War & Peace
Do you know what is amazing, Robert? That two of the best places on Earth to live besides the US are Germany and Japan. That these two nations were defeated by the US, their existing governments replaced, and then molded to mimic US Democracy is no surprise.
Forcing US style Democracy on the world is not the goal, but rather Bush plans to begin a process to phase out those nation's governments which are polar opposites of such democracy.
Bush made it quite clear he believes the US has the responsibility to spread freedom for all humanity. That's quite an undertaking - even for the United States.
At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran -- because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well. (Applause.)
Clearly Bush does not intend to invade and replace the governments of Burma, North Korea, Iran et al, but he makes it clear that the US sides with all political efforts that will change their system of government.
His message to the people of Iran was particularly ominous for the present leadership:
The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. (Applause.) The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. (Applause.) America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.
"Rally the world" makes clear that the US alone is not and should not be the sole worker towards global democratic reforms. He's talking about those other "policemen" I mentioned - UK, Germany, Russia and China.
Believe it or not, Bush will leave quite a positive legacy when the world looks back at his far-reaching desires for global freedom in several decades. As former communist satellites' children view Reagan, so will former theocratic nations' children view Bush.
In many ways Europe and other parts of the world view his vision as that of a child who does not realize that Santa Claus is not real. Europe has always held that the peoples in the middle east are too unintelligent and barbaric to successfully exist in a democracy or without the security blanket of their religious leaders to tell them what to do. They believed that such peoples are inherently violent and must be ruled by someone like Saddam who is cruel and ruthless.
They forewarned Bush that the people would not embrace democracy and many would fight against it. Bush, childlike, refused to believe the naysayers and had a deep (probably religious) belief in people's ability to embrace freedom and beat the dark forces that seek to chain them.
Perhaps a childlike leader is exactly what the world needed. Someone who was not completely cynical and burned out, seeking only to further their own career and powerbase.
I don't seek war, but I know that wars are not just evil.
To take this discourse to another level - I will point out how all great evils have an equally positive side lurking within. I know that the Middle East will become a very positive place in centuries to come because of these events.
Sure, there will be this tough period of transition, but when all is said and done and the insurgents realize the existing powerbase is too entrenched to displace, they will give up. It may take ten to twenty years until the last of the insurgency grows up or fades away, but eventually that is exactly what it will do. When it does, the US efforts' will bear glorious fruit in a new educated generation accustomed to many and varied freedoms.
This world will never be without evil. Evil is one of those morphing targets and the positives of yesterday become the evils of tomorrow. The US will lose its power base edge by the close of the 21st century and as nuclear proliferation will be nearly universal by this time, the consequences of war will be just as great as the full nuclear exchange between the former USSR and the US.
The people-makers like China and India will, with more comprehensive education and sufficient food, become the primary superpowers of the 22nd century. The technological and industrial playing field will have long since been made equal.
The think-tanks have already presented Bush with these type of facts.
I think it is clear he sees a window of opportunity for America to make a difference. If, by the time these other nations acquire nuclear weapons, they have already embraced some form of democracy the world will survive. If too many nations still hold to barbaric systems that diminish the value of people or enslave them, then the world is in for a horrible time in the late 21st century and beyond.
America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace...Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?
It would be nice if all nations served up human rights and democracy like the US, Germany or Japan. Clinging to the cynical view that some nations must remain barbaric is really the worst kind of ethnic and national prejudice.
Saying the US has the right to change these people seems like arrogance - but is it really? Isn't that the same excuse southerners used to defend slavery? Northerner arrogance? It was a given that blacks were naturally "shiftless, criminal, but built for performing human labor".
Why should we have the right to force our morality on slaveowners and slave states and not governments of slave nations? Technically, the Confederate States of America was a nation and was recognized as such by other nations. (Had the UN existed surely they would have recognized it immediately as well;-) Lincoln decide not to recognize their will and to put his own above it. Bush has basically been doing the same thing since October of 2001.
Where is the moral line of demarcation that says morality and righteousness are permissable on this side but must be forgotten on this side of the imaginary line?
Bush will be out in several years and it will remain to be seen if his successor continues his vision or dramatically pulls back. Bush is doing what he can to make a difference. He realizes all too well the limitations on the pwer of the Presidency as well. His vision will certainly never become a reality during his term or any time soon.
In the meanwhile, I intend to enjoy Bush's Presidency as a breath of fresh air in a world filled with jaded and cynical leaders. His optimism is unwavering even after the enormous onslaught of hatred he has projected to him daily.
PS
I'm sorry to talk past some of your points. I'll try to address other aspects later. Otherwise the title of this post would become even more appropo.
;-)