History often takes strange turns and twists. During the First
World War, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed his war aim was to “make the world safe for democracy.” Quite correctly this was viewed as a utopian scheme by most Americans and especially the United States Senate.  In many ways it was the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s policy of “speak softly and carry a big stick.” Wilson spoke loudly and wished to establish a paper tiger called the “League of Nations.” The League was, at least, a body that was relatively friendly to US interests. Unlike the League, the current United Nations is an institution that is comprised of a majority of tyrannical regimes that are hostile to American interests.

The League was opposed for many of the same reasons that Americans articulate against the United Nations. We are ceding a portion of our sovereignty and the special status accorded American citizens by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Arguably the failure to find WMD in Iraq and our general lack of success in stopping international terrorism is due to the obscene amount of time that was spent between 9/11 and final action due to our perceived need to have UN support.

While it is true that President Bush has been reasonably sensitive to American sovereignty, he has been lax regarding illegal immigration and participation in “free trade” alliances which may encroach upon our national independence. In many ways, President Bush is following in the footsteps of the Democratic President Wilson. This utopian folly was harshly criticized by H. L. Mencken, who called Wilson the “Archangel Woodrow” because of his grandiose schemes to educate humanity.

Like President Wilson, President Bush has a moral certitude that is not entirely justified. It is something of a stretch for the Administration to imply that almost the entire Islamic world is benighted by chance or bad schooling. We have developed a profound confusion of cause and effect. By way of example, do Islamic norms and law (the Shari’ a) mold the culture, forms of government and individuals, OR can we say that the individuals just happened to adopt norms and laws that are offensive and even repulsive to non-Islamic sensibilities? If the latter were true, all we would need do is to convince the Muslim world to reinterpret their religious tradition!

A foreign policy based upon changing the perceptions of an entire culture and attempting to instill a respect for open and democratic institutions seems like hubris at best and deadly folly at worst. This is reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s famous and pathetic remark to the Soviet leader that the Jews and Arabs would get along better if they acted more Christian!

The United States has always maintained the Hebraic idea of being “a light unto the nations.” This has traditionally meant that we lead by example. The notion of a military means for changing the hearts and souls of millions hearkens back to the Crusades. This is indeed a constant theme of Islamic world.

An ideological policy also risks repeating post-World War One’s dismal failure to bring lasting democracy to Europe. The only example that comes to mind of the West destroying a religious concept is the outlawing of national Shintoism in Japan after the Second World War.  Even this is questionable since one of the tenets of national Shintoism was the invincibility of Japan and the Emperor and so the religion suffered a natural death. The spread of Christianity was not primarily a military victory but a unifying idea and organizing principle for the Roman Empire as adopted by Emperor Constantine following the collapse of classical paganism. Without meaning to be disrespectful, it is historically true that many became Christian because it became the official position of the Empire.

It is revealing and frightening that the only example of spreading an ideology by sheer force at the end of a sword is the spread of Islam! This is precisely why the Islamic Jihadists have reason to believe that they can ultimately succeed. Islam has not been quiet for the last four centuries because they became more “moderate,” but because Europe and the West became economically and militarily superior!  There are those in academia and the administration who are desperately trying to redefine one of the central tenets of Islam, “the Jihad.” We are told that this does not mean conquest of the non-Muslim world but merely an introspective conquest on the part of the individual Muslim to overcome his/her bad traits or inclinations. Were that so!!

The Islamists will be stopped not because the masses change their collective minds but because the despots that rule them become convinced they can’t win. This is a very different goal than trying to spread liberalism and democracy to the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world. The former is do-able while the latter is highly unlikely. The Wilsonian crusade by the Bush Administration is making policy makers increasingly out of touch with the reality “on the ground.”

The very fact that the Bush Administration can take the Palestinian elections as a positive sign is ample proof of this. The more militant Hamas seems to be gaining popularity just as Israel prepares for territorial concessions. Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Moslem Brotherhood, Hamas and al-Queda are all experiencing greater prestige as they fight American forces. These groups correctly see that we are trying to change their way of life.

America and the free world’s real interest lie in containing terrorism, not spreading liberal democracy. It is simply not true that the two go together. A policy of aggressive containment with a “Radio Free Middle East” is the most sensible approach. We must guarantee our energy supplies until new sources of energy are found. When push comes to shove, that is our real interest in the region. The best we can hope for is that at some point the grinding poverty caused by corrupt Islamic regimes will collapse of their own weight (ala the Soviet Union). There is some hope that the youth of Iran do not share the maniacal dreams of the mullahs. We must pursue trade embargoes, strategic and highly focused military operations and a sophisticated psychological war if we are to be successful in the long run. We can only hope that hard nosed realists and not utopian dreamers gain control of the strategy apparatus in the Bush White House.
 
Scott Shore is a political commentator and management consultant in Providence, Rhode Island.

Email Scott Shore

Send this Article to a Friend