Matt Yglesias quotes a pithy remark from Shibley Telhami: “We say we want democracy….I think our political elite wants democracy. I think even our leaders want democracy. But they want a lot of other things even more, and that’s the problem that we have in Iraq.”
It’s a good quote, but Yglesias’ gloss is even better and worth posting here at length:
A democratic Iraq (or a democratic Egypt, for that matter) might play host to long-term American military bases, or play a constructive role in the Israeli/Arab conflict, or support American policy vis-Ã -vis Syria and Iran, or crack down on radical domestic Islamist groups, or do any of the various things that we would like to see. But then again, it might not do any of those things, and it probably won’t do all of them. Traditionally, America has always preferred to see regimes in place that more-or-less do what we want (democratic Arab states wouldn’t have cooperated with the invasion of Iraq, after all) rather than regimes that more-or-less do what their populations want. Is that something we should change? I think so, and a lot of other people (the president included) say they think so. But they don’t seem to be thinking realistically about the costs of a policy like that.
There’s certainly nothing wrong with being stuck in pursuing two goals at the same time. But since the architects of the Iraq war have not sold it as a geopolitical struggle but (quite sincerely, I think) a clash of civilizations against tyranny and anti-democratic forces, they need to be honest about the real clash between their two goals.
No comments have been added to this post yet.