I love David Brooks, and I normally enjoy reading his Op/Eds, BUT....
Quote:
Of course the situation in El Salvador is not easily comparable to the situations in Afghanistan or Iraq.
|
Bingo. The big difference, in my opinion, is that both countries have regional militias or clans that can, and WILL control the flow of the elections. Further, particularly in Iraq, you have regional conflict divided by ethnicity and religion.
I think we certainly should push for elections in these countries, but what if the Islamic extremists are better at GOTV (Getting Out The Vote) than others? What if they prevent women from voting? What if a radical muslim with no love for the U.S. is elected? Will David Brooks get all teary eyed over democracy then....?
Quote:
It's simply astounding that in the United States, the home of the greatest and most effective democratic revolution, so many people have come to regard democracy as a luxury-brand vehicle, suited only for the culturally upscale, when it's really a sturdy truck, effective in conditions both rough and smooth.
|
I think this is particularly naive on Brooks' part. Look, Preechr, I know you Libertarians have an undying love for the potential of people, but I think I tend to be more pragmatic about these things.
Democracy in the middle east is ideal, but faux "democracy" could be potentially more harmful. I'm of the opinion, that if Rummy is right, and portions of Iraq can't vote, then we need to make it so they can. We can't claim to have "liberated" people, and then talk in percentages when it comes to their vote.