I hear ya on that one, straight fromt eh "Live free or Die" state.

The entire quote being:

"Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils."

-Gen John Stark

Baloney, Stephen. Ignatius is an idiot.

Not only have there been no major "reversals" in Iraq, but democracy has been brought forcibly by outsiders to countless nations. Only an historically ignorant fool thinks otherwise.

Just as only an historically ignorant fool thinks that the process isn't difficult, won't take a lot of time, and won't entail some setbacks.

Yep. Democracy was forcably brought to both Germany and Japan after WW2. They are doing fine with it. Ignatius is an idio

Try Gadsen's sentiment, Stephen...

Don't Tread On Me.

Some folks haven't figured that out... yet.

Ultimatly it will be:
Live free or glow in the dark.

The element of the day is cobalt (60)

Yesterday's quote for the day gives the justification for making it an ultimatim:

If your home is infested with rats and one bites the baby in her crib do you search out the culprit or do you exterminate all the rats?

I don't know who that columnist is, but he has to get out more.

The Saudis have already announced their first elections. Libya has caved. Syria is in crisis and Lebanon is rising up against their Ba'athist oppressors. Iran is teetering on revolution and Pakistan is in our camp.

Those are some setbacks, boy.

This guy is an idiot, plain and simple. His argument is so much swiss cheese, completely ignorant of the actual situation in Iraq and Middle East history.

First of all, I'm not sure what he means about "making the mistake again". We've never tried to build an Arab government before. We've supported and opposed various regiemes, but have never deposed a government and sat down with the citizens to start over in that area of the world.

Second, reversals over the past year? What? Insurgency has been lessening, water, power, and oil production are higher than before the war, citizens can express their opinions without being jailed, a Constitution was just signed, and Al Queda is writing letters home to mommy crying that no one wants to play with them? Reversals?

Oh yeah...and I suppose he forgot about the rebellion after the first Gulf War in which Saddam lost control of about 90% of the country until he sent the Republican Guard around to slaughter everyone. Given a prayer of not being instantly killed, Arabs are dying for (no pun intended) a shot at democracy.

Don't even get me started with Iran.

Get a clue David.

From Friedman to Geyer to Ignatius to Fadlallah, we always get this:
"resolving the Arab-Israeli problem was a necessary component of any serious Middle East initiative "...

The moderate Hezbollah sheik admits it's an excuse, but says "resolution" is necessary. "Resolution" remains undefined--and remains an excuse. Why? Why must "resolution" of this problem precede any real reform in Arab countries? Why is that accepted as a given, in this discussion? After all, it isn't as if Israel/Palestine forecloses progress elsewhere in any physical, economic, or governance sense. It's a psychological barrier, self-created, and the subtext is blackmail. We ought to be calling the purveyors of this nonsense every time they spout it, asking "Why?'

Alene wrote "The moderate Hezbollah sheik . . . ."

That's got to be an oxymoron.

Alene: "resolving the Arab-Israeli problem" has always been code-words for the destruction of Israel. American "assistance" in this endeavor means pressuring Israel to make dangerous concessions. The best thing we could do for that situation is to ignore it - let the Israelis do whatever they need to to defend themselves. And Israel taking effective action to defend themselves is in our interest.

There are 8 million feeds to the ideologically needy press pukes. This has been one of them.

Tibor: no, it was sheer irony, displaying the same mindset as the "resolution is required" garbage. And I repeat, every time anyone, from Ignatius to Mubarak, says it, we should call them on it, because it's ridiculous on its face.

The [Truman] administration's new initiative to encourage democracy and reform in the [Japanese] world has all the solidity of a hot-air balloon. It's floating grandly toward Planet [Japan], while down below the people who would be affected by it are variously taking potshots, running for cover or scratching their heads in confusion.

Are we really going to make this mistake again? To state what should be obvious after the reversals of the past year in [Japan]: The idea of [Japanese] democracy is meaningless unless it begins at home, driven by an [Japanese] agenda for change, rather than by outsiders.

>>The idea of Arab democracy is meaningless unless it begins at home

Statements like this reflect that charmingly elitist or socialist or whatever it is fantasy that all the real people living underneath the autocrats and the mullahs have no political feelings or desires of their own.

Actually I'll stick with the guy that thinks that democracy is God's gift to humanity.
The idea that Wogs can't handle it never caught on with me.

I wonder how much we could reshuffle the deck by broadcasting the following eight-word message to Israel and Spain:

"Take out the trash. We'll hold your coats."

The thing that suprises me is that when people talk about democratising countries that were previously anything but, they always talk about Germany and Japan. A better analogy might be Spain: from being one of the most backward nations in Europe, to being a parlimentarian democracy- and then, after the Civil War and Franco's rulership, it went RIGHT BACK to being a democracy.

What a phenomenally racist bit of twaddle. Is he saying that Arabs are constitutionally incapable of adopting a form of government from the world at large? Why not then that Israel can only adopt a solution to the Palestinian conflict if it comes from Israel? Take this logic a bit further and apply to Hitler's Final Solution.

I saw on CNN it's this kind of stupidity that makes Arabs hate America. Arabs want democracy, but if they try to achieve it by themselves, they get murdered by the hundreds of thousands, raped and tirtured. Look at Saddam's regime. Look at the way Iraqis jump at the chance to be free and to introduce democracy. It's only tyrants and the ones they feed who think democracy is only for the West. Rubbish. Bush is the most loved American in Arab (popular, not tyrant) history. He's the only guy who was willing to sacrifice American blood to liberate Arabs in Iraq. They know that. They love him for that. The Arab tyrants hate Bush. Just look at the OPEC and the way they cut oil output, raise the price of oil and sabotage the US economy so Bush doesn't get reelected.

The oil output point is a good reason to put SA next on the list. Do you think THEIR leaders will devolve power peacefully?

Dear Stephen Green,
I think you have a point but I don't think you can export democracy at the point of a gun, we can only lead by example. For democracy to flourish in the middle-east, we need to help them create a middle-class.
I'm well aware that most of the terrorists have been from the middle-class and educated besides, but they come from places where levels of poverty are extreme and so it breeds extreme resentments
It doesn't help that their holy man sanctions holy war and provides a how-to guide including a bevy of virgins to boff all through eternity (What pathetic imaginings!) for martyrdom.
Til thenWe have to find a way to get at the root causes of terrorism - do we even know what they are? religious zealots, nationalism, poverty, resentment, ignorance... how can hate run so deep?

'Live free or die' is the ultimatum given in the Potsdam Declaration, 26 July 1945.

"(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

(13) We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Peter,

Do you have any examples to buttress your assertion?

Peter, poverty is not the root cause of terrorism, the dysfunctional Arab political culture is the root cause. Much of the cause of that poverty is this dysfunctional Arab/Muslim political culture. When you live in a political culture in wihich the power holder takes all the goodies and the only way you can get any is by overthrowing him and seizing power yourself, you start turning to terrorism.

In any case the attributes that lead to rising from poverty are the boring old bourgeois virtues, especially the rule of law, safeguarding of contracts, religious belief but not rule by religious leaders, security of persons and property. Complementing these is some form of consensual government, even if it is not fully democratic. But in the modern world, legitimacy rests on the consent of the people, not divine right. The alternative is the rule of force, which is what the Arabs have had up to now. Bush means to change this. When you get these non-economic attributes operating people can then make their prosperity for themselves.

So the thing that Bush and his advisors realized is that political reform is the prerequisite to other reform in the Arab world, and that reform of its dysfunctional political culture is the route to reforms that will eliminate terrorism as a viable weapon, and also do down the militant Islamist movements.

If you have not read them I suggest David Pryce-Jones' book "The Closed Circle" and the most recent books by Bernard Lewis "What Went Wrong" and "The Crisis of Islam". After reading these you should understand the reasoning behind the Bush Administration's policies and the reason for the Iraq Campaign, which was to get this reform going in what is probably the most favorable country for it in the region.

I think that Live Free or Die was an ultimatum.
I still have my NH license plate from 1984-85 with that motto. It's one of my prized possessions.
The people who don't want to 'live free' are usually the rulers. The people under totalitarianism generally understand the philosophy. What we have to do is establish that their lives will not be lost in vain. Or, that there is a chance for freedom that makes risking their lives worthwhile.
Just ask any Iranian student.

a way to get at the root causes of terrorism

Root cause? Easy: the absence of freedom in a country. We're "getting at it" right now in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Peter. Take the pulse from Iraqi weblogs that aren't run by Saddamite apologists - they all want the same life that we enjoy. Some of them want to fight right alongside our soldiers. That desire didn't come from the Allies; all that we're providing is opportunity. They're taking it.

Anyone who claims that democracy can't be asserted has been asleep for the last sixty years. The effort can fail only if it's made shallowly or managed by institutions that have no familiarity with or preference for liberal democracy. (Any guesses?) I know that some like to ridicule rough parallels between Iraq and Japan, but if anyone wants to see an awe-inspiring, seven-year, countrywide transition from a rudimentarily industrialized empire to a fully modern democracy - more or less at gunpoint - they ought to check out half a dozen books on Occupied Japan from the local library.

As for David Ignatius - just stop by a website full of aviation quotes. Read the ones about stuffed shirts calling air and space flight "bunk." It's the same blinkered message people will chuckle at years from now.

The "root cause" of terrorism is the fact that terrorists draw breath.

uh... I'm not sure how long these conversations run, but I didn't assert too much - It seemed to me that religion (Islamofascism) plays a part in terrorist attacks as did poverty (maybe not? I'm open to discussion and book tips) but beyond that I don't know or pretend to -
I've read the Sept. 2002 document the National Security Strategy and feel as if I have a handle on their reasons for going into Iraq - It just seems we rushed in at great cost -
that document by the way (it;s the one with pre-emption written in) trumpets freedom and makes arguments for going into places like Iran, Syria, and North Korea as well - but it looks like we're going back to dull, old-fashioned diplomacy
As for the notion we're getting at root causes of terrorism because there are some fed up Iraqis who are now ready to stand up and fight for their rights - I wish I felt as optimistic - It'll be a long struggle just to prevent civil war there - ethnicism, age-old hatreds, and religion will play their part -
As for Afghanistan, damn! Did you know that there are only 7,000 of the promised 70,000 Afghan soldiers even partially prepared and equiped, with desertions happening regularly because of a lack of supplies and arms etc. - 89 Billion would sure come in handy here huh?
The Bush administration did not conduct diplomacy in our best interests before the Iraq war - phrases like "Cheese eating surrender monkeys," were allowed to be spoken out loud (yes it's damn funny, but it's a nasty way to characterize a nation and makes compromise even more difficult - freedom fries!) and there was arrogance and bullying (just admit arrogance and bullying and don't send me googling okay? We ran roughshod over those who would have us be more patient and more sure in our assertions - and I was all for it - I howled at every Mark Steyn column and couldn't understand why people didn't understand the logic of taking down this Domino) - It would have taken longer to get down to it (removing Saddam) but we could have gone into Iraq with all those we would like to count as our allies and trading partners - it would have saved American lives and American money - who knows, with some kind of international legitimacy the troops might actually have been welcomed as the liberators that they were - Patience is a conservative virtue not excercised by this administration
- It's gonna' be an uphill slog and when they do get Osama, some other creep will step into fill the vacuum and terrorist acts will continue -
I think the Japan model won't work here - Extremely different cultures and circumstances don't you think? And these terrorists seem to be fighting for less freedom, not more no matter how oxymoronic that sounds -
So back to root causes and why hatred runs so deep and how the hell do we stop it?
Iappreciate good arguments - thank you

Peter:

The Japan model appears to be working so far. Look at the successes and the failures fairly, then go back and see what Japan's rebuilding was like. You'll see a lot of eerie similarities.

Re David: What we are witnessing is journalistic flailing at its finest. Unable to credit the Bush Administration for *anything*, Bushaters are reduced to useless whining about anything that's wrong with Iraq.

Which is why Kerry will eventually lose in November. He'll be forced to choose between people like Ignatius and people like Steve Green....and I think ultimately he will pick the Left and not the Center.

"So back to root causes and why hatred runs so deep and how the hell do we stop it?"

Why? Dictators willing to exploit religion and poverty to maintain their grip on power.

How do we stop it? Kill the dictators and show the people that there is an alternative.

Poverty and Islam have about as much to do with terrorism as Wagnerian norse mythology had to do with Nazi-ism. Use something familiar to the people to channel their nationalistic pride, turn them against a real or created "foe", and even the most depraved dictator has a tool with which to maintain and expand his power.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book, and one that works well since it gets clouded with arguments over emotion and faith so easily. The rank and file jihadi may believe that he's blowing himself up for Allah, but the Saddams and Osamas of the world see it as a key to regional power.

Peter the troops were welcomed as liberators by the Iraqis, except for Saddam's hirelings. As for rushing, 14 months is rushing? Not to mention that we have been in a state of hostilities with Saddam's Iraq since 1990, since Saddam never fulfilled the conditions under which he was permitted to remain on his throne after Gulf War I. We ought to have taken him out then, and it was too great a respect for "multilateralism" that prevented us from doing so.

It should be obvious by now that the French, as well as the Russians, would never have acceded to a war with Saddam no matter how long we dithered and talked to them. They meant Saddam to stay in power, and Saddam was counting on them to derail any US effort at the UN.

As for the WMD issue, of which we have heard so much, we knew Saddam sought nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and that he had some of the last and even used them at times. Well now Saddam or his psychotic spawn will never become a Middle Eastern Kim Jong-Il with oil money to finance his nuke habit. That is a good thing, exclusively due to the Iraq Campaign.

I'm not the same guy as the one posting earlier. The curse (or blessing) of a common name.
We miss the point of the Bush Administration's gamble. Anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature (in Celsius) knows that the imposition of a successful democracy all through the area is a very long shot.
The point is not that it's going to be difficult. The point is not that it may very well fail. The point is that it's the only way to avoid a slaughter of biblical proportions.
If the dynamic is not changed there will eventually be a huge slaughter. If the splodeydopes succeed in setting off a nuke or biowar or a great big chemical attack our response will be what? Slaughter both here in the US and all through Islam.
Because of my well-known kindly humanitarianism, I would prefer to avoid this wholesale slaughter. If it comes to it, though, the safety of my children is far more important than the lives of every Muslim on Earth.

Allow me to point out the foul bilge within David Ignatius's bankrupt "analysis" of status quo, to wit: yesterday, Mr Ignatius and leftish chic voyeurs(that's correct-voyeurism=watching, opining and critical without any meaningfull contribution other than a wheeze & a whine...oh Bubba HOW could you?) were all aghast at the "rush" to war or "get out of Iraq, now!") NOW, we should take care and time and "allow" the bloody neaderthals of the Islamic world( a religion of WAR and CONQUEST and SLAVERY ) to gradually come and join us in the 21st century??!! Which is it to be Mr.Ignatius ?? Or are you so impressed with John Kerry's posing , en francais , that your wit is scrambled and you've lost your mooring to limousine-liberal cant and "voyeurism??
I would pay big bucks to "voyeur" Mr.Ignatius and company inquiring of the Khomeinists and the Whabbists - "what we should do" to make their lives right. You know what- absent the hard boys of our military- these usefull idiots would be finding themselves whispering their curiousities from their recently removed hyoid bones...ear to ear from an "holy" Islamic Yemeni daggar! My fellow citizens ARISE , toss the 60's utopian crap aside and follow our founding father's gifts to the future- 'cause it is OURS! Give your parochial head a shake , Mr.Ignorantius .

Mike M:
You seem to have a selective view of history.

First of all, we DID overthrow a government. Remember the Shah? Remember how we overthrew the democratic government and replaced the Shah? because (gasp) that damn democratic government had the GALL to NATIONLIZE the oil company! The Brits and the Americans were not too pleased about that. (I think this was 1953, Eisenhower)

Second of all, as for the reversals.... there seem to be a lot more dying than there were when it was just a war effort. Anyhow, I don't know the details of the exact successes of unsuccesses (not a word, I know) of the operation. But one fact remains brutally clear to me: we're going to be there for a long fucking time.

Third of all, installing a democracy, yes, you are right, we have done this successfully in the past. HOWEVER, this situation is slightly (just a bit you know) more difficult given the fact that we have 3 opposing factions who basically hate each other (Sunni, Shiia, Kurds). If you think you can put them all in a democratic gov that easily: you're wrong. The Sunni (or was it eh Shia?) have control as it stands--they are also like 25% of the population. Clearly, given a democratic situation, they will lose power... anyway, I can ramble on for hours.

POINT IS (this is kind of not a logical point): IF you haven't read this article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, you should...

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2003/walt_saddam_box_nyt_020203.htm

Allright then.. no more of my blah blah blahs :p (if someone else already replied to you, Mike M, with similar points, apologies. I did not read all the comments)

Oh yeah--Vodkapundit--live free or die ultimatum--very good point. I am going to have to do a lil' trackback-ing action hehe

Jo,

Don't attack me because of your ignorance. Put some effort into learining what's going on in Iraq and your posts will look a lot more intelligent.

I also give the Iraqis more credit than you seem to. Honest to goodness *slaves* were incorporated into the United States after the civil war (oh yeah, along with the entire south) so groups that aren't too friendly can get along in a democracy. Just look at Israel, where Arabs and Jews live and work together everyday. Suicide bombings only seem to occur when some psycho like Arafat is allowed to have power over people. The Iraqi groups can get along just fine when they aren't ruled over by a lunatic dictator that has to exploit tensions to stay in power.

Finally, your linked article is unimpressive and full of tired liberal cliches and talking points about the war. I'm glad that Mearsheimer can say for a fact that Saddam never would have gived WMD to terrorists from the comfort of his Harvard office, but we never have to worry about it anymore, do we?

Continue rambling, I remain unswayed.

Mike M.: not meant as an attack, but you certainly did in that response

a) they're not "liberal" cliches--they're "realist" cliches. And in your commenting on my "ignorance" you seemed to have forgotten about your own. I mean, that was a pretty selective view of history, eh?

b) In regards to your opinion on the Mearsheimer (who is not at Harvard, incidentally) and Walt piece, did you not read the historical background? What exactly about Saddam seems to difficult to contain? Or do you actually believe he had ties with al-Qaida as well as nuclear weapons? Now I mean Saudii; that's where the real ties with al-Qaida are

c) your examples of historically successful democracies are all well and good--HOWEVER, none of them were quick and decisive successes either--unlike the physical war aspect. I know we will eventually be able to instate some sort of democracy-like government, but again like i said before, the fact of the matter is: we're going to be in there for a long time. I seriously would like to see us make the June 30th deadline. If you want to use examples, what about the "democracy" in Afghanistan? A couple of regional warlords and a "grand council" that gives airs of democracy with the members handpicked by the United States... Ah yes, that democracy. The comparable council in Iraq was also handpicked by the US. Yes, there are concessions being made (supposedly), but I wonder how many of those concessions were supported by the people or by their leaders.

And maybe you can say "oh well, so what if it will take time" from the comfort of your dorm room, but I don't see you signing up for the army either. [If you are in fact in the reserves or something like that, then I applaud you. In that case, you actually have a reasonable voice in saying "Let's go to war".]

As it is pretty obvious, I was against going into war. Now that we are there, I am by no means suggesting we pull troops out and let Iraq crumble.

By the way, I wasn't trying to "sway" you. I was merely pointing out your errors.

And you know what, you have a nasty little attitude that really undermines whatever possibly substantial thing you say.

trust me on this. But when people who are being harmed, mugged, raped, murdered most often ask why. While it is happening they ask, "Why?", and "Why me?" wasting time they could be fighting back. It is a throw back to being raised in societys where violence isn't a way of life. Inner city youth do not have this problem. Gang members do not have this problem.

Accepting people can hate you just for being you without ever meeting you is the first step. The second is agreeing to kill them before they kill you.

Good reading...all of it. My only comment is in regards to the "factions/sects" (whatever you want to call the three main groups of Iraqis) co-existing under one government. I believe we can find a workable example in the American form of government. The probable solution is "STATEHOOD". Draw some "state boundaries" in Iraq and allow them the same levity to govern their "states", while also having representatives in the "National" government. I realize the day may come when "Virginia" has had enough of the "capital's" bullshit, unfair tax laws and "State meddling"; That an "Abe Lincoln" may have to mount up the boys and ride against their own for the sake of a "United States of Iraq". But,..."as allah wills".