Jun 24, 2005
The Bush Doctrine Under Scrutiny
On June 17, a story in the Wall Street Journal noted that during May there were 148 car bombs and more than 750 civilian deaths in Iraq. On June 19, 45 people were killed. A senior American official said that he and others have warned Iraqi leaders that they must deal with the issue of sectarian violence “before it spins out of control.”
At the heart of much of the bloodshed is the struggle between Sunni Muslims, who make up about 18% of Iraq’s population, and Shiites, who comprise about 65%. These two branches of Islam divided over a leadership squabble in the ninth century and remain hostile to one another. The Sunnis ran the country under Saddam Hussein, and they persecuted the Shiites in the south and the ethnic Kurds in the north, who make up about 15% of the nation’s population. Shiites and Kurds dominate the government at the present time when the United States is helping the country to establish a democracy.
The Bush Doctrine holds that all people have the natural desire and right to be free and live in a democracy. It goes on to assert that it is America’s duty to help others realize their destiny. These are noble principles, but do they contain a serious flaw? Numerous critics have wondered if there is a difference between the natural right to be free and the capacity to be free. Are the Muslim people of the Middle East capable of freedom and democracy? The Bush Administration and the formidable scholar Bernard Lewis believe so. Other experts and critics of our war on terror are not so sure.
One of the very best examinations of this issue is by Charles R. Kesler, editor of the Claremont Review of Books. In his article “Democracy and the Bush Doctrine,” in the Winter 2004 issue, Kesler analyzes both sides of the discussion, revealing a breadth of reading and a depth of thought that is truly impressive. Here is a brief summary of the article, which I hope you will read for yourself.
1. America’s Founding Fathers taught that every human being has a natural right to be free. But most of our Founders were cautious and did not expect republican government to spread easily among the various peoples of the world. They recognized that certain habits of the heart and mind were necessary preconditions. In short, thinkers like Madison and Hamilton distinguished between the right and the capacity to be free.
2. We were able to transform Nazi and imperial Japanese institutions into democracy, but the effort was considerable and sheds little light on what can be done today in the Middle East. “Germany and Japan were exceptional, first, because the U.S. and its allies had beaten them into complete submission. Then we occupied them for decades—not merely for months or years, but for the better part of a half-century. And both were civilizations that had the advantage of having enjoyed beforehand a high standard of living, widespread literacy, and considerable political openness. Besides, America was reorganizing them at the beginning of the Cold War, when circumstances compelled them, as it were, to choose between the West, with its democratic institutions, and the East, with its bleak tyranny.”
3. It was extraordinarily difficult to establish freedom and unity in our own country. Some inevitable force in history did not end slavery and discrimination, as President Bush has implied, but the bloodshed of our own Civil War and decades of painful turmoil by the civil rights movement.
4. James Q. Wilson’s look at the relation between Islam and freedom points to Turkey, Indonesia, and Morocco as reasonably liberal Muslim states. (Only Morocco of the three is both Muslim and Arab.) What these areas have in common is a powerful leader who can separate religion and politics, an army that has stood for secular rule, the absence of a significant ethnic minority demanding independence, and peace between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Kesler observes correctly that Iraq shares none of these advantages.
5. Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are to be applauded, of course. But democracy is more than elections. “Democracy requires that majorities restrain themselves and practice sometimes disagreeable tasks out of respect for law and for their fellow citizens. These tasks, in turn, require a willingness to trust one’s fellow citizens that comes hard to tribal societies, whose members are not used to trusting anyone who is not at least a cousin.”
Let us continue the debate on the Bush Doctrine, not underestimating the issues of terrorism throughout the world and the importance of the Middle East’s energy supplies to our own economic prosperity. And let the discussion be as free as possible from the blather of our own partisan politics.
At the heart of much of the bloodshed is the struggle between Sunni Muslims, who make up about 18% of Iraq’s population, and Shiites, who comprise about 65%. These two branches of Islam divided over a leadership squabble in the ninth century and remain hostile to one another. The Sunnis ran the country under Saddam Hussein, and they persecuted the Shiites in the south and the ethnic Kurds in the north, who make up about 15% of the nation’s population. Shiites and Kurds dominate the government at the present time when the United States is helping the country to establish a democracy.
The Bush Doctrine holds that all people have the natural desire and right to be free and live in a democracy. It goes on to assert that it is America’s duty to help others realize their destiny. These are noble principles, but do they contain a serious flaw? Numerous critics have wondered if there is a difference between the natural right to be free and the capacity to be free. Are the Muslim people of the Middle East capable of freedom and democracy? The Bush Administration and the formidable scholar Bernard Lewis believe so. Other experts and critics of our war on terror are not so sure.
One of the very best examinations of this issue is by Charles R. Kesler, editor of the Claremont Review of Books. In his article “Democracy and the Bush Doctrine,” in the Winter 2004 issue, Kesler analyzes both sides of the discussion, revealing a breadth of reading and a depth of thought that is truly impressive. Here is a brief summary of the article, which I hope you will read for yourself.
1. America’s Founding Fathers taught that every human being has a natural right to be free. But most of our Founders were cautious and did not expect republican government to spread easily among the various peoples of the world. They recognized that certain habits of the heart and mind were necessary preconditions. In short, thinkers like Madison and Hamilton distinguished between the right and the capacity to be free.
2. We were able to transform Nazi and imperial Japanese institutions into democracy, but the effort was considerable and sheds little light on what can be done today in the Middle East. “Germany and Japan were exceptional, first, because the U.S. and its allies had beaten them into complete submission. Then we occupied them for decades—not merely for months or years, but for the better part of a half-century. And both were civilizations that had the advantage of having enjoyed beforehand a high standard of living, widespread literacy, and considerable political openness. Besides, America was reorganizing them at the beginning of the Cold War, when circumstances compelled them, as it were, to choose between the West, with its democratic institutions, and the East, with its bleak tyranny.”
3. It was extraordinarily difficult to establish freedom and unity in our own country. Some inevitable force in history did not end slavery and discrimination, as President Bush has implied, but the bloodshed of our own Civil War and decades of painful turmoil by the civil rights movement.
4. James Q. Wilson’s look at the relation between Islam and freedom points to Turkey, Indonesia, and Morocco as reasonably liberal Muslim states. (Only Morocco of the three is both Muslim and Arab.) What these areas have in common is a powerful leader who can separate religion and politics, an army that has stood for secular rule, the absence of a significant ethnic minority demanding independence, and peace between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Kesler observes correctly that Iraq shares none of these advantages.
5. Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are to be applauded, of course. But democracy is more than elections. “Democracy requires that majorities restrain themselves and practice sometimes disagreeable tasks out of respect for law and for their fellow citizens. These tasks, in turn, require a willingness to trust one’s fellow citizens that comes hard to tribal societies, whose members are not used to trusting anyone who is not at least a cousin.”
Let us continue the debate on the Bush Doctrine, not underestimating the issues of terrorism throughout the world and the importance of the Middle East’s energy supplies to our own economic prosperity. And let the discussion be as free as possible from the blather of our own partisan politics.