Freedom's Just Another WordBush's deluded speech to the world's oppressed.

(Continued from page 1)

PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...SINGLE PAGE

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

"And we stand firmly behind the people of Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq as they defend their democratic gains against extremist enemies."

Let us examine that last paragraph. One big problem in Lebanon is that, at the start of last summer's cease-fire, the Western leaders did nothing to help Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government build his authority in order to neutralize Hezbollah and stave off the influence of Syria and Iran.

As for Iraq, which "extremist enemies" is Bush talking about—the Sunnis that the Shiite militias are battling, the Shiite militias that the Sunnis are battling, the handful of foreign jihadists that both of those militias are sometimes battling, sometimes abetting? In other words, as he has so often in the past, Bush reduced a complex mixture of multiple sectarian conflicts and low-grade civil wars to a black-and-white struggle of freedom fighters versus terrorists.

At one point in his speech, he noted that some critics of his freedom agenda claim "that ending tyranny will unleash chaos," citing the violence of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. "But," Bush said, in rebuttal, "look at who is causing that violence—it's the terrorists."

He has a point in Afghanistan—though even there, he fails to note how the Taliban have carved out a position, though opportunistically, in Afghan society. But in Lebanon, even if Hezbollah were the only force unleashing chaos, it must be recognized that they form not only an outlaw militia but also a popular political party with seats in the parliament. In other words, to see electoral democracy and terrorism as incompatible forces—much less to see electoral democracy as the cure for terrorism—is to misunderstand the dynamics of these societies.

Bush acknowledges that the Palestinian territories elected Hamas to power. But, he notes, "democracy consists of more than a single trip to the ballot box. Democracy requires meaningful opposition parties, a vibrant civil society, a government that enforces the law and responds to the needs of its people. Elections can accelerate the creation of such institutions." (Italics added.)

He's right—up until the last sentence. Democracy does require a whole complex of institutions. But elections don't always accelerate their creation; often, especially if they're held in the absence of such institutions, elections merely strengthen—and give political voice to—the most militant sectarian factions within a society.

Bush said much about the blossoming of democracies in Central and Eastern Europe as the Soviet Union declined and finally imploded. But those countries succeeded precisely because they had some experience with these sorts of institutions. Furthermore, in the context of the Cold War, their deep hatred of Soviet oppression instinctively drove them to the West—the Soviet Union's foe—for aid and inspiration.

These circumstances have no relevance to the Middle East. Addressing members of the audience from the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, Bush said, "The Afghan and Iraqi people look to you as a model of liberty." But there's no evidence that they do—and no reason that they would. There is no sign whatsoever of a Vaclav Havel or Natan Sharansky—nor of a Mikhail Gorbachev or Boris Yeltsin—in any Arab country today.

Finally, can anyone look at Bush's policies—as opposed to his words—and infer that he is (as he described himself today) a "dissident president"? He said, "We will never excuse your oppressors … " But he sends massive aid, including military aid, to Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia; he congratulates Kazakhstan for its political progress; and he holds a state dinner for the leader of Azerbaijan.

There are reasons for this support. The calculations behind these reasons may be correct in the scheme of things. But to say, "We will never excuse your oppressors" and "we will always stand for your freedom"—when it's clearly the case that we don't and we can't—is to appear hypocritical. It makes the calculations of Realpolitik—which all big powers must play at times, even if reluctantly—appear more sordid than they need to. Worse still, it tarnishes those instances when we do act out of good conscience; it stirs doubts about ideals that we hold and express sincerely.

To George W. Bush, at a time of steady deterioration in America's standing and credibility, freedom is just another word for nothing left to say.

PRINTE-MAILRECOMMEND...RSS

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and author of 1959: The Year Everything Changed. He can be reached at .

Photograph of George W. Bush by Kurt Vinion/Getty Images.

SPONSORED CONTENT

• Explaining What Obama Meant About "Beginning" To Withdraw in July 2011
  Obama's top aides go to Congress.
  Fred Kaplan | Dec. 2, 2009
• Confessions of an Uncertain Columnist
  My mixed feelings about the war in Afghanistan.
  Fred Kaplan | Nov. 30, 2009
• All Politics Is Tribal
  Obama's Afghanistan strategy should team our soldiers with their militias.
  Fred Kaplan | Nov. 23, 2009
• Search for more War Stories articles
• Subscribe to the War Stories RSS feed
• View our complete War Stories archive