The march of freedom

[Tigermike 3,053]

The march of freedom

Charles Krauthammer

March 4, 2005

WASHINGTON  -- Revolutions do not stand still. They either move forward or they die. We are at the dawn of a glorious, delicate, revolutionary moment in the Middle East. It was triggered by the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam, and televised images of 8 million Iraqis voting in a free multiparty election. Which led to the obvious question throughout the Middle East: Why Iraqis and not us?

    To be sure, the rolling revolution began outside the Middle East with the Afghan elections, scandalously underplayed in the American media.  That was followed by the Iraqi elections, impossible to underplay even by the American media. In between came free Palestinian elections that produced a moderate reform-oriented leadership, followed by an amazing mini-uprising in the Palestinian parliament that rejected an attempt to force corrupt cronies on the new government.

    And it continued -- demonstrations in Egypt for democracy, a shocking rarity that led President Mubarak to promise the first contested presidential elections in Egyptian history. And now, of course, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, where the assassination of opposition leader Rafiq Hariri led to an explosion of people power in the streets that brought down Syria's puppet-government in Beirut.

    Revolution is in the air. What to do? We are already hearing voices for restraint about liberating Lebanon. Flynt Leverett, your usual Middle East expert, takes to The New York Times to oppose immediate withdrawal of Syria's occupation of Lebanon. Instead, we should be trying to ``engage and empower'' the tyranny in Damascus.

    These people never learn. Here we are on the threshold of what Arabs in the region are calling the fall of their own Berlin Wall, and our ``realists'' want us to go back to making deals with dictators. It would be not just a blunder but a tragedy to try to rein in the revolution in Lebanon. It would betray our principles. And it would betray the people in Lebanon who have been encouraged by our proclamation of those principles.

    Moreover, the Cedar Revolution promises not only to liberate Lebanon, but to transform the entire Middle East. Why? Because a forced Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon could bring down the Assad dictatorship. The road to Damascus goes through Beirut. And changing Damascus will transform the region.

    We are not talking about invading Syria. We have done enough invading and there is no need. If Assad loses Lebanon, his regime could be fatally weakened.

    For two reasons: economics and psychology. Like all Soviet-style systems, the Syrian economy is moribund. It lives off Lebanese commerce and corruption. Take that away and a pillar of the Assad kleptocracy disappears. As does the psychological pillar. Dictatorships like Assad's rule by fear, which is sustained by power and the illusion of power. Control of Lebanon is the centerpiece of that illusion. The loss of Lebanon, at the hands of unarmed civilians no less, would be a deadly blow to the Assad mystique, perhaps enough to revoke his mandate from heaven.

    And why is Syria so important? Because Assad has succeeded Saddam as the principal bad actor in the region. Syria, an island of dictatorship in a sea of liberalization, is desperately trying to destabilize its neighbors. The Hariri bombing in Lebanon is universally believed to be the work of Syria. The orders for the Feb. 25 Tel Aviv bombing, deliberately designed to blow up the new Palestinian-Israeli rapprochement, came from Damascus. And we know that Syria is sheltering leading Baathist insurgents who are killing Iraqis and Americans by the score in Iraq.

    There was a brief Damascus Spring five years ago when Syrians began demanding more freedom. Assad repressed it. Now 140 Syrian intellectuals have petitioned their own government to withdraw from Lebanon. They signed their names. The fear is lifting there too. Were the contagion to spread to Damascus, the entire region from the Mediterranean Sea to the Iranian border would be on a path to democratization.

    This of course could all be reversed. Liberal revolutions were suppressed in Europe 1848, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 and Tiananmen 1989. Nothing is written. Determined and ruthless regimes can extinguish revolutions. Which is why the worst thing we can possibly do is ``engage and empower'' the tyrants.

    This is no time to listen to the voices of tremulousness, indecision, compromise and fear. If we had listened to them two years ago, we would still be doing oil-for-food, no-fly zones and worthless embargoes. It is our principles that brought us to this moment by way of Afghanistan and Iraq. They need to guide us now -- through Beirut to Damascus.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charles...k20050304.shtml

[AURaptor 1,126]

"Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us ... There's always hope that this might not work."

- Nancy Soderberg

[DKW 86 7,440]

"Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us ... There's always hope that this might not work."

- Nancy Soderberg

149598[/snapback]

Link

March 3, 2005

Nancy Soderberg Hopes We Fail

I am still in shock about the revelation in the update on my previous post about what Nancy Soderberg said. I probably shouldn’t be by now, but I am. The hateful anti-American rhetoric of the left is amazing, and even more so because it’s not some looney fringe, it’s from a former member of the National Security Council under Clinton.

From 1993 until 1997, Soderberg served as the third ranking official of the National Security Council at the White House, including as Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. She was responsible for day-to-day crisis management, briefing the President and developing U.S. national security.

From 1997 until 2001, Soderberg served as alternate representative to the United Nations as a presidential appointee, with the rank of ambassador. Her responsibilities included representing the United States at the Security Council. She has also worked as senior foreign policy adviser to Sen. Edward Kennedy.

And this is what she said about the chance for a historic peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

"it may well work. I think that … it’s scary for Democrats, I have to say."

And regarding Stewart’s comment that Bush may end up “greater than Reagan”… she said:

"Well, there’s still Iran and North Korea, don’t forget. There’s hope for the rest of us."

Regarding democratic results in the region of the middle east:

"There’s always hope that this might not work."

Nancy Soderberg appears to be saying that she hopes that we fail completely in our quest to spread freedom and democracy around the world, because it would be bad for the Democrats. That is truly a jaw dropping perspective on things. How do these people ever hope to connect with main street America again?

[Tigermike 3,053]

Nancy Soderberg appears to be saying that she hopes that we fail completely in our quest to spread freedom and democracy around the world, because it would be bad for the Democrats. That is truly a jaw dropping perspective on things. How do these people ever hope to connect with main street America again?

Has that not been the main goal of Democrats for as long as you can remember? Their only goal is to get elected and stay in office. America comes second in their thinking it seems to me.

[rexbo 104]

She is only saying out loud what every major Democrat is thinking, no one should be shocked...

[DKW 86 7,440]

She is only saying out loud what every major Democrat is thinking, no one should be shocked...

149763[/snapback]