Comments on: The Bush Administration’s Real State of Denial http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/10/27/the-bush-administrations-real-state-of-denial/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: David Yerushalmi http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/10/27/the-bush-administrations-real-state-of-denial/comment-page-1/#comment-31338 David Yerushalmi Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:01:42 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-bush-administrations-real-state-of-denial/#comment-31338 Jeff's comments are excellent and if you read my upcoming essay (I've submitted here at IC or you may go to www.saneworks.us and set it there ("What to do with the Bush War Doctrine") the same two points are made: you must destroy utterly the enemy and then rebuild. As to Turkey, you are also right: the model is Turkey. But keep in mind. Ataturk stripped Islam of any authority. Islamic law in civil society was outlawed period. Secondly, it is a pale version of representative government. Every time Islam raises its ugly head, the army steps in and overthrows the civilian government. The problem in Turkey today is the pressure by the EU and Washington on Turkey to become a more transparent democracy which in turn has led to an upsurge in Islam and now you have for the first time an Islamic party in power. And, as a dangerous result, an ascendant Islam. The question will be have they infiltrated the secular ranks of the officer corps in the Army. If so, don't count Turkey a success. In other words, DEMOCRACY among Muslims is a death knell to liberty and moderation. Jeff’s comments are excellent and if you read my upcoming essay (I’ve submitted here at IC or you may go to http://www.saneworks.us and set it there (“What to do with the Bush War Doctrine”) the same two points are made: you must destroy utterly the enemy and then rebuild. As to Turkey, you are also right: the model is Turkey. But keep in mind. Ataturk stripped Islam of any authority. Islamic law in civil society was outlawed period. Secondly, it is a pale version of representative government. Every time Islam raises its ugly head, the army steps in and overthrows the civilian government. The problem in Turkey today is the pressure by the EU and Washington on Turkey to become a more transparent democracy which in turn has led to an upsurge in Islam and now you have for the first time an Islamic party in power. And, as a dangerous result, an ascendant Islam. The question will be have they infiltrated the secular ranks of the officer corps in the Army. If so, don’t count Turkey a success. In other words, DEMOCRACY among Muslims is a death knell to liberty and moderation.

]]> By: Jeff Osonitsch http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/10/27/the-bush-administrations-real-state-of-denial/comment-page-1/#comment-31332 Jeff Osonitsch Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:23:31 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-bush-administrations-real-state-of-denial/#comment-31332 While I agree with every point made in this essay about the true nature of Islam and the corollary historical/cultural resistence to individual liberty throughout the Arab Middle East and Iran, I do not think democracy is wholly precluded as a practical matter, in a majority Muslim nation. I cite Turkey (especially under Ataturk) and moderrn Central Asia as examples of relatively free and stable - modern nation-states. A program of radical secularization is needed as Islam is, by definition incompatible with democracy. My position on the Bush Doctrine is, that if one concedes the first prong (pre-emptive war against nations aiding or harboring terrorists) is necessary to win the war on Islamic fascism, then the second prong (incubating democratic regimes to replace the deposed government) simply must follow. It is a practical and moral imperative that we leave neither a power vacuum in our wake (see Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout) nor a "friendly" dictator (see Saddam Hussein pre-1990) to oppress his people and cause deeper resentment of the U.S. and drive more Muslims into the arms of the cause of Jihad. I agree whole-heartedly that our challenge in Iraq is monumental, but it is not unprecedented: a similar effort succeeded in post-war Japan whereby the U.S. imposed upon an ancient culture a free and democratic sytem which was heretofore unheard of. The major difference (in addition to the complicating factor of Islam) is that in WWII we utterly destroyed the Japanese ability and will to fight on and convinced the Emporer to endorse our efforts, while in Iraq our war plan of "shock and awe", in hindsight left our enemy in a position to mount an insugency. The lesson we must take from this effort is not the futility of democracy building but rather the necessity of bringing overwhelming force to bear and the utter destruction of our enemy in future wars before the building of a democracy is plausible. Should war become unavoidable in Iran or North Korea, our best option, though a horrifying prospect, may be to re-institute the age-old Western tradition of total war to create the practical and psychological conditions under which a democracy is possible. While I agree with every point made in this essay about the true nature of Islam and the corollary historical/cultural resistence to individual liberty throughout the Arab Middle East and Iran, I do not think democracy is wholly precluded as a practical matter, in a majority Muslim nation. I cite Turkey (especially under Ataturk) and moderrn Central Asia as examples of relatively free and stable – modern nation-states. A program of radical secularization is needed as Islam is, by definition incompatible with democracy.

My position on the Bush Doctrine is, that if one concedes the first prong (pre-emptive war against nations aiding or harboring terrorists) is necessary to win the war on Islamic fascism, then the second prong (incubating democratic regimes to replace the deposed government) simply must follow. It is a practical and moral imperative that we leave neither a power vacuum in our wake (see Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout) nor a “friendly” dictator (see Saddam Hussein pre-1990) to oppress his people and cause deeper resentment of the U.S. and drive more Muslims into the arms of the cause of Jihad.

I agree whole-heartedly that our challenge in Iraq is monumental, but it is not unprecedented: a similar effort succeeded in post-war Japan whereby the U.S. imposed upon an ancient culture a free and democratic sytem which was heretofore unheard of. The major difference (in addition to the complicating factor of Islam) is that in WWII we utterly destroyed the Japanese ability and will to fight on and convinced the Emporer to endorse our efforts, while in Iraq our war plan of “shock and awe”, in hindsight left our enemy in a position to mount an insugency.

The lesson we must take from this effort is not the futility of democracy building but rather the necessity of bringing overwhelming force to bear and the utter destruction of our enemy in future wars before the building of a democracy is plausible. Should war become unavoidable in Iran or North Korea, our best option, though a horrifying prospect, may be to re-institute the age-old Western tradition of total war to create the practical and psychological conditions under which a democracy is possible.

]]> By: Patrick Mulligan http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/10/27/the-bush-administrations-real-state-of-denial/comment-page-1/#comment-31331 Patrick Mulligan Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:57:36 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-bush-administrations-real-state-of-denial/#comment-31331 The idea that if we simply convert the entire world to democracy we will have global peace puzzles me. As we've seen in trying to democratize much of the world, some people don't like us (or each other, or much of anybody really), and so it really doesn't matter whether they tell us that themselves through free election, or indirectly through a national talking head. Does it somehow make it better if terrorists are voted into power rather than assuming it by force? The idea that if we simply convert the entire world to democracy we will have global peace puzzles me. As we’ve seen in trying to democratize much of the world, some people don’t like us (or each other, or much of anybody really), and so it really doesn’t matter whether they tell us that themselves through free election, or indirectly through a national talking head. Does it somehow make it better if terrorists are voted into power rather than assuming it by force?

]]>