Tuesday, February 15, 2011
As a rationale for invading Iraq, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: "The people of the Middle East share the desire for freedom. We have an opportunity -- and an obligation -- to help them turn this desire into reality."
Yes they did, but no we didn't.
The desire for freedom fueled the revolution in Egypt. Thankfully, we Americans stayed out of it. And young Egyptians handled the ouster of their repressive leader with brilliant nonviolence.
Against the advice of some in his administration, President Obama kept the United States on the side of change -- which, in this case, meant the sidelines. Hosni Mubarak's rambling speech and the sight of every kind of Egyptian demanding a new society convinced Obama that this Mideast strongman was on his way out. Not only couldn't America save him, it had better not be seen trying.
The Tunisian and Egyptian upheavals are setting off similar democratic passions elsewhere in the region, including in Iran. Note that no American blood and little treasure are being spent helping the people "turn their desires into reality."
How odd that the unauthorized Wikileaks airing of U.S. embassy cables aided the glorious change in Tunisia. An American diplomat apparently called Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's family a "quasi mafia" running "organized corruption."
America's neocon warriors got one thing right. Mideast youth wanted democracy. But they got the big part wrong, insisting that young American soldiers had to get it for them.
Foreigners can't micromanage another people's revolution, which the neocons thought they had the genius to do. And all that sugary talk about invading countries as a selfless act insulted the intelligence. Sure, we wanted them to have the blessings of democracy, but other agendas, including oil, are why we went into Iraq and not Eritrea.
In 2004, pictures emerged of abuses by wayward American prison guards and of Iraqi civilians killed in the war. A U.S.-sponsored poll at the time found that four out of five Iraqis held negative views of our venture.
Asked about this on "Meet the Press," then-Secretary of State Colin Powell kept up the neocon patter: "We're going to stay and help the Iraqis do what we know the Iraqi people want, and that is to have a democracy based on free elections."
American weaponry helped power the pro-democracy demonstrations in Tunisia, Egypt and Iran, but not the kind the Pentagon buys. The armaments this time were the made-in-America social networking systems Facebook and Twitter.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans saw new communications technologies as a frightening tool that empowered the demons. But here it is being used to create democratic movements that will, we hope, open economic opportunity for frustrated Middle Easterners. Once the young people get busy working and making money, their grievances with the West will fade.
During the mass protests in Egypt, many of the old neocon voices worried that Mubarak's ouster would open the floodgates to radical Islamic forces. The story was that they, the neocons, knew best how to orchestrate the change. They would prod Mubarak to slowly move toward democratization, something he had no intention of doing.
In 2004, Powell said of Iraq: "We have 138,000 troops there providing security. We have provided $18 billion for reconstruction, and we're helping now the Iraqi people develop a democratic system."
We have no troops in Egypt and haven't bombed anything we have to reconstruct. The road to Egyptian democracy may run zigzag, but as long as the masses have their Facebook town halls, it won't get blocked. All Americans need do is cheer them on, and isn't that a nice thing?
COPYRIGHT 2011 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
See Other Political Commentary.
See Other Commentaries by Froma Harrop.
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.
Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.
We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.
Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.
To learn more about our methodology, click here.