Making Iraq Safe For Democracy?
by Christopher G. Adamo
It was in his April 1917 declaration of war against Germany that President Woodrow Wilson asserted America's responsibility to make the world “safe for democracy.” He further contended that the fight was for “the privilege of men everywhere” (including the Germans) “to choose their way of life and of obedience.” This, in Wilson's opinion, was the definition of democracy. But the history of the twentieth century paints quite another picture.
Less than a generation after the conclusion of the First World War, Germany's Weimar Republic selected Adolph Hitler as Chancellor… by election. The death and destruction that reigned down on the entire European Continent during the subsequent decade was far from Wilson's promised panacea of “democracy.” Admittedly, the shadow of Soviet tyranny looming over Europe during much of the remainder of the century provided a common enemy whose deterrence temporarily became the focus of most of European politics throughout that period.
However, upon the dissolution of the USSR, nationalism among European nations quickly degenerated to the point that, in overwhelming numbers, they have embraced the globalist doctrines of a “European Union.” And this multinational organization, wherein the advocacy of national sovereignty is regarded as only slightly less than an act of treason, could hardly be claimed to reinforce “the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience.”
But the United States and its allies won both of the “great wars” in twentieth century Europe, and victory there was as decisive as it was in Iraq. So, what went wrong? Apparently, an enormous “disconnect” exists between the removal of a dictator and the emergence of a benevolent and accountable government. Those idealists in the State Department never grasped the relevance of this principle among the nations of Europe, and day-by-day its modern “nation builders” are showing themselves to be just as clueless in their dealings with post-war Iraq.
On the heels of 9-11, American security experts recognized the necessity of regime change in Iraq, if the “war on terror” was ever to meet with long-term success. Unfortunately, during the lengthy build-up towards war, Administration officials thought it pragmatic to change the focus of an Iraqi invasion from retribution and preemption to humanitarianism. Not surprisingly, the meddling minds at State quickly jumped aboard and ever since have touted the Iraqi invasion as no less than an opportunity to remake that nation in the image of America. Let freedom ring!
But things clearly don't appear as “rosy” in post-Saddam Iraq as many eagerly anticipated them to be on the eve of war. Though the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens rejoice at the removal of the evil Hussein, in the governing vacuum left by his absence, no calls go out for an Iraqi “bill of rights”, nor is there a universal groundswell of support for such quaint, western concepts as “equal protection under the law” or the recognition of “unalienable rights” of all citizens. This new day in Iraq portends a much different future from that envisioned by Madison, Jefferson and their contemporaries at the founding of this nation. Instead, disparate religious factions seek to acquire dominance over each other, through intimidation and, if necessary, force. Other groups seek total ideological and political independence.
Something in Iraq is very different from the prevailing mindset that spawned the American experiment, and that “something” can be found in the culture. For although that country's population can be demographically grouped into multiple categories, no major segment among them aspires to the selfless cause of universal freedom as trumpeted by this nation's Founding Fathers in eighteenth century Philadelphia.
The explanation for this is as simple as it is “politically incorrect.” America, despite its imperfections, was founded on Christian principle, derived from the Bible. For example, regard for the rights of a fellow citizen can be traced directly back to the “Golden Rule” espoused by the Savior in the seventh chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. Likewise, respect for private property and the adherence to due process of law are attributable to the Ten Commandments. And America's past successes reflect its recognition of, and commitment to, those principles.
In contrast, a culture that produces a series of maniacal tyrants cannot be expected to produce something else upon the demise or ouster from power of each ensuing dictator. Any differing result will require different guiding philosophies among the populace. America proved it can “make war.” But in the end, only the Iraqi people can “make peace.”
|
