In the new millenium, we find ourselves living in a far more mutable world than we thought possible. In the previous century, democracies that did not wish to be over-run joined forces against a common enemy. This enemy, communism, was embodied in the Soviet Union. Its avatar has been dissolved, and its appeal weakened by the staunch will of the defenders of liberal society. Only a few cling to this outdated and inherently evil (and I will defend that position if confronted. Communism is inherently evil. The very core idea is repugnant to any rational person) ideal. But with that common enemy gone, whither the alliance?
NATO is already breaking up, as Belgium insists on prosecuting all and sundry involved in a war of which it disapproves. Those countries who hid safely on the free side of the iron curtain have forgotten the fear which led them to seek strong allies; and those, like France, who played both sides against each other for their own gain, wish to continue this profitable manuvering. Without the Soviet Union, they trade with dictators, then have the gall (so to speak) to accuse us of desiring those same dictators' oil.
'Supra hoc, ergo semper hoc' seems to be the theme of those who claim that Iraq and then the entire Middle East can be liberated, democratized, and remain our staunch allies. Aside from the logical fallacy, the 'supra hoc' portion requires a certain amount of analysis. The Germans were liberated, democratized, and...decided it was not in their interest to free an oppressed people from a mad dictator. Democracy brings with it no amazing blessing of foresight or goodwill. It does not mean that a democratic country will not decide it knows best and other countries must fall in line.
Athenians: For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences-- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us-- and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they canand the weak suffer what they must.
Melians: As we think, at any rate, it is expedient-- we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest-- that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass current. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to meditate upon.
Athenians: The end of our empire, if end it should, does not frighten us: a rival empire like Lacedaemon, even if Lacedaemon was our real antagonist, is not so terrible to the vanquished as subjects who by themselves attack and overpower their rulers. This, however, is a risk that we are content to take. We will now proceed to show you that we are come here in the interest of our empire, and that we shall say what we are now going to say, for the preservation of your country; as we would fain exercise that empire over you without trouble, and see you preserved for the good of us both.
--Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
Fortunately for all free peoples, the U.S., unlike ancient Athens, do not seek empire. We were content to trade with all and sundry, ignoring the insults and attacks--until one came home. Now those responsible live in caves, dreading the light of day that brings with it a new chance that they will be caught. But other countries desire empire over us--for our own good, over course. We often hear how arrogant the U.S. are to ignore the U.N. We seldom hear how arrogant it is for, to choose at random, as seats on the council are granted, France, Chile, Mexico, and Germany are to tell us of the legitimacy of our grievance.
My point is that democracy is no panacea. Neither does free trade, for all its advantages, cure all ills.
As I pointed out earlier this week, before World War I, such an extravagant conflict was thought impossible, because of the great wealth each nation gained in trade with the others. War, disrupter of this commerce, was illogical. But all the same, when nations thought that they had more to gain by war than by peace, they beat the drums and sounded the charge.
We are now faced by an enemy that measures wealth not in dollars or euros, but in souls--those loyal to the prophet, and those killed by those loyal to the prophet. They must be made to realize that they will lose any war they bring to us; that on each bargain they make with suicide bombs and terror attacks they lose. They must lose not only lives, but souls: with each attack more must abandon this jihad than are converted.
Iraq is the first step in changing the equation. There, we must demonstrate an alternative to what they offer. Democracy and free trade are necessary but not sufficient elements in this.
