Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible' (Los Angeles Times, March 14, 2003, registration required): A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document. The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq. The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.
You know, I was wondering what State thought of Bush's "domino" theory of democracy. It's not a remotely logical theory in its own right, and it's especially silly to try to apply it to the Middle East, where democracy tends to result in Islamist governments, at least in the short haul. And as this Monitor article notes, most of the current Middle Eastern regimes aren't particularly interested in increasing democracy in their countries. Autocrats generally aren't. (Purely a side note: the Monitor also calls Russia a "largely successful democracy", which makes one wonder what the criteria for "successful" would be.)
Even in Iraq, once the occupation is over, the democratic process is quite likely to result in an anti-American government. After all, they hate our government nearly as much as they hate Iran. Ten years of bombing and (so it is alleged) using depleted uranium weapons will produce that sort of reaction, unsurprisingly.
From the LA Times article: State Department officials declined to comment on the report. Intelligence officials said the report does not necessarily reflect the views of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell or other senior State Department officials.
Well, if it doesn't reflect the views of Powell or senior State Department officials, whose view is it? And why on earth wouldn't it reflect their views? After all, one would hope they're not stupid, and would recognize the various obstacles present in this sort of mission.
By some estimates, 65 million adults in the Middle East can't read or write, and 14 million are unemployed, with an exploding, poorly educated youth population. Given such trends, "we'll be lucky to have strong central governments [in the Middle East], let alone democracy," said one intelligence official with extensive experience in the region. The official stressed that no one in intelligence or diplomatic circles opposes the idea of trying to install a democratic government in Iraq. "It couldn't hurt," the official said. "But to sell [the war] on the basis that this is going to cause 1,000 flowers to bloom is naive."
Or, you know, entirely disingenuous. And I would not now accuse the administration of being particularly naive about that region.
Some officials said the classified document reflects views that are widely held in the State Department and CIA but that those holding such views have been muzzled in an administration eager to downplay the costs and risks of war.
How very surprising.
Posted by iain at March 14, 2003 12:42 PM
