Emphasis on US Mideast Policy Should Be Liberty, Not
Democracy
By Frank Salvato
The recently released Benchmark Assessment
Report mandated by the US
Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007 (HR2206/PL110-28) states that the common goal for both the US and
Iraqi governments is a democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain
itself, and be an ally in the War on Terror. All of these goals are achievable.
The problem is, while some are achievable within a reasonable amount of time,
where US intervention is concerned, at least one goal should be considered
lofty: the goal of achieving a functional, democratic Iraqi government.
There are myriad reasons why US troops should not be prematurely withdrawn
from the Iraqi battlefield. Two of the chief reasons revolve around genocide and
the overall war against Islamofascism.
Embracing the reality that history has provided
us, the premature withdrawal
of US & Coalition Forces would create a perfect opportunity for nefarious
forces to initiate the genocide of millions of purple-fingered Iraqis who braved
death for democracy. Foreign terrorist entities, such as al Qaeda, along with
encroaching foreign governments and Ba’ath Party loyalists, would take the
opportunity of a US withdrawal – the chief stabilizing force committed to the
region – to cull Western leaning Iraqis in one of the worst genocides since
Hitler’s campaign to eliminate Jews from the face of the earth.
This fact can hardly be disparaged as conjecture in light of history. In
every instance of conquest throughout history a “purging” of the defeated has
taken place. In the 20th Century alone, genocide took over 90 billion
lives, the number of killed
stretching from the reigns of Turkey’s Ismail Enver (1,200,000) and Vladimir
Lenin (30,000) to Josef Stalin (13,000,000), Mao Ze-Dong (49,000,000), Adolf
Hitler (12,000,000) and Rwanda’s Jean Kambanda (800,000).
In light of the indisputable historic precedent from the last century alone,
it would be foolish not to understand the consequences of any withdrawal of US
or Coalition Forces before the “insurgency” is defeated. The only issue left
regarding the subject of genocide, especially where Iraq is concerned, is
determining when the Progressive-Left started tolerating genocide as an
acceptable consequence to their political agenda.
The West’s premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq would also deprive the
forces of freedom and liberty from the single best location from which to
execute military operations in the Middle East. During a time when a fascist and
genocidal ideology is aggressively expanding its influence, it would be unwise
to surrender such a central location, “the high ground.” To leave the heart of
the Middle East during this volatile time only to have to re-acquire the
position at a later date – at the cost of additional American lives – would be
to employ the same inane tactics used on “Hamburger Hill” during the Vietnam
War.
Further, given the blatant regional agenda of both Iran and Syria against the
State of Israel – in conjunction with Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda and to a lesser
extent al-Fatah, Western forces would be negligent in not anticipating an
upcoming conflict. Having to redeploy, should the worst-case scenario play out,
would be an exercise in “too little, too late,” coming at the cost of the
Israeli state.
The reasons for early withdrawal addressed, when one examines the goals set
forth by HR2206/PL110-28 only one is difficult to obtain: a functional democracy
in Iraq.
We are certainly seeing progress in the training of the Iraqi Army and at
some point their training will be complete. Once Iraqi security forces are fully
functional they will be able to not only defend their nation but defend their
infrastructure as well. In fact, once the Iraqi security forces are functioning,
sustaining the government will become another achievable goal.
The goal that will escape the mandate of HR2206/PL110-28 will be the goal of
establishing a sustainable democracy.
Democracy, based on the principle of majority decision making, is a foreign
concept to most Middle Easterners. This region of the world, still reminiscent
of centuries past, has only known, for the most part, the rule of royalty and
dictators, despots and conquerors. To plunge an entire nation, or an entire
culture, into an unbridled democratic system is akin to giving the keys of a car
to a newly-turned sixteen year-old without any instruction on how to operate the
vehicle. Someone is going to get hurt.
I fully understand the end goal of establishing democracy as the standard
around the world. It is a noble objective, yet, as an immediate goal, an
unreasonable expectation.
Three good examples of why democracy cannot be bestowed on a people are
evidenced in Hamas’ victory in Gaza, Hezbollah’s infiltration of the Lebanese
government and the most recent attempt by “insurgent groups” to enter the
political process – through international means ala Arafat – in Iraq.
When a terrorist organization makes the transition to political entity that
doesn’t automatically preclude their use of terrorism as a tool for conquest and
change.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah used the same clandestinely coercive techniques Al
Capone used during his bloody reign over the streets of Chicago in the 1920s.
Just as Capone courted a public apathy for his illegal activity by opening soup
kitchens for the poor and providing community services at a quality much higher
than that of the government, Hezbollah is doing much the same thing in Southern
Lebanon. Hezbollah’s goal is the perversion of the democratic process in order
to gain control of the Lebanese parliament, thus allowing for the “legitimate”
establishment of an oppressive Islamic state in Lebanon.
In Gaza, we recently witnessed Hamas being democratically elected to the
Palestinian Authority through “free” elections. Hamas’ support was acquired
through a steady stream of radical Islamist and anti-Semitic indoctrination
employed over generations. Once they became “legitimized” through the democratic
process it was easier to claim political impasse as catalyst for the bloody
civil war that resulted in a “two-state solution” for the Palestinian people,
albeit a two-state solution that divided the Palestinian people between the
territories of Gaza and The West Bank.
And in Iraq, word now comes that seven of the more effective Sunni-led
foreign terrorist organizations fighting US & Coalition Forces have
agreed to form a public political
alliance with the aim of
preparing for negotiations in advance of an American withdrawal. Three of these
groups – 1920 Revolution Brigades, Ansar al Sunna and Iraqi Hamas – which also
happen to be the deadliest groups, indicated they plan to hold a “congress” to
launch a united front in appealing to Arab governments, other governments and
the United Nations to help them establish a permanent political presence
outside Iraq. This is exactly what Yasser Arafat did for the PLO, today’s
Palestinian Authority.
So, democracy has not served the advancement of freedom or liberty when
employed in the Middle East. Instead, it has achieved the opposite; the
legitimization of oppressive, fundamentalist Islamofascists through the ballot
box.
Don’t misunderstand my point. I am not against the notion of a democratic
Middle East and I am certainly for the eventual establishment of democracy
throughout the world. But a functional democracy cannot be bestowed upon a
people. It can only be born of societies that understand, value and choose to
defend freedom and liberty.
Not wanting to sound as though I am joining the ranks of the spineless
conservative chicken-hawks in Washington who are acquiescing to the
Progressive-Leftist anti-war propaganda, the United States needs to change its
policy on Iraq and the Middle East.
Instead of establishing goals that see democracy as the end game, we should
embrace policies that move Middle Eastern governments toward increasing freedom
and liberty for their citizens. Once the peoples of the Middle East experience
the wane of oppression, increased freedoms and greater liberties, the desire for
democracy – and subsequently democracy itself – will naturally
follow.
In an age when Islamofascist regimes are actively pursuing nuclear capability
in the quest for a global Caliphate, the scheme used to achieve the goal of
eventual democracy should be stability, sustainability, liberty, democracy, not
democracy, liberty, stability, sustainability.
In the end, the key to functional democracy is a true understanding and
appreciation for liberty and freedom. Any other path can only be viewed as a
road to disaster.
