The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
Posts: 9,270
Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23
|
 |
« on: March 16, 2005, 04:24:33 AM » |
|
The reality of the elections in iraq and Afghanistan is far more powerful than the prospect of elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. What I mean by that is that simply concieving what such a thing will be like in your mind will always be less impressive than what it actually is once you see it. The impact of actually seeing it has stirred something in the Islamic world that the prospect of seeing it never could.
The Iraq and Afghanistan elections were an obvious result of neoconservative iddeology, so obvious that I don't think its even going to be a point of contention.
The Palestinian elections were also a direct outcome. Neocons demanded the marginalization of Arafat. We got it. We created the circumstances in whihc the death of Arafat would lead to a more peacable Palestinian leadership. We created Abbas by demanding a new negotiating partner. Abbas took over because he was the second most prominent Palestinian leader, and this is because of us. The demand for democracy was the main cause of the election Abbas decided to hold.
US pressure on Syria to leave Lebanon is significant, and coupled with the reality of America's commitment to elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine (And soon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt) emboldened a Lebanese people who wanted something for a long time now. Wanting it isn't enough, though. Therre has to be an aura of attainability, and this was the needed ingredient we provided. I don't want to, and I don't think most neocons, would contend that democracy is brought by American force and cannot exist without American force. The whole point is that this is what thy want anyway, and its our obligation to help them get it, within reason. Demonstrating that Lebanese wanted democracy anyway doesn't refute neocons ideology, it confirms it. Political freedom is a nearly universal desire, this is the central tenet of neoconservatism.
|
