Why is this the first time I've seen
this argued in print all year?
Is Middle East Democracy the Cure for Islamist Terrorism? No.
This view is rooted in a simplistic assumption: Stagnant, repressive Arab regimes create positive conditions for the growth of radical Islamist groups, which turn their sights on the United States because it embodies the liberal sociopolitical values that radical Islamists oppose. More democracy, therefore, equals less extremism.
History tells a different story. Modern militant Islam developed with the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1920s, during the most democratic period in that country’s history. Radical political Islam gains followers not only among repressed Saudis but also among some Muslims in Western democracies, especially in Europe. The emergence of radical Islamist groups determined to wreak violence on the United States is thus not only the consequence of Arab autocracy. It is a complex phenomenon with diverse roots, which include U.S. sponsorship of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s (which only empowered Islamist militants); the Saudi government’s promotion of radical Islamic educational programs worldwide; and anger at various U.S. policies, such as the country’s stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the basing of military forces in the region.
Moreover, democracy is not a cure-all for terrorism. Like it or not, the most successful efforts to control radical Islamist political groups have been antidemocratic, repressive campaigns, such as those waged in Tunisia, Egypt, and Algeria in the 1990s. The notion that Arab governments would necessarily be more effective in fighting extremists is wishful thinking, no matter how valuable democratization might be for other reasons.
The experience of countries in different regions makes clear that terrorist groups can operate for sustained periods even in successful democracies, whether it is the Irish Republican Army in Britain or the ETA (Basque separatists) in Spain. The ETA gained strength during the first two decades of Spain’s democratization process, flourishing more than it had under the dictatorship of Gen. Francisco Franco. In fragile democratic states—as new Arab democracies would likely be for years—radical groups committed to violence can do even more harm, often for long periods, as evidenced by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, or the Maoist rebels in Nepal.
Marina Ottawayis a senior associate at the Democracy and Rule of Law Project of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Thomas Carothers is the author of Aiding Democracy Abroad (Washington: Carnegie Endowment, 1999) and a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment.
This is the fundamental critique of the Bush doctrine and it is one that the Democrats ultimately must make.
It's clear that terrorism will always be a problem to the US as long as our interests conflict with those of terrorist groups, whether Iraq becomes a democracy or not. For the good of the country, it needs to be made as soon as possible.
The concept of a domino effect of democracies starting with Iraq was an absurd pipedream, and rather than ending terrorism, it has simply opened us up having our troops attacked on a daily basis and further antagonized the Arab world. Rather than meeting the challenge posed by terrorism, we have not just wasted time, but also made things worse for ourselves.
In order to win back the security issue from the Republicans, and for the good of the country, the Democrats must find a way to package this issue in a way that they can't be outmaneuvered.
I've been racking my brains trying to figure out a way the Kerry people could have made this critique. Maybe they didn't have the time. Or maybe because the Democrats had been so worthless as an opposition party since losing the Senate, they never found an opening.
Which made Kerry, ever in character, cautious of attempting to undermine such a fundamental element of the public discourse. No one, up till now, seems to have even bothered to confront this huge leap in logic by the neo-Conservative National Security establishment.
If nothing else, this is one critique that someone in the Democratic Party needs to start making ASAP. I've spent some time trying to imagine how Iraq will play out if it does anything but descend into total chaos, and I have a hard time not seeing the Republicans winning over it.
As I see it, critiquing this last, basic rationale for the Iraq War--that establishing Democracy in the Middle East will eliminate terrorism—is absolutely essential to stopping the Republicans from gaining this undeserved credibility from Iraq.
MoralQuestionsBlog.com