Will neo-cons get real?

WHEN PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH DECLARED in his second inaugural address that, "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," he was standing in the tradition of Wilsonian Liberalism. It was Pres. Woodrow Wilson who professed in his World War I declaration address of 1917 that the U.S. was going to war "to make the world safe for democracy." This same rhetoric was repeated by Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II as well as by White House occupants Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan during the Cold War. Yet, Bush's declaration was dubbed the Bush Doctrine, as if it were something new.

Pres. Bush has been excoriated by many who would otherwise embrace Wilsonianism for applying such thinking to Iraq and the Middle East. Anti-war advocates who once criticized our alliance with dictators such as the Shah of Iran, Francisco Franco of Spain, and Somoza Garcia of Nicaragua now claim we are foolish to be attempting democracy in Iraq. The inspiring words of Wilson, Roosevelt, and Kennedy are considered arrogant and foolish by contemporary critics when uttered by Bush. Many already have concluded that the seeds of democracy never can be planted in a failed Arab civilization, as the region is to be forever plagued by tribalism, economic backwardness, religious hatred, and contempt for the non-Muslim world. That is a foreboding and dangerous conclusion. It would leave that part of the globe disconnected, perhaps forever, from the economic and political modernization that has blessed North America, Europe, and much of Asia. The region would continue to seethe with hatred, a fertile breeding ground for terrorism and jihad.

Yet, none of the Bush-haters so much as raised a peep when Congress passed, and Pres. Bill Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This Act, backed by Congress, stated that the policy of the U.S. should be to support efforts to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power while promoting the emergence of a democratic government. At present, the language and intent of the Iraq Liberation Act have been forgotten. Many critics of the war in Iraq seem to have rediscovered the virtues of the so-called Realist School of international politics--a school of thought considered cynical when applied by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Realism at its essence argues that nations must be guided by their national interests rather than any set of abstract values and that alliances must be based upon the foreign policy of countries and not their domestic institutions and values.

After the Democratic congressional victory in November 2006 and the departure of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, many were celebrating the death of neo-conservatism, the latest manifestation of Wilsonianism. The neo-cons such as Rumsfeld, Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, and others were considered the evil geniuses of the Iraqi War and their idealism was ignored and dismissed. Yet, on the larger issues of policy, what would cold-eyed realism bring to the Middle East? Historically, realists would have us continue to base our Middle Eastern policy on an alliance with governments run by oil sheiks and Arab strongmen, so long as they serve American interests--providing stability and a secure source of oil. Neo-conservatives, whatever their faults, point out that such stability is illusionary. Beneath its surface is a repressed population festering with resentment. Its outlets are terror, tribal warfare, and hatred of other religions--and its bombs explode from New York to London to Madrid to Indonesia.

Anti-war critics, now enamored of realism, in the past have admonished the U.S. for its failure to deal with the roots of problems, maintaining that just the symptoms and manifestations received attention. What then is at the root of terrorism and jihad? Neo-conservatives have claimed that it is the lack of liberty, opportunity, openness, and democracy. Critics of the Bush Doctrine forget their own arguments. Realism does have powerful insights, among them the notion that countries must keep their national interests paramount and recognize the limits of their power. Indeed, neo-conservatives need to adhere to this. The U.S., in its desire to spread democracy, must be careful when and how it does so. Military intervention may be the last resort, but once entered into, a great power cannot simply withdraw, as it becomes much too dangerous for those trying to get out as well as those left behind. Nixon and Kissinger, the hard-nosed realists, realized that about Vietnam.

Certainly, the Bush Administration's conduct in the Iraqi war can be severely criticized, and realists and neo-conservatives have done so. Giv en the difficulties, new strategies and tactics must be in the offing. Nonetheless, we cannot negotiate a settlement which is nothing but a fig leaf for withdrawal. A genuine political agreement among the Sunnis, Kurds, and Shia factions is the key to establishing, perhaps over an extended period of time, the roots of liberal democracy.