Centerfield

Since to my knowledge, Bush still has yet to veto a spending bill, I think he's more than willing to spend money on any and every thing, including the military.

That said, it does seem that we could be doing more to further political discourse in the Middle East. This administration has been good at wielding the stick, but they need to work on the carrot to get the full benefit of our efforts.

I agree that this is a serious concern going forward if we wish to confront islamic fundamentalist terrorism. To the extent that the Bush admin has failed to recogize how crucial a coordinated PR effort is to its stated goal of democratization, it deserves to be criticized. It's my sense that this failing is very common to most admins when there's on-the-ground strife, as in Iraq.

It's probably more productive to discuss the matter in a context other than one in which the Bush admin's committment and understanding are questioned, given both limited resources and seriously pressing matters of security. I'm not asking that the Bush admin be let off the hook if they are failing so much as I'm suggesting that we avoid making this issue central to a discussion of how to win hearts and minds.

In doing so, perhaps we can avoid the common rut that constant food fights between Matt and Carla epitomize so often. Since productive approaches and resources to fund them must be found regardless of who wins in November, a better focus is on good ideas and bad ideas than on the minutaie of Bush's supposed failings and how Kerry might allegedly fix them. It's getting to the point that a large part of me really doesn't care who wins in November because the problems America faces will be the same regardless.

It seems like such a shame to me that for partisan democrats, Bush feels like the biggest problem and that is Kerry should win, partisan Republicans will feel that John Kerry has immediately become the greatest obstacle to America facing and solving the problems on its plate. Regardless of the elections outcome, a solid 30-45 of the people will feel more compelled to oppose our leader on principle rather than to work with the hand that has been dealt to move us forward.

I think this issue is a red flag, but not much more than that. Do Muslim feelings toward the United State have anything to do with their willingness to be a Democracy? Are these programs effective in anyway for changing the hearts and minds of the Muslim world? Is this a responsibility that should be undertaken by the United States or the UN? Is this an appropriate time for such an effort, or are there more pressing needs?

I also think there is a dirty little secret here. Is the goal REALLY Democracy and does it need to be? If a monarchy works in Jordan and Saudi Arabia and they are our allies, than why would it not work in Iraq? I would sure prefer the monarchy that existed in Iran compared to what we have now. If our goal IS a Democracy, does it have to be a democracy in the American image, or is that even possible? Is there a middle ground?

I appreciate the point, Brian, but I think it is fair to say this is a reason that one could argue the Bush administration is failing... What I don't think is fair is that one argues that this is an area where Bush is failing, doesn't explain exactly why it is failure, and then proposes either no alternative plan, or a plan of spending more money without providing any context of what spending more money will do as far as results.

I think Condi's comments where probably dead on... This is an issue, they are looking into it, and are deciding what should be done in the future. If anyone has a problem with that they should actually propose what to do differently, and explain why that proposal will actually work.

If you read the article, it doesn't say any money has been cut or redirected. It just mentions that people hold the opinion that we could be doing more.

That said, I agree with that sentiment. I'd like to see more American civilian involvement in the War on Terrorism as well. I think Bush should be creating a Peace Corps type program directed to helping Palestinians and other Middle Eastern groups who need help. A little PR can go a long way. Plus, having ordinary Americans involved will continually remind us about what's at stake, so we don't start bickering about petty issues.

Matt, I guess all I'm really tring to say is that the issue of trying to wins hearts and minds is of interest and importance, so let's talk about that.

I know it's an election year, but must every thread devolve into some form of "the current state of affairs on this issue just goes to show why we should elect [Bush or Kerry]." this inevitably leads us to our opinions about what has already happened through the lens of our feelings about Bush and Kerry instead of more directly throguhthe lens of our desire to defeat fundamentalist terrorists.

Had it been up to me, asserting iron-fisted control over Iraq's tv and radio airwaves would have been near the top of the list. By now, Iraqis would be very familiar with every verse of the Koran and the writings of every islamic theologian that could possibly construed to support peace, the honor and dignity of the individual, and service to a great common good. And every verse about deceit and treachery would be linked with Bin Laden, Al Quaeda, the insurgents, and so on. Lasting victory will not be achieved by the edge of the sword.

Well, the fact of the matter is, you cannot effectively and permanently "solve" Middle Eastern issues without making serious gains in coming to a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Anything else is treating the symptoms without curing the disease.

America has lost credibility as a moderator in the peace process because we are always percieved to be in bed with Israel. That is going to poison any other efforts we make in the region as a whole. I just think that you can't be serious about democracy in the Middle East unless you are also dead serious about solving the Arab/Israeli issue in an equitable way.

Mathew,

It was the Administration that claimed its goal was democratization. Neoconservatives have, correctly I believe, stated that the states in the region need to move toward democracy. You might be right that a monarchy might be more appropriate in some situations, but that is not what the Administration claimed this war is about.

Personally, I think we need to stop thinking that there is a "one size fits all" approach to the region. Clearly, one problem is the lack of political outlets for people in these states, but that doesn't mean they necessarily need western-style institutions. But what is necessarily is a push to allow people in the region to work toward their own vision of representative government. There is a lot of good democratization work going on around the world (there is a Journal of Democracy) that involves working with locals to set up appropriate institutions. It seems to me that this is what we should be doing--of course that will involve taking on some of these governments that are ostensibly our allies.

OK, as short a summary of what's what and who's who in Middle East goverments as I can write....

Being "serious about democratization" doesn't mean having to bulldoze it through the entire Middle East, all at once. And what we've done in the last two years has hardly been "cheap." But it has been primarily military in that span, yes, with the scope of the military involvement tending to overshadow other trends.

The best force for democratization in the current situation is functioning democracies. Not in our image, but as formed by the people in those nations themselves. Our own democracy is unique. Most democracies follow somewhat different forms, most notably parliamentary democracy. At the moment there are exactly two functioning democracies in the region, Israel and Egypt. We hope to add two more, Iraq and Afghanistan. But I can't think of ANY democracy that was born overnight, or without extensive turmoil.

Democratization in the Middle East is actually ongoing and present, farther along than most think, and is continually evolving. The usual form is the establishment of constitutional monarchy (as compared to absolute monarchy) with a slow shift of power from the monarch to the parliament/legislature. If you think this doesn't sound like American democracy, you're right. So what? It works for Great Britain. The breakdown in the Middle East usually comes when a nation attempts to move directly from absolute monarchy to full democracy (usually via violent revolution) and devolves into a one-party-rule state, the "tyranny of the majority" being quickly followed by "democratic despotism" with sham elections and one-man rule (Saddam's Iraq). The names change, the titles change, but it's still an effective monarchy. The other pattern is the "church rule" democracy (Iran) where power is nominally in the legislature but actually resides in the clergy.

Those nations most at risk of violent transitions into brutal pseudo-democracies are (naturally) the absolute monarchies. In the Middle East, these are Oman and Saudi Arabia. The constitutional monarchies suffer from terrorism and opposition, but are relatively stable. These (with date of tranisiton from absolute to constitutional monarchy shown) are Bahrain (2001), Jordan (1952), Kuwait (1962), Morocco (independent 1956, latest constitution 1992), Qatar (1999), and the United Arab Emirates (1971).

Struggling psuedo-democracies are Algeria, Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen. Non-monarchy despotisms are Libya and Syria. Iraq is "in transition." Some might dispute my inclusion of Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen as democracies, but they (nominally) are. Iran is engaged in an ongoing internal struggle between the clergy and the elected legislature. Lebanon is simply overrun with outside military and terrorist forces, including Syria, and while democratic is by no means free. Yemen is slowly moving from despotism to proportional representation, but it is moving. All four face significant struggle with uncertain outcomes.

If Iraq and Afghanistan can successfully establish functioning representational democracies, then the most threatened parties will be the mullahs of Iran (sandwiched between the two), Hafez al-Assad of Syria, and dissident elements in our "friend and ally," Saudi Arabia, which has thousands of royalty running loose with their own agendas. Not surprisingly, the major sources of foreign money and fighters into Iraq are those same three nations.

The conservative (and ruling) elements in Saudi Arabia are in favor of moving towards constitutional monarchy (Jordanian model), but are opposed by many of the minor royalty who fear that they would lose power and/or are associated with the assorted mullahs who want to establish religious rule (either Iranian model or strict monarchal theocracy).

When we talk about "democratization" in the Middle East, we need to remember that it's an evolving process, not a wham-bam-there-it-is affair. Our own democracy is unique, and still evolving. Our staunchest ally, Great Britain, is a constitutional monarchy that has evolved over many hundreds of years. So we're not talking about something that will happen overnight, or is subject to quick achievement with intense short-term propaganda efforts. Constancy and patience is more crucial than volume and intensity.

Great points Tully. I'm not a huge propaganda fan, nor do I think it would make democracy happen quickly. My advocacy of it is geared towards trying to prevent nascent democracy in Iraq from being strangled in its crib. Seems to me that if public opinion turns strongly against Us in Iraq and we are forced to leave, then the chances of despotism and/or theocracy are great.

With a mullah or some other opportunist preaching on every streetcorner, we have to get our story out there loudly and often, that's all I'm saying.

MWS,

I agree with everything in your last comment...

-M

Tully,

I think that you are dead on...

-M

Great comments, Tully.
Not sure you, or any here, have looked at Iraqi blogs, like:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_08_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#109293638059024441
Where the Iraqi National Assembly just elected the (100 person?) National Council. There will be elections coming.

*** The Iraqis have to own the process, and they're new at it***

Talk of failure is an attempt to be a negative self-fulfilling prophecy, if there isn't an alternative mentioned. I agree that Bush was weak on PR -- not control of all stations, but control of at least ONE TV station, to give US influcenced journalism of what's going on. (See Spirit of America, now)

Best PR help is when the military has thousands of bucks they can spend on necessary/ desirable smaller jobs, with little pre-paperwork. Should be MORE after the fact paperwork, documenting actual success.

Immediate acceptance of local homeowner protection groups, as an initial town center town council would have been better. Getting elected town/city councils AND giving them money, or better, loans, would have been better. Not to late for this.

Is the UN, in Kosovo or Bosnia, serious about democratization? Or in Sudan? Or in Iran? Who is more pro-democracy, in action, than Bush? It wasn't Clinton. Bush critiques deny using Unreal Perfection, but when they criticize his real results without a real alternative standard of where somebody else has done it better, it's pretty unreal.

I agree with your concerns, Brian, but I am also aware of how fine a line we walk in Iraq. Between promoting the U.S., encouraging democracy by fostering an Iraqi sense of ownership in their own nascent government, and not tweaking the visceral automatic rejection response of people who have had several decades of "benevolent leader" propaganda, we are doing a tight-wire act.

If we push our own image as good guys too hard, the new government will look like stooges. If we too successfully push our own image as good guys, even saviors, we foster dependence, not democracy. If we don't push it at all, the mullahs and tribalists could devolve the situation into widespread factional warfare.

Currently we seem to be talking softly while still swinging the proverbial big stick, and letting the good deeds of our military units in the quieter areas do our goodwill promo for us. I've noticed that the press reports of the "hated Americans" all come out of areas of intense ongoing conflict, while the reporters don't seem to make it into the quieter areas where we're building schools and hospitals (and helping set up town and regional councils). Because the press goes for conflict and not construction, we tend to miss hearing about the very real "applied propaganda" efforts we have ongoing in Iraq.

But those hands-on efforts count just as much, if not more, than broadcast and print propaganda in winning hearts and minds. The Iraqis have decades of experience with the media telling them lies. Media propaganda is thus less effective on them--they mistrust it instinctively. (Remember the old Soviet joke, that there's no news in Pravda and no truth in Izvestiya?) I don't even find doubt and resentment of us in the quieter areas troublesome, when it follows the "Thanks, America, but you should leave so we can rule ourselves" line. I find it encouraging.

if we were to engage in propaganda, I wouldn't expect the central message to be that America is good. I'd expect the central message to be something like "20 years from now, wouldn't you rather have a country ruled on the basis of the needs and wants of the Iraqi people, where you could be hopeful of building a future heer on earth free from oppression and the fear of a boot on the door in the night?"

"Aren't you tired of the corrupt and powerful asking you to sacrifice for the sake of a promise of what you'll find in the "next" world?Do you really want the same iron-fisted rule, just with a new fist?"

I think we should focus on counter propaganda, leaving ourselves out of it as much as possible, and showcasing the everyday people whose futures are hurt by terrorists whose end goal is to be the new fist-wielders.

We''ll get support for such ideas as long as we can get self-interested everyday Iraqis to think believe we're not going to bail on them.