

Was George Bush right?

Yes. those who argued that democracy and islam were incompatible, or that democracy was an alien concept to the arab world, were wrong. we'll all look back someday and see 9/11 as the beginning of a pardigm shift.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

While bringing democracy to the Middle East might a good idea in theory, in practise Bush's show of kicking down the door with no plan had very little to do with this.

Bush and Democracy

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Whenever I heard Bush promoting democracy anywhere, I always took it to mean that he was using it as an excuse to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public. Imagine a guy with a reputation as a deer hunter getting up in front of an audience and promoting a vegan lifestyle. How would his speech be taken by people who know his true proclivities?

Re: Bush and Democracy

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

But he doesn't eat the deer, just cuts the head off to hang from the wall!

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."

I don't think you can let that point slide without saying that Western nations have been treating the Middle East as their sandbox for well over a century. If Western nations would stop propping up dictatorships and quelling democratic movements that are the wrong religion or end of the political spectrum, then perhaps it would evolve naturally.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

im pretty sure thats what bush was saying.