Asymmetrical Information

This certainly isn't news. The State Department is probably the single most prominent obstacle to the spread of democracy within any administration, conservative or liberal. It's stuffed with appeasers, amoralists, internationalists and realpolitickers who helped civilization survive through the last century by working with less-hostile authoritarians to battle the imminent threats. They didn't much choice before 1991; since the defeat of the Soviets, State has been slow on the uptake. Think about it: society is going to need time to reorient themselves to a post-Cold War situation where dictatorship must be seen less and less as an acceptable solution. Now imagine government shifting its philosophical weight diametrically!

I imagine that more than a decade of assertive democratization as premier American foreign policy would need to occur before State ever "came around" ideologically.

Miller's obviously not to be taken seriously. Eastern Europe - friendly, newborn democracies the United States helped to create - is staring right in his face and he prefers the skeptic theory. File him with State and put him out with the intellectual trash. Or let postwar Iraq do the talking.

I think that one thing which has become apparent in the last year is that the State Department is due for some serious housecleaning.

Now is not the time, but in a year or so, don't be too surprised if the Congress begins some serious investigations into things like how some career State employees eventually retire and are then hired at very high salary as consultants by the very nations they used to be responsible for dealing with. The "appearance of" a quid pro quo in cases like this is blatantly obvious.

State’s skepticism about democracy and its effects are hardly unwarranted. In Islamic states laws come from God, not man, so they are frozen with laws created by Mohammed to help him conquer Arabia. Property rights, popular legislation, separation of church and state, freedom for women, are not compatible with Islam, and because "all innovation is the work of the devil" progress, and institution building, will be slow at best until those nations find a way to secularize, to render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods. Turkey has tried for a hundred years with only moderate success. And when wealth comes out of the ground directly into the hands of whom ever governs in the form of foreign exchange, how do you make governments accountable, and develop a diversified economy? The few innovations and changes Islamic societies have absorbed have been imposed by the west adopted and forced by secular tyrants, or absorbed very gradually from the west over the centuries. And usually reverse in short order. These societies pose a long-term deep dilemma for us. Their birth rates are high, their ability to modernize and feed and cloth those people not compatible with their theocracies, hence hate, resentment, terrorism will probably get worse. Bush et al have undertaken to begin to change these realities. It is a horrendous undertaking to say the least. More representative governments as INR, not to mention Huntington, asserts will more likely lead to islamization, not secularization. Do we, with multiple congressional committees wanting to have a piece, special interests, ideological and partisan bickering, sound bite analysis, have the ability and persistence to bring about what these societies have been unable to do on their own over the last 1400 years? Perhaps, and perhaps it is the best of bad choices, but State’s analysts would not be doing their jobs if they failed to point out that the task is daunting.

"...like how some career State employees eventually retire and are then hired at very high salary as consultants by the very nations they used to be responsible for dealing with."

This may be even more true for those state department officials who were assigned to Saudi Arabia. Their actions after leaving their posts have been outright scandalous. My guess is that both Republican and Democrat appointees have a lot of explaining to do.

"Bush et al have undertaken to begin to change these realities."

We don't have any real choice. A head in the sand approach is not in the least bit helpful. The United States cannot afford to allow the situation to deteriorate further in the Muslim dominated nations. The later we wait--the worse it gets!

fire everyone at the state department (sorry jane if you get hit by this) and never let them have a government job again (or hopefully any job)

a 5 of 10 in government would be a great solution: no one in an unelected job may work for the government (except for defense, coast guard, or police type roles) for more than 5 years in ten, and they must take a break equal to their prior length of service before being rehired (along with giving up all seniority).. get rid of people much faster, and eliminate the seniority that plagues the unionized bureaucracy

Ah , what echoes I hear. The same arguments about the State Department from the 1950's. Dream on people, you will not bring democracy to anyone by putting a Military Governer in charge.
It's a pity that the communist threat went away. It's so hard for right wingers to 'pin the blame' these days.

"Dream on people, you will not bring democracy to anyone by putting a Military Governer in charge."

Actually, I looked up the record and it's striking. When we've sent in forces and changed the regime (e.g., Grenada, Panama) the result *has* been more democracy and prosperity. My next TechCentralStation.com column is about this--should be up Monday or Tuesday.

AK, you forgot Germany, Japan, Italy and France.

I was talking to a state department official who told me that China was the best thing that ever happened to Tibet. I knew that was not true because I have been in Tibet. China still treats Tibet like an occupied country with soldiers everywhere. All I saw in the school yards was Chinese children-no Tibetan children.

Talking with the state department official further, I realized that he thought China could do no wrong. God save America from the State Department.

Dream on people, you will not bring democracy to anyone by putting a Military Governer in charge.

Dead wrong. Douglas MacArthur; Japan, a country that went from militarist delirium to free marketeering and giant-lizard cinema in less than a decade. A robust and stalwart democracy today.

institution building, will be slow at best until those nations find a way to secularize

Secularization is the key, though I don't share the pessimism. Remember, it only took Iran about a generation before Islamism lost its lustre and has empowered the country's youth to incite frequent pro-Westernization riots.

Do we, with multiple congressional committees wanting to have a piece, special interests, ideological and partisan bickering, sound bite analysis, have the ability and persistence to bring about what these societies have been unable to do on their own over the last 1400 years?

Back to Japan: the little island went for about 2200 years with neither culture nor government that recognized individual liberties.

Kicking and screaming, the West is going to need to come to grips with the separability of culture and consensual governance. The human desire for freedom trumps any traditions of parochial oppression; though the record for earnest, protected democratic conversion is tiny - having occurred only in this century - it's consistent.

Ubaldi - couldn't agree more regarding your comments on state.

Jane - with regard to the notion that democracies don't attack each other, keep in mind that France is a so-called "democracy." I'd say at this point in the game, we're pretty much at war with the French. May not be a shooting war, but the glove has most definitely dropped -- and I don't see it getting any better over time. The Atlantic Rift is here to stay.

"Miller seems off base with at least one comment, where he quotes the report saying that democracy in the Middle East could mean democracies hostile to the U.S. I'll take that chance, given the tendency of democracies not to attack each other. "

A democracy hostile to another democracy can and will go to war with it. We haven't seen such an animal since 1865, but new democracies carelessly planted in the middle east might turn out to give us more unwanted examples.

Interesting reasoning, Ken. So the "careless planting" of democracy might possibly, against prior experience, bring about something akin to what is already going on right now?

Well then, I guess there's nothing to be done. We are defeated already!

Not quite. We should make sure that they are going to be friendly (or at least not hostile), secular, and unfriendly to terrorists before we set up democracies. We shouldn't simply assume that "democracies don't go to war with each other" (they do, when conflicting interests dictate); we should make sure their societies have been well and truly reformed before giving them democracies, not counting on democratic mechanisms to do the job for us.

In short, we should avoid repeating the mistakes we made at the end of WWI. We chased out the Kaiser, set up a new democracy, and expected that to solve all our problems; instead we ended up worse off than we would have been if we'd left the Kaiser in place. Reform and democracy are two different things - without reform, all democracy does is give people the chance to vote for the most dangerous tyrant.

All of America's laws, and Europe's, are based originally on Christianity--out of religion, not the state.

Islam is the home of some not particularly repressive regimes. Strictly secularist societies have proven themselves as potentially destructive and murderous and repressive as any theocracy.

Skepticism about democracy in Iraq is warranted. But State's attitude has long been one of fossilized bureaucracy and the status quo. Presidents and Secretaries of State have fought with Foggy Bottom for generations, with the same result. The only way to get what you want out of State is to trample all over them. Nothing new there.

As for the blithering idiot who says you don't get democracies by installing military governors: where do you get these ignorant fools, Megan? Does Mindles set out food for them, or something?

We chased out the Kaiser, set up a new democracy, and expected that to solve all our problems; instead we ended up worse off than we would have been if we'd left the Kaiser in place.

The Weimar Republic is barely an example of democratization, as its creation and operation was carried out by a wildly unstable, disillusioned Germany receiving scant exterior support. The weak republic fell, anchored to debilitating sanctions and unfortified by way of foreign occupation and therefore unprotected from political subversion. Pusches but one and four years afterwards? Imagine 1945 Germany without Marshall; Japan without MacArthur - and neither one with American dollars. They would have faltered just as the Weimar.

Infant democracy is not unlike a fragile plant; untended in its first few seasons, it will most likely whither or be choked by weeds. I'd agree that waving a wand and declaring a country consensually governed is laughable - but democratizations carried out with determination have never failed.

We should make sure that they are going to be friendly (or at least not hostile), secular, and unfriendly to terrorists before we set up democracies.

Relying on benevolent dictatorships until "tomorrow" is exactly what built up the terrorist culture. A nation can only be friendly, secular and abhorrent to terrorists only when it has allowed government to be granted powers through consent of the people.

All of America's laws, and Europe's, are based originally on Christianity--out of religion, not the state.

Islam is the home of some not particularly repressive regimes.

Here's a thought, Dean - one about which most Westerners, including myself, are a bit timid bringing up: will Islam (be forced to) undergo a reformation that will decisively impart power to the lay? I'd argue that Christianity was seized by an absolutist papacy not long after its establishment in Europe; the Crusades were the first demonstration of this rhetorical and legal imperative over monarchs - not a pleasant introduction. Reformation and secular Enlightenment later on helped to finally disperse the power of theocracy in the West.

I wouldn't be surprised if the power of secular governments to be incepted in the Middle East - Iraq and Iran, for example - will undercut the power of fundamentalist Islam and allow for its moderation and subsequent use in common law.

Japan, a positive example in the comment thread above, has a strong constitution based on the constitution of the U.S.

Democracy without the rule of law can indeed be brutal, leading to tyranny of the majority perhaps even as bad as the current regime in Iraq.

In all, though, let's not make Maureen Dowd's mistake today. Bush reminded his team during the Afghanistan war "let's not forget to win the war." She apparently saw this reluctance to move on to the post-victory planning as a weakness or an oversight. I do not.

RE: Tendency of Democracies not to attack one another.

Although historically true the statement has no predictive abilities.

Why haven't democracies attacked each other in recent history? well there weren't a lot of them.

What are the democratic elected countries. Japan was disarmed by the U.S. and very well rewarded for it. Germany until recently had no reason to feel threatened by the U.S since the USSR was its main point of concern. The smaller countries of Europe; who are they going to attack; is Switzerland about to invade Italy.

The world order is not based on democracies. When every nation is a democracy there may exists a greater possibility that economic competition and cultural competition can be resolved peacefully, but just as Americans reason that a strong military is required to back up strong diplomacy, other democracies may reach a similar conclusion.
Then there will be a situation where two well armed democracies face off militarily.

Dean - just a small bone to pick: how do you reason that our laws are based on Christianity?

Dreck,

While I do think that its an overgeneralization to say that Democracies don't attack each other, I do agree with you that we need to win the war in Iraq first.

As an aside I had lunch with a Saudi national today -- and his belief is there's no way Iraq's neighbors will allow a democratic Iraq to exist. He would like to see it but think it will happen. I personally think democracy will happen -- but in a somewhat dilluted form due to pressure from Iran, Turkey, the Kurds, and the "internationalist" crowd that will want to implement IMF and UN control.

It would be good if we’d stop talking about establishing democracies in the Middle East, more accountable governments would be a huge step forward, as would inclusive. But democracies? These require market economies of some sort, secularization of some sort and lots of time. That it took the West 16-17 centuries to become secular in spite of a theology that indorsed secularism makes the point that democratic governments wont spring up in the time we will give ourselves to remain in Iraq. This isn’t an argument for more dillydallying at the UN, but a defense of State’s analysts for doing their job and a wish we’d use different language. Even if the war is short and the post war occupation a howling success, the social democrats will harp on the lack of democracy and continuing elitist government.

John, your point about market economies is well taken - in fact, Steve Forbes's March 17 column supports the notion that democracies succeed when there is a presence of a market economy. In fact, he even goes so far as to suggest that we shouldn't allow the IMF to have any influence at all in the new government. Instead Forbes says we should hand out Hernando de Soto's book as the economic bible for leaders of the new government.

See this link for the full story: http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0317/011.html

The good news is that Iraq already has a well trained and educated middle class as well as enough natural resources to fund economic growth -- not to mention, Saddam's secular regime has not allowed a fundamentalist movement. Lets just hope the Iranian influence is kept to a minimum.

Did we try to democratize Kuwait after we liberated it 12 years ago? If yes, why did we fail, if no why didn't we try? If Kuwait were a thriving democracy the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. What if the Saudis flood the place with their Wahabbi imams and start opening madrassas?

Spot on, Matt, regarding Iraq. Iran, Iran, Iran - I don't know that the Unitd States will need to worry much about Iran having done in Ba'athist Iraq first; Saddam's being snapped in two may be just enough to push the populace into full revolt, overwhelming the terrorist-bankrolling mullahs. And, thankfully, it's another industrialized society that seeks full secularization. If the West can support its departure from Islamism, we'll have the beginnings of two victories before the year is half over.

State Department? Ah, yes, our country's diplomats. As Keith Laumer said, the function of diplomats is to maintain tensions at a state just short of war.
(I used to just think this was funny until I spent some time on active duty with the Marine Corps. There's just too much truth to this.)

Comments are Closed.