The Good Democrat

Condoleezza Rice and Her Wishful Thinking

Remember “birth pangs?” That from a woman who, to my knowledge, has yet to give birth…

Well, she continues her delusional logic on the Middle East. As Fred Hyatt says:

“The United States has always been most effective when it is leading both from power and principle,” she said. And: “I don’t see how the United States of America can ever back off of that commitment in the search somehow for stability — which I am quite certain will be a false stability.” The false stability, she implies, of accommodating dictators in Syria and Iran.

This is a moment of emerging “clarity” in the region, the secretary says, “one of those critical junctures in international politics . . . because a lot of the old bargains in the Middle East have really collapsed.” With the lid lifted, there’s a struggle between Shiite and Sunni to redefine their relationship. There’s a struggle inside Islam to redefine the roles of politics and religion.

Most of all, Rice says, there is a struggle between extremism and moderation. The United States needs to “act smartly in that new strategic context rather than being drawn back to the old strategic context in search of, I think, a stability that no longer exists. . .” That false stability, again. Which is why, she says, she resists talks on Iraq with Syria’s strongman and Iran’s mullahs. If they perceive it in their national interest to help stabilize Iraq, they will do so in any event; if not, the price they demand will be exorbitant — the United States standing aside as Syria regobbles Lebanon and Iran pursues its nuclear dreams.

But here’s where things get a bit more complicated than Rice in her fluency makes them sound, because the forces of moderation — the “mainstream actors,” as she calls them — are hardly all democratic, and the fruits of democracy are hardly all moderate. The good guys, in her view, include dictatorships (not her word) such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, while democratic victors include extremist actors such as Hamas in the Palestinian territory and Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq.

It grows even more complicated when Rice attempts to fit the neat strategic frame of moderation vs. extremism over the mess her administration has helped create in Iraq. Rice says the United States must encourage Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders of the “more moderate center” to work together and to isolate and move against their respective militias. But what if those parties see each other as the enemy, and each value their own militia or terrorists as means of pressuring the other?

I never understood the logic. We prop up authoritarian dictators (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan) with our right hand while preaching democracy (Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon) with our left….and then when groups (Hamas, Hezbollah) are democratically elected that we don’t like, we not only do not give them support, but undermine their efforts….can someone explain to me why we could possibly think this will work?

Then again, when this White House takes counsel from the likes of Kissinger who said of an earlier democratically elected government America did not like:

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

…well, are we really fighting for democracy or not? if we say we are, our actions are surely on the other side of the world from our rhetoric. Does that not undermine the cause of democracy? Or, is the real answer a little more nefarious? Maybe we don’t actually care about democracy. I mean, if we really did, we’d be happy that Hamas won. After all, that’s what the Palestinians wanted.

Then again, I do fear that some conservatives might just get violent if a very liberal person were to become president here in America. I think this is how much they don’t really care about democracy, but about having someone in place that is more ideologically pure.