Bush Speech: Global Democratic Revolution
David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 07, 2003; Noon ET
President Bush on Thursday portrayed the war in Iraq as the latest front in the "global democratic revolution" led by the United States. Text: Bush on Democracy in the Middle East Bush said that the revolution under former President Reagan that freed the people of Soviet-dominated Europe is now destined to liberate the Middle East as well.
Washington Post staff writer David Von Drehle was online Friday, Nov. 7 at Noon ET to discuss the president's speech and the direction of U.S. foreign policy.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
washingtonpost.com:
David will be with us shortly.
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.:
Was it really Reagan's "idealism" that was the catalyst that brought about the freedom of the Soviet block countries of Eastern Europe and eventually the collapse of the Soviet Union itself? What other factors were instrumental in those political upheavals? Is Bush giving too much credit to his conservative hero and setting the U.S. on a course that is too interventionist?
David Von Drehle: Hi! Sorry I'm late. A lot of good questions here -- including these.
I read an interesting column in the Guardian newspaper, which you may know is a left-leaning paper of excellent reputation in England. The writer made an intriguing argument that much of the energy for change in Eastern Europe came from the peace movement there and was heartened by the anti-Reagan protests of the Green and other parties opposed to the deployment of cruise missiles in Germany.
And of course there were many heroes behind the Iron Curtain--Walesa, Havel, etc. Certainly Gorbachev played a role. Pope John Paul II is given significant credit.
What I mean to suggest is that the collapse of Soviet communism was a huge and seismic event and many factors played a role.
But it also seems clear that among many key players -- Gorbachev, for example -- there was a judgment that Reagan's clear and unnuanced stance toward the Soviet system--"the evil empire"--was a leading factor in the fact that these things happened when they did and how they did.
_______________________
Prague, CR:
This is long overdue. Real peace can only be achieved with a democratic government in place. Lack of democracy is the reason there is no peace in the Middle East.
David Von Drehle: Thanks for this clear statement. When I find these well-stated views I will just post them without comment.
_______________________
Baltimore, Md.:
The U.S. has said that a democratic Iraq is the goal of the present policy; but if Iraq elects officials, who we view as non friendly, we will not recognize that goverment as legitimate. Does this "policy" apply to the entire Middle East?
David Von Drehle: This seems to me to be a crucial question. The core issue is: What happens if a popular vote elects an anti-American Islamic fundamentalist government? That isn't hard to picture in a number of Arab states.
I suspect the US would be very reluctant to see that happen.
In my piece this moprning I mention the influence of the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. von Hayek in this worldview. Hayek includes religious freedom and freedom of expression among the crucial liberties necessary for a thriving state. So you might say that, from this Reaganite perspective, a democracy that creates a theocracy is not "liberty" at all.
_______________________
Bentonville, Ark.:
The Bush speech contained beautiful rhetoric and it appears that he sees himself in the same light as a "retro-Reagan" but let us be real. Do you think he has the political wherewithall to inspire these Arab states to fundamentally change how they govern their masses?
David Von Drehle: I don't believe it matters much what I think.
But I believe he will be judged on his ability to make a serious beginning.
_______________________
Washington, D.C. :
What are the possible measures that the current administration can take shortly to mean business in the Middle East new democracy drive?
David Von Drehle: This isn't really my area of expertise -- but I bet there are some informed opinions among the audience for this chat. Who wants to propose some real initial steps?
May I also recommend that you look at my colleague Robin Wright's trenchant analysis in this morning's Post on just this subject.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
Even the most optimistic proponents of the Iraq war seem to view the US as an occupying power for many years, perhaps decades. How does Bush define victory in Iraq? Is such a victory possible? Is there any indication that anyone in his administration really believes that a military victory is possible, or are they only looking for a political victory here in the U.S?
David Von Drehle: He said yesterday that Iraq is "a massive and difficult undertaking," which suggests to me he is looking at a very longterm process. As in-- waaaaayyy past the next election. As I understand him, his sense of "victory" in Iraq is a free and democratic small-L liberal society that will prove that Englihtenment liberty is compatible with Arab Muslim government.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com:
Idealism in the Face of a Troubled Reality (Post, Nov. 7)
_______________________
Elkhorn City, Ky.:
The president likened his latest policy to President Reagan's policies which "caused" the collapse of the Soviet Union. Doesn't it seem more likely that the USSR just happened to crumble under the weight of its own inefficiencies on Reagan's watch? Is there any legitimate parallel to be drawn between the eastern bloc nations of the 1980's and the current situation in the Arab world?
David Von Drehle: Both the Soviet bloc of the 1980s and most Arab states of today are widely judged, both inside and out, to be failed governments. So that's something they have in common. One key difference, however, is that the Soviet empire was centrally controlled. It had a mailing address. There are many Arab states, all with their own dynamics. And the real threat to us--the terrorist threat--is only vaguely related to the states themmselves.
_______________________
Louisville, Ky.:
Am I right to assume that Bush's speech will make our Arabic allies uneasy? And if so, I'm wondering how much we depend on those countries for terrorism-related intelligence and whether Bush's speech might jeopardize our intelligence-gathering efforts? Thanks
David Von Drehle: This is a good one for Robin Wright. My sense is that there was some stuff in the speech that should hearten our Arab allies--especially the extensive rhetoric devoted to the idea that "democracy" need not mean "Americanism." That there can and should be a Muslim version or versions that well up from within those societies and states.
On the other hand, he is saying that the autocrats who are helping us today are, at least ideally, headed for Reagan's "ash heap of history." Which can't make them happy.
_______________________
Baltimore, Md.:
Which method of diplomacy do you think is most effective in the Middle East, "Big Stick" or negotiation.
David Von Drehle: I am by nature a moderate. So I would guess probably both.
_______________________
Exeter, N.H.:
As a liberal valuing the dignity of people I find Bush's rhetoric something I can agree with. I'm particularly pleased that he seeks to reject ties to autocratic, oppressive regimes. However, thus far his administration has done anything but. America now coddles dictators in Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Pakistan, in addition to the despots in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, all in the name of fighting terror or enhancing security -- in other words, real politik considerations. How seriously can we expect the Bush administration to push Egypt and Saudi Arabia especially but also these other corrupt, murderous regimes to change their ways or face our wrath? We've seen disastrous coddling of muderous regimes by the U.S. in the past, most notably Saddam's Iraq and the Shah's Iran. Neither turned out well for the U.S. long-term interests, but the logic that compelled us to discard ideals and lie down with thugs still exists. Do you think ultimately the Bush administration will live up to its rhetoric, or is it simple a fig leaf to keep dealing with brutal regimes and alienating more people?
David Von Drehle: I think you've put this possible version about as well as it can be put.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
It seems to me Bush makes the same mistake over and over again when it comes to foreign policy. He treats the Arab world and Islam as a monolith. Will this "new strategy" take into account that Egypt is different from Jordan which is different from Iraq which is different from Iran?
David Von Drehle: Great point. (This is a very high-level chat! Thanks!)
There were aspects of the speech that seemed to suggest that he pictures a very nuanced approach, over many years, country-by-country and kingdom-by-kingdom. On the other hand, one criticism of the Bush administration I hear often from foreign policy experts -- full disclosure: I ain't one -- is that he has not shown much passion for the case-by-case subtleties of this.
Of course, that, too, is something hye has in common with Reagan.
_______________________
Northfield, Minn.:
There were clear policy implications to Reagan's "evil empire" pronoucement: a massive increase in defense spending, and a determination to counter Soviet expansionism in Nicaragua, Afghanistan and other places. In Bush's case, it is not so clear, at least to me. By all means, democracy in the Mideast, including for the tyrannical countries he mentions like Syria and Iran. But what are the policy levers he has to help produce these wondrous results?
David Von Drehle: Very well put. Reagan could, for example, support the provision of enormous recourses to the Afghani majahedeen, thus creating a terrible quagmire for the Soviets there. Is there a parallel in the current situation? I think that--as complex as the late Cold War web of problems was -- this is vastly more complex. I mean, we hardly bought anything from the Soviet bloc. But we buy a huge percentage of our most crucial economic fuel from non-democratic Arab states.
_______________________
Independence, Mo.:
David: Thanks for taking the time to chat with us today. I am quite bothered by yesterday's speech. While in principal I think it is great anytime democracy is achieved, the idea that somehow this nation is going to drag the rest of the world into democracy, even if it is kicking and screaming is what I get in the tone of the president's voice.
I see this as further polarization by this administration. Do you get the impression that the president has given much thought to what he said yesterday or was he shooting from the hip?
David Von Drehle: I think he has given an enormous amount of thought to what he said yesterday. As I understand Bush he is a person who puts his mental energy into finding the large principles in which he will invest his faith, and much less energy into wrestling with thorny details. Reagan is a model for him in this way.
What I have long wondered about President Bush is whether he gives much credence to the other way of thinking--because surely a president can use some detail-oriented people around.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
What will the US do when they will see their installed puppet government in Iraq collapse days after they leave to be replaced by religious fanatics?
David Von Drehle: I will just post this one.
_______________________
Rochester, N.Y.:
The notion of America as a redemptive power, enfranchised by God and history to spread its values to a benighted planet did not begin with Reagan. This was what Dulles, the Presbyterian moralist, believed from the right in the 1950s and what Wilson believed from a progressive perspective during World War I. This idealistic approach, whether inspiring or foolhardy, is a far cry from the interests-based "America should be modest in the world" approach that Bush spoke of in the 2000 campaign.
David Von Drehle: I'm not sure Bush would entirely subscribe to your paraphrase. What I perceive him to be saying is that liberty is, in its very nature (he thinks design from God, you may think differently) the most effective ordering principle for human societies. It isn't simply that God wants liberty -- although sometimes it is phrased that way -- it is (as Hayek argued) that liberal societies get richer and richer while controlled societies fail. This would be whether America spread these values or not.
Furthermore, I think he would say that it is in America's best interest to live in a world of successful societies--because success breeds peace, order and commerce. So America should be on the side of liberty not just as moral stance, but out of our self-interest.
When Dulles was making his case, remember, there was a vibrant strand of conservative thought that believed free societies were by nature weaker than centrally controlled states.
_______________________
New York:
It is really possible to seriously believe that a democractic Pakistan or Egypt would be more pro-American than their current rulers ? I think it's likely to be the opposite.
Let's consider Al Jazeera. Its a relatively free news channel, a rarity in the Middle East, but its not pro-American at all.
Also, you talked of Reagan idealism, but that's only one part of it. There's also Carter idealism, which was willing to confront nasty dictators that were on our side, something Reagan never bothered to do.
David Von Drehle: All good points--the last one especially. Carter framed American foreign policy around universal human rights and was derided for it by many Republicans.
_______________________
Indianapolis, Ind.:
I'm always disappointed when I compare the eloquence of the speech to the realties of the policies. I see this administration preparing to draw down the number of soldiers in Iraq by 20 percent and replace them with Iraqi police/soldiers (?)who have had as little has three weeks' training.
This doesn't sound like a policy that is serious about democracy in Iraq. Or am I missing something?
David Von Drehle: Thanks for a well-put point.
_______________________
Angers, France:
Thank you for taking our questions. Do Mr. Bush's remarks represent a policy change or not? Has the Bush administration taken the U.S. so far into its agenda (sorry for this word, I don't mean this to sound so critical, it's just that the word that first came to mind) that it would be nearly impossible for a different administration to change future foreign policy?
David Von Drehle: I think this speech was the fullest philosophical statement of the existing Bush policy--not a new turn. And listening to most of the Democratic candidates for president, I hear a consensus that yes, the die of American involvement in Iraq, at least, has been cast and any president we might elect ought to see it through.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Don't we rely too heavily upon the cooperation of Arab states in the fight against terrorism to begin attacking their leadership?
Our closest allies in the fight against the violent terrorists are the rulers of countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, and others. Even Saddam Hussein was never found to have ties to al Qaeda. In fact, al Qaeda flourished where there were no strong and stable governments -- Afghanistan and Somalia. Why wage war on the entire Muslim World when the problem is only with a network of terrorists?
David Von Drehle: This was one of Robin Wright's key points. Thanks for bringing it into this conversation.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.:
Hi David-
One thing I found interesting in Bush's speech is how he lashes Iran for denying its people their democratic wishes but then praises Saudi Arabia as headed in the correct direction with its town council initiative. Most Middle East analysts will tell you than Iran has the second-most thriving democracy in the region, just behind Israel. Sure, their national policy is directed by an appointed group of clerics, but on the local and regional level, there are vigorously contested elections for councils and mayors, all without clerical control, and the national Majlis while often overruled by the supreme leader maintains a constant drumbeat of criticism and protest to the unelected ruling councils. Seems to me that Egypt, Saudi, Syria and others could look to much of Iran as a model on how to have a democratic society with Islamic underpinnings.
David Von Drehle: Well argued. Thanks.
_______________________
Falls Church, Va.:
Your comment about a theocracy not really being a free and democratic government is true, but still misses a very plausible point. A democratic Arab nation could have a transparent and professional government with complete religious freedom (with less religious discrimination than the U.S. has racial discrimination) and still be deeply and utterly anti-Western. An Arab democracy, therefore, could still be committed to the destruction of Israel, opposed to selling oil to the West, and other policies that are completely unacceptable to us. That's why we still support the dictators, as your colleague points out in her excellent analysis today.
I think a lot of Americans still don't understand that in the Arab world, you don't have to be as fanatical as Mohammed Atta to hate the U.S. for its smug sense of global entitlement, its half-naked pop stars, and its long-standing support of the Arab dictators who continue to oppress and impoverish the vast population of moderate, peaceful, loving, hard-working Arabs that will be the voters in a democratic Middle East.
David Von Drehle: Very eloquent. And this is a thorny heart of the problem--the point at which the Bush doctrine really moves toward pure faith. I think they would say liberal Arab statements might be anti-American, but only in the sense that, oh, France, say, is anti-American. In other words, they might denounce our culture, but they wouldn't stop trading with us.
_______________________
Washington, D.C. :
Isn't it too late to talk about democracy in the Middle East after the U.S. attacked Iraq defying the majority of the U.N. Security Council?
David Von Drehle: I will just post this one.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Does President Bush really want to push democracy too hard when our biggest ally, Saudi Arabia, is decidely undemocratic?
David Von Drehle: Many experts tell me that this will be, over time, the crucial test. And I would simply add that a democratic Iraq and (perhaps, someday) a democratic and thriving Russia, with their vast oil resources, would make it easier for the U.S. to engage the Saudis in a more demanding way.
_______________________
St. Louis, Mo.:
Mr. Von Drehle:
Assuming a best-case scenario, one whereby Iraq assumes a great deal of the responsibility for policing their own state, theoretically at least, Shiite Muslims might be policing Sunni Muslim areas, Kurds policing Shiite Moslim areas, while Sunni Muslems could concievably be policing Kurdish territories.
While order has been restored in large measure in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is assumed that if NATO troops left, the two tribes would be at one another's throats as soon as the troops shipped off.
My question to you is, does the current administration truly believe that there will come a point in time when these three factions will be able to govern themselves and live in harmony? Secondly, are you aware of any historical precident that suggests that this might be possible?
Thanks.
David Von Drehle: We still have hundreds of thousands of troops deployed in territories we reordered nearly 60 years ago. I know that much.
Does anyone out there have a good example. I guess that whole Greece-Cyprus-Turkey zone used to be a lot bloodier than it is today...
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.:
In his NED speech, the President referred to a "new policy" but did not provide any details or how such a policy will be implemented. Do you have any sense of what it will look like in concrete terms? How will such a policy manifest itself since Syria and Iraq are surely next once things stabilize in Iraq, if they do?
David Von Drehle: I expect the hope--underline HOPE--is that the Syrian Baathists would collpse and the Iranians would conclude that further democratization is their best strategic course, so that neither country would require an invasion.
The Reaganite view of the Cold War is that it ended in much this way: a few displays of will and muscle, accompanied by a clarity of purpose, unleashed a wave of grassroots change in nations throughout the world. A sort of reverse domino-effect: instead of those 1950s maps that swiftly turned red, the domino went from red to rainbow.
I don't know enough, nor am I clairvoyant enough, to tell you if this is correct. But I think it is a lens thorough which we must look if we are going to see the world as our government sees it.
I have a whole bunch of gerat questions and no more time to answer them. Perhaps we could do this again soon--thanks to everyone for the stimulating questions.
_______________________
Miami, Fla.:
It is obvious that the decision to invade Iraq was made long before March and was based on political considerations. There was no real fear of Iraq on the part of this administration and Americans were deceived, defrauded and duped into supporting this war. Mr. Bush is an idiot, nevertheless a dangerous one considering the puppeteers who surround him, and Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and Wolfowitz have acted criminally. A segment of "Law and Order" should be forthcoming.
David Von Drehle: I will post a few without answers just to let everyone know what the others are thinking.
_______________________
Richmond, Va.:
I remember you once wrote a story saying that the great liberal delusion is to believe that Bush is not smart. I'm afraid I've not heeded your warning. Well yesterday's speech presented a bold and well-stated idea, I find it impossible to believe that it was not principally driven by the Reaganite devotees who serve under him, then vetted by Rove. Do you believe Bush could possibly come up with, or articulate in even a less eloquent way, the ideas he advanced here. Reagan, by contrast, (and I did not like him much either) had been speaking about his beliefs, using his own words, for decades before he was president. I'm sorry, I just can not shake the idea that this presidency is not on the level, but please disabuse me if you still believe your "he's-really-smart" thesis.
David Von Drehle: I never said he was really smart. I don't know him well enough to judge. I said the elite view of who is "smart" has never correlated with effectiveness as a politician.
_______________________
Somewhere:
Let's assume (wildly optimistically, it seems to me) that all the other issues somehow fall into place over the next few years. That Arab societies decide they actually want liberal pro-western democracies. That domestic politics will allow Bush to lean on Israel a little about some of its more hardcore policies (e.g., the fence). That our traditional allies start speaking to us again at some point.
Assume all that. Even then, do we have the resources (military, financial, emotional) to embark on this crusade? The military is stretched. Remember, for much of the Cold War there was a draft. That wouldn't go down well today. Huge budget deficits. Is it too much of an exaggeration to say that Bush is betting the well-being of the country for the next generation on this long-shot plan?
David Von Drehle: Thanks.
_______________________
Knoxville, Tenn.:
Sir,
Thank you for your time. The adminstration speaks of a commitment of years, yet at the same time we are hearing reports of plans for troop withdrwal (by election time, big suprise). How are these two points reconciled?
David Von Drehle: Good question.
_______________________
Falls Church, Va.:
Why does the Bush administration feel that a democratic state will take hold after the occupation. This was democracy in the past and Mr. Hussein just took over the government. The people of Iraq did not seem to put up much of a fight for their country before why will they now?
David Von Drehle: Interesting historical note.
_______________________
Germantown, Md.:
Isn't it amazing for our President to advise the Middle Eastern nations about democracy while we are ignoring the basic human rights for the Palestinians? They are under occupation and in dire need of our support as human beings. Isn't that a hypocrisy? The double standard approach of Mr. Bush is transparent to every Middle Easterner.
David Von Drehle: Now I really must run. Again, thanks!
_______________________
| 
