Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Let me start by saying, I know there will be lively disagreement with the arguments I am about to present, because our forum is full of posters who oppose US military intervention, whether they are liberal or libertarian, or even some conservatives. I realize this board is not indicative or representative of our populace, we skew noticeably to the dovish here. I have no false hopes of swaying your opinions or convincing you of anything, I just wanted to articulate my viewpoint on this, and see what others have to say. Even if it's snarky disagreement, I enjoy reading what others bring to the table, and I can refrain from personal insults and adhoms, if you can.
I want to present for you today, the tale of two nations, and contrast them with the foreign policy approaches taken in both instances, compared to the outcome and results of those policies. The countries: Iraq and Libya.
In both cases, the countries were controlled by authoritarian rulers, Hussein and Qadaffi, who used brutal means to keep the lowly population in check. We weren't on friendly terms with either dictator, but for years we tolerated their totalitarian regimes in the name of "peace" and staying out of their business. In both cases, the tyrant egomaniacs couldn't resist building up military power, threatening neighboring countries, and disrupting American interests in the region, most notably, our interests in Saudi Arabia. However, the presence of their regimes served as an insulator from radical Islamic terrorism, and we accepted that maybe this was in our better interest, to leave them be. Of course, in the late 80s, Libya's continued support of Communism and aggressive actions, including invasion of Chad and bombing a disco in Germany, prompted Reagan to bomb them, as Bush I would later bomb Iraq for their invasion of Kuwait. We see a very similar dynamic unfolding with regard to both regimes, and we see a very similar response from our state department. Both were a menace, but one we felt could be contained without actually putting boots on the ground. We attempted diplomatic efforts, sent them money, tried to negotiate a peaceful solution, but both tyrants continued to push our buttons and make trouble in the region.
In the late 90s, our Congress adopted a policy regarding Iraq under President Clinton, known as the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which called for the removal of Saddam Hussein and installation of democratic style government. Many people confuse this today with the Bush Doctrine, but it was actually a policy we developed way ahead of the Bush years. In 2001, Bush II made the decision to go into Iraq and liberate the country from Hussein, then help the people establish a functioning democratic style government, pursuant to the 1998 ILA policy. People on the left, as well as many dovish libertarians, objected and screamed about this, protested that we were messing up, this wasn't the right thing to do, we should have never taken this on, it would end badly for us. But Bush pressed on and followed the policy of installing democracy, forging what became known as the Bush Doctrine.
In spite of the critics, we were able to establish the foundation of democracy there, for the first time in world history, the Arab world realized a democracy. There have been bumps in the road, several unexpected pitfalls, a myriad of problems that needed solving, but in the end, the country has been able to transform and adapt, and we see Iraq now able to stand on its own two feet and start to flourish under democracy. The people are more free than they have ever been, they elect their government, adopt constitutional laws, and things have settled down with regard to insurgent fighting. Yes, it took a monumental and costly military effort on our part to make it happen, but the results are a somewhat peaceful nation who can sort out their differences democratically, much the same way we function here in the US. The Plan, for all intents and purposes, worked. We didn't have chaos and civil war, as predicted by the nay-sayers.
With Libya, we've taken a completely different tack. You could say, we've taken the policy approach in Libya that the nay-sayers wanted us to take in Iraq. Leave them alone and let them sort their own situation. Let the people rise up and do their own fighting, support the insurgents, but let's stay out of their affairs as much as possible and not interfere with our military. We see this hands-off approach has resulted in tremendous violence, and radical Islam moving in to fill the power void in the vacuum of Qadaffi's removal. All the things the proponents of the policies implemented in Iraq, warned would happen if we didn't go in and help the people establish democratic government. Even the most ardent liberal and libertarian can see, Libya is in a total mess.
We can see a stark contrast in our policy differences, Iraq has begun to rebuild and prosper again, rejoining the civilized world and enjoying the benefits of western-style democratic government. While in Libya, the country continues to devolve into chaos and anarchy. We have no plan for Libya, the same detractors are still screaming that we don't need to be involved there, we need to get the hell out and let them be, but the country continues to spiral out of control, and on September 11, radical Islam attacked our US Consulate and killed four Americans, including an Ambassador. Things are not getting better in Libya, they are getting worse by the day. What we see happening in Libya is the result of following the policies of the nay-sayers in Iraq, the policies of those who opposed our intervention and have continued to blast Bush relentlessly as being "wrong" for what he did. Two countries, two opposite policy approaches, two starkly different results.
To me, Libya serves as an example of why our policy in Iraq was the right thing to do, and the policies advocated by those who opposed our involvement in Iraq, was the absolute wrong thing to do. It's a shining example of why it's important to help the people establish peaceful democracy as opposed to allowing them to figure it all out on their own. When we go in and ensure stability, and help the people set up a western-style democratic government, ensure that the citizens have a voice and can fairly vote and hold elections, the power of democracy takes hold, and although there might be some pitfalls and problems along the way, they eventually taper off and the people are able to function in civilized society. Contrast this with the policy of letting them do it all on their own, and we find they simply don't understand how to get there on their own. They have no concept of what to do to get there. Various regimes and factions simply fight for control of authoritarian power, and people continue to die in the wake of violence, until another tyrant is installed as ruler, and then starts to threaten peace in the region again. It's a cycle that hasn't been broken for thousands of years, with the exception of Iraq, where the people have now tasted freedom and democracy, and have generated a positive result because of it.
This isn't about going in and bullying people or telling them how to live, it's about showing them how to function as a civilized peaceful democracy, and once that work is done, the rest takes care of itself. It is a difficult thing to do, but not impossible. It does cost us lives and money to do, but the results speak for themselves. We can bite the bullet and pay the price to instill these values for future generations, or we can turn our backs and ignore the situation and realize more violence and death, more tyrannical out-of-control regimes and dictators, and a continuation of instability in the region. Never before, have we had such perfect side-by-side examples of the two policy approaches to compare. One works, and one fails.
I want to present for you today, the tale of two nations, and contrast them with the foreign policy approaches taken in both instances, compared to the outcome and results of those policies. The countries: Iraq and Libya.
In both cases, the countries were controlled by authoritarian rulers, Hussein and Qadaffi, who used brutal means to keep the lowly population in check. We weren't on friendly terms with either dictator, but for years we tolerated their totalitarian regimes in the name of "peace" and staying out of their business. In both cases, the tyrant egomaniacs couldn't resist building up military power, threatening neighboring countries, and disrupting American interests in the region, most notably, our interests in Saudi Arabia. However, the presence of their regimes served as an insulator from radical Islamic terrorism, and we accepted that maybe this was in our better interest, to leave them be. Of course, in the late 80s, Libya's continued support of Communism and aggressive actions, including invasion of Chad and bombing a disco in Germany, prompted Reagan to bomb them, as Bush I would later bomb Iraq for their invasion of Kuwait. We see a very similar dynamic unfolding with regard to both regimes, and we see a very similar response from our state department. Both were a menace, but one we felt could be contained without actually putting boots on the ground. We attempted diplomatic efforts, sent them money, tried to negotiate a peaceful solution, but both tyrants continued to push our buttons and make trouble in the region.
In the late 90s, our Congress adopted a policy regarding Iraq under President Clinton, known as the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which called for the removal of Saddam Hussein and installation of democratic style government. Many people confuse this today with the Bush Doctrine, but it was actually a policy we developed way ahead of the Bush years. In 2001, Bush II made the decision to go into Iraq and liberate the country from Hussein, then help the people establish a functioning democratic style government, pursuant to the 1998 ILA policy. People on the left, as well as many dovish libertarians, objected and screamed about this, protested that we were messing up, this wasn't the right thing to do, we should have never taken this on, it would end badly for us. But Bush pressed on and followed the policy of installing democracy, forging what became known as the Bush Doctrine.
In spite of the critics, we were able to establish the foundation of democracy there, for the first time in world history, the Arab world realized a democracy. There have been bumps in the road, several unexpected pitfalls, a myriad of problems that needed solving, but in the end, the country has been able to transform and adapt, and we see Iraq now able to stand on its own two feet and start to flourish under democracy. The people are more free than they have ever been, they elect their government, adopt constitutional laws, and things have settled down with regard to insurgent fighting. Yes, it took a monumental and costly military effort on our part to make it happen, but the results are a somewhat peaceful nation who can sort out their differences democratically, much the same way we function here in the US. The Plan, for all intents and purposes, worked. We didn't have chaos and civil war, as predicted by the nay-sayers.
With Libya, we've taken a completely different tack. You could say, we've taken the policy approach in Libya that the nay-sayers wanted us to take in Iraq. Leave them alone and let them sort their own situation. Let the people rise up and do their own fighting, support the insurgents, but let's stay out of their affairs as much as possible and not interfere with our military. We see this hands-off approach has resulted in tremendous violence, and radical Islam moving in to fill the power void in the vacuum of Qadaffi's removal. All the things the proponents of the policies implemented in Iraq, warned would happen if we didn't go in and help the people establish democratic government. Even the most ardent liberal and libertarian can see, Libya is in a total mess.
We can see a stark contrast in our policy differences, Iraq has begun to rebuild and prosper again, rejoining the civilized world and enjoying the benefits of western-style democratic government. While in Libya, the country continues to devolve into chaos and anarchy. We have no plan for Libya, the same detractors are still screaming that we don't need to be involved there, we need to get the hell out and let them be, but the country continues to spiral out of control, and on September 11, radical Islam attacked our US Consulate and killed four Americans, including an Ambassador. Things are not getting better in Libya, they are getting worse by the day. What we see happening in Libya is the result of following the policies of the nay-sayers in Iraq, the policies of those who opposed our intervention and have continued to blast Bush relentlessly as being "wrong" for what he did. Two countries, two opposite policy approaches, two starkly different results.
To me, Libya serves as an example of why our policy in Iraq was the right thing to do, and the policies advocated by those who opposed our involvement in Iraq, was the absolute wrong thing to do. It's a shining example of why it's important to help the people establish peaceful democracy as opposed to allowing them to figure it all out on their own. When we go in and ensure stability, and help the people set up a western-style democratic government, ensure that the citizens have a voice and can fairly vote and hold elections, the power of democracy takes hold, and although there might be some pitfalls and problems along the way, they eventually taper off and the people are able to function in civilized society. Contrast this with the policy of letting them do it all on their own, and we find they simply don't understand how to get there on their own. They have no concept of what to do to get there. Various regimes and factions simply fight for control of authoritarian power, and people continue to die in the wake of violence, until another tyrant is installed as ruler, and then starts to threaten peace in the region again. It's a cycle that hasn't been broken for thousands of years, with the exception of Iraq, where the people have now tasted freedom and democracy, and have generated a positive result because of it.
This isn't about going in and bullying people or telling them how to live, it's about showing them how to function as a civilized peaceful democracy, and once that work is done, the rest takes care of itself. It is a difficult thing to do, but not impossible. It does cost us lives and money to do, but the results speak for themselves. We can bite the bullet and pay the price to instill these values for future generations, or we can turn our backs and ignore the situation and realize more violence and death, more tyrannical out-of-control regimes and dictators, and a continuation of instability in the region. Never before, have we had such perfect side-by-side examples of the two policy approaches to compare. One works, and one fails.
Last edited:
