Just a couple of weeks before the invasion of Iraq began, Bush shared the neo-con fantasy about a 21st-century domino theory for the Middle East:
“A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions… The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East…. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.”
This hawk whimsy looks less likely now than ever — if anything, the dominoes seem to be falling away from us, not towards us — but there’s something about this vision I still don’t understand. I can appreciate the notion that a thriving democracy could possibly help the region. But even if we grant this as a possibility, why are the hawks insistent that Iraq be the first democracy on the block?
I got a terrific email from a Carpetbagger regular I fondly call PJ, who got me thinking about this.
[E]ven IF we were to agree that the long-term fight against terrorism…will be substantially advanced by having a stable Muslim, democratic regime in the Middle East, why Iraq? The United States and the world had agreed to take a united stand to invade Afghanistan and oust the totalitarian, theocratic Taliban regime. Why could Afghanistan not be the beacon of hope in democracy in the Middle East? On one side is Pakistan which, albeit no longer under democratic control, certainly can be considered an ally. And Iran, well Iran also borders Iraq. And given the history of Afghanistan, it’s probably not an exaggeration to say that the citizens of that country would have been far more welcoming of American troops (as they have been) and patient with their presence until a stable government infrastructure could be established.
Once the WMD question is put aside, we are then left again with the question: why Iraq? And there are only two possible answers. Either it is the Iraqi oil fields or it’s the fact that Bush had Saddam Hussein in his cross-hairs from the get-go. All of this talk of nation-building as part and parcel of a greater stabilizing agenda for the Middle East is hogwash, because we had an internationally well-supported program of that very nature already in progress in Afghanistan.
PJ raises a good point. This is not a rhetorical question: Why Iraq?
All things being equal, Iraq doesn’t exactly fit the model of a country ready to serve as a guiding light of liberty for the entire Middle East. War torn, brutalized, and starkly divided along religious/ethnic lines, Iraq appears to make a uniquely unsuitable host for forced-democracy.
The neo-con vision emphasizes the lofty goals of a democratic Iraq constantly, and to hear the president tell it, the ongoing war will be worthwhile because of the democracy waiting for us at the end of the tunnel. But I don’t have any idea why Iraq had to be the first domino that was supposed to transform the Middle East.
PJ thinks it was either the oil, personal animosity towards Saddam, or maybe a little bit of both. Any other explanations?