May 24, 2005
Good cop, bad cop...
This CSM article about reform in Syria is just a bit more of what I said was going to happen. By toughness in Iraq we have gained the moral capital to advance peaceful change around the globe...
...Some speculate that Lebanon's Cedar Revolution that erupted after Mr. Hariri's death could begin to inspire a Jasmine Revolution, named for the plant that blooms throughout the country, to press for democratic change in Syria. And these activists insist that US pressure on President Bashar al-Assad's regime is crucial to their success.
"A large reason that reformers are looking to the US to put pressure on [Syria] is that it gives them cover to put pressure from below," says Joshua Landis, a Damascus-based specialist on Syria.
"They can say we need radical change to protect the nation because if we don't do this, Americans will come in with a two-by-four and try to destabilize Syria," he says... [my emphasis]
Of course the cop trick would work better if the bad cop seemed even more dangerous. Bush should be chewing the carpet at strategic moments, and raving and threatening to annihilate our enemies, and sow their land with salt. But he can't, it's politically impossible. Too many Americans are just too STUPID to get it*. And a lot of others are so MORALLY BANKRUPT that they would gladly flush the Syrians down the toilet if it would hurt Bush and the Republicans.
(Thanks to Orrin Judd)
*Especially women. There are so many women who seem to think the way to seek peace is to be weak and have good intentions, that I sometimes wonder if it was a mistake to give women the vote. (On the other hand, a bellicose woman is a thing of beauty.)
Posted by John Weidner at May 24, 2005 05:25 PM | TrackBackThis:
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/2005/05/would-it-be-better-for-syria-to-have.htm
is pretty sobering.
Posted by: am at May 25, 2005 01:27 AMAm I supposed to be sobered by the article, or by the attitude it conveys? I'd be more worried by the article if I hadn't seen it a hundred times. To a certain sort, the little brown-skinned people are NEVER ready for democracy.
Problem is, the best way to "get ready" for democracy is to try it, and maybe fail. There's no simulator you can practice on...
Posted by: John Weidner at May 26, 2005 08:00 AMWhen it was the Cold War, the fact that the United States was not supporting democracy among its allies was taken as prima facie evidence that it didn't support democracy at all, that the Cold War was really between moral equivalents.
Never mind that sometimes, in a war, you side w/ tyrants and blackguards b/c the opposition is worse. No, we must support democracy everywhere, indeed, especially among our allies, or it's meaningless.
Now that the Cold War is over, and we can carry democracy to places like Syria and elsewhere, now we hear that these places aren't ready.
Erm, so, perhaps we didn't call for democracy in Saudi Arabia in the 1970s and 1980s, b/c they weren't ready? We didn't make democracy in Kuwait (which now does allow women to vote) in 1990 b/c they weren't ready? We didn't push for democracy in Korea in the 1950s or in Taiwan in the 1960s because they weren't ready?
And, at the same time, the fact that we are allies of the moment w/ the likes of Karimov and other is again held high as evidence that we don't actually support democracy. When it's Karimov's turn, will these people again sound the toxic call that actually, "they're not ready"?
Posted by: Lurking Observer at May 26, 2005 08:39 AM
