Global Democracy?

It was Condoleeza and Brent Scrowcroft, two Secretary of States in the last fifteen years. Condoleeza addressed her mentor telling him that the Bush Administration is going to democratize Iraq. "How on earth" could be the only response from the realist foreign policy expert.


But is a fact. Post 9/11, Bush and his entire bunch running America believes America is the "last great hope" for democracy. By hook or crook, democracy must be forged in dark lands. Arabs, Russians, Chinese, Africans, etc...must realize democracy as their hope. Thus, the President tried and true heralds this message across the globe.


Trusted advisor, Jean Kirkpatrick, believed that "democracy makes America safer." Add heavy intellectual hitters such as Bill Krystol, Charles Krauthammer, William Buckley, Bill Bennet, etc...who have for years advocated using American force to create global democratic change. Its a type of new domino theory. One democratic nation begets another and so on. And people around the globe will line the streets, cheer democracy, kiss their leaders, and hope for a better future.


To the credit of neoconservatives, successful interventions for democracy have occurred. Just the fall of the Soviet Union and the breakaways Baltic states created colossal momentum toward democracy globally. East Germany reunited, Checklosovakia, Poland, and Hungary stampeded toward democratic rule of law nearly immediately upon the Soviet Fall.


With nostalgic memories of Japan, West Germany, Singapore, and Taiwan, neoconservatives have their crown jewels of democratic institutions they can parade before Europe and the United Nations. Fledgling states turned into economic powerhouses in short time is what the Bush administration sees. And they are correct, for sure.


But President didn't enter the White House intent on unleashing pre-emptive strikes across the globe. Nation-building was foreign to his thoughts. It was 9/11 that tore President Bush from his moorings. And why shouldn't the "Pearl Harbor" event of our generation not refocus our President? It should. And President Bush broke from traditional conservatives because of 9/11.


Truman and Dulles' containment policy was of no use with turbin wearing wackos intent on blowing themselves up along with their enemies. Nixon and Carter's detente didn't fit the moment. Reagan's legacy of "peace through strength" wasn't enough. Taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan was the easy call, which even Lemond supported stating, "Today We are All Americans."


Saddam Hussein's Iraq, WMD's, torture, oppression, dictatorship, and previous war became the focal point of neoconservatives. If we can't take down the baddest guy in the Middle East, then our tanks, soldiers, technology, etc...are useless. Carter might give away the Panama Canal. But Bush #43 had hopes for the world. Hussein was first in line.

The President Bush demanded freedom across the globe. So the Palestianians held elections...we got Hamas. Lebanon held national elections...we got Hezbollah. Mubarak's Egypt held elections and then shut them down as the Muslim Brotherhood was rolling up impressive victories. Russians voted. We got Vladamir Putin, former KGB guy. Iranians vote. They give us Ahmadinejad. Venezuelans vote. We get Chavez. Evo Morales is no friend in Bolivia either amongst others across the globe.

Are these the kind of leaders we are to expect when the indiginous people excercise their right to vote?

Thomas Jefferson retracted his failed belief that France was prepared for rule by the people. Bloodshed revolution destroyed even Jefferson's faith that all people are ready for the responsibility and privlege of voting.

FDR was reputed to have stated, "He's a bad guy...but he's our bad guy!"

Secretary Kissinger would drink a toast to such policy making. He backed Nixon's plan to oust Alliende of Chile, the democratically socialist leader and replace him with Pinochet, the feared dictator.

So are bad guys are always bad for America? President Reagan armed Hussein to the hilt to stalemate the Ayatollahs of Iran fighting the Baathist's of Iraq. And do democracies in the hands of certain nations always produce safety for Americans?

Yet, the dye is cast in American politics since President Wilson assumed office. Wilson in 1916 called WWI "A war to end all wars". So he sent 250,000 courageous American GIs to die in a voluntary war. President Kennedy chimed, "America will pay any cost and bear any burden...". This ignited Vietnam. President Johnson stated, "We must end poverty, ignorance, and hunger around the globe..." This gave us 54,000 dead in Vietnam.

If we have no enemy, we have to invent one. What good is Superman if there is no Gotham City to protect from bad guys.

Thus, President Bush #43 stated, "Western civilization hangs in the balance...if terrorism is not defeated...Americans will never be safe until the terrorist enemies are defeated".

Is this really true? Or just a bit of hype to win over the masses?

More lines...more balony...more lines to come.