Charles Krauthammer on Libya and the Bush Doctrine

[Monkeyleg]

It's seemed as though almost no one has wanted to even suggest that what Bush started in Iraq may be contributing to the upheavals in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere. So, it's interesting to read what one mainstream conservative columnist--Charles Krauthammer--has to say on the matter.

It will also be interesting to read what comments the usual suspects on APS will have.

The column is here

[TommyGunn]

Krauthammer is usually an interesting, intelligent read.  For my part, I am not convinced that these ... "revolutions" are a good thing.  For that matter, they may start out "good" and then degenerate.
The French Revolution (inspired by our Revolutionary War) started out that way and wound up slaughtering 40,000+ innocents including even babies and gave europe Napoleon Bonaparte.
Any of these mideast revolutions could go south the same way, and when the Muslim Brotherhood is involved, the chances are high it will be engineered to go bad, from our perspective atleast.

[Monkeyleg]

TommyGun, I think that's been the nature of revolutions for as long as there have been governments.

At least with a revolution in these countries, there's some chance of getting a better government.

[TommyGunn]

But probably no more than "the nature of revolutions for as long as there have been governments."
Statistically speaking .... looking at history, it would seem there's a very little chance any particular revolution will turn out positive as ours did.  If these are being machinated then I think the likelyhood of any good resulting is even less.   
I like to be hopeful .... just don't think so. 
And given the decisive, insightful, thoughtful, well reasoned,* ability of our current commmander-in-chief, I am rather pessimistic about the whole thing and what it means for us ....... 



*  This is sarcasm, for those who are reading this in Rio Linda.

[MicroBalrog]

The French Revolution (inspired by our Revolutionary War) started out that way and wound up slaughtering 40,000+ innocents including even babies and gave europe Napoleon Bonaparte.

How did you get to 40,000 innocents? 40,000 dead is the highest possible estimate for total number of all executions in the French Revolution (most historians put it at less), including things like military desertion and criminal offenses.

On the other hand, the French Revolution ended slavery and serfdom in France, freeing 1,000,000 people. Napoleon, too, was nothing like the great Tyrants of the 20th century.

More importantly,  the French Revolution succeeded in the long run, slaying the hydra of unrestrained autocratic rule in France - no restoration of the monarchy could later be engaged that didn't respect the rights of Frenchmen. It's just not true that the French Revolution had failed completely.

[longeyes]

Rather benign take on Napoleon.  One might argue that the French Revolution didn't liberate Europe, Wellington did.

[De Selby]

Rather benign take on Napoleon.  One might argue that the French Revolution didn't liberate Europe, Wellington did.

Ha!  That is so rich.  Oh yeah, the English monarchs who fought for monarchy against France brought freedom!

Monkeyleg, Iraq is undergoing the same protests.  The iraq war contributed by delegitimizing the dictatorships in the eyes of their own people, since they didnt oppose the Iraq war.  Not exactly success of the bush doctrine

[Monkeyleg]

Ha!  That is so rich.  Oh yeah, the English monarchs who fought for monarchy against France brought freedom!

Monkeyleg, Iraq is undergoing the same protests.  The iraq war contributed by delegitimizing the dictatorships in the eyes of their own people, since they didnt oppose the Iraq war.  Not exactly success of the bush doctrine

The usual suspects are here!

It took you 5 hours, 24 minutes and 7 seconds, De Selby. Next time be more prompt.

[SADShooter]

So, let's make sure I understand. We're at fault for a) propping up dictatorships b) removing other dictatorships, and c) screwing up by delegitimizing remaining dictatorships?  Do I have that correct?

[TommyGunn]

How did you get to 40,000 innocents? 40,000 dead is the highest possible estimate for total number of all executions in the French Revolution (most historians put it at less), including things like military desertion and criminal offenses.

On the other hand, the French Revolution ended slavery and serfdom in France, freeing 1,000,000 people. Napoleon, too, was nothing like the great Tyrants of the 20th century.

More importantly,  the French Revolution succeeded in the long run, slaying the hydra of unrestrained autocratic rule in France - no restoration of the monarchy could later be engaged that didn't respect the rights of Frenchmen. It's just not true that the French Revolution had failed completely.

The 40,000 figure was a gross figure I heard relating to the French Revolution.  Perhaps the error I made was to use the term "innocents" but OTOH, a great many were.
As other have said your "take" on Napoleon is rather benign.  The French may have eventually been better off ... even the Germans could be said to have been "better off" after Hitler's death ... but I do not believe they achieved the degree of freedom we did by a longshot.
Even "Napoleonic Law" (which the defendant is presumed guilty until innocence is proved) is hardly what I consider conducive to freedom.
Anyway, my main point was simply that most revolutions seem to come out the cr@ppy side of reality ... atleast in comparison to ours.  Very few people had the principles our founding fathers had.

[MicroBalrog]

Even "Napoleonic Law" (which the defendant is presumed guilty until innocence is proved) is hardly what I consider conducive to freedom.

Napoleonic law has never had a de-jure presumption of guilt in it. On the other hand, it did have provisions for freedom of religion and equality before the law.

I don't think it's a fair gauge to say that most revolutions failed because they haven't succeeded as well as the U.S. revolution. America is the freest country in the world. To say that you have failed because you're not as good as the best guy is ridiculous on its face. On this argument we're all idiots because we're not as smart as Albert Einstein, and paupers, since none of us is Sergei Brin or Bill Gates.

The other important issue is this:

The main problem of living under a dictatorship is that it's extremely difficult to achieve policy change peacefully. You either suffer through the regime's injustices, or you overthrow the regime. Yes, innocents will suffer. So if you live under a dictatorship, that's the choice you need to make - either you risk having a worse guy come to power, and innocents suffer in the inevitable street fighting - even the Egyptian revolution hasn't been 100% peaceful so far-  or you suck it up.

A democratic system is actually more conservative because it allows for minute changes being made without outright overthrowing the government.

[Gowen]

Say it aint so, former President Bush was correct?  Nah, must be some sort of post traumatic Bush derangement syndrome.  Everyone knows that obama is author of everything that is good and boosh is the originator of all that is evil.

[Perd Hapley]

It's seemed as though almost no one has wanted to even suggest that what Bush started in Iraq may be contributing to the upheavals in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere.

Of course not. They were inspired by the example of Barack Obama, who won the presidency, against all odds.

[Monkeyleg]

Won the presidency? Don' t you know that the success in Iraq today is one of this administration's "greatest accomplishments" (per Joe Biden)?

[De Selby]

Won the presidency? Don' t you know that the success in Iraq today is one of this administration's "greatest accomplishments" (per Joe Biden)?

Obama is equally ridiculous on this subject - his policy and approach is no different from George Bush's.

Let's try this - can anyone find a protestor in one of these countries citing Iraq as inspiration?  How about any positive comments at all about Iraq's new government from these places?

[Jamisjockey]

So, let's make sure I understand. We're at fault for a) propping up dictatorships b) removing other dictatorships, and c) screwing up by delegitimizing remaining dictatorships?  Do I have that correct?

Yes.  Interventioninsim has netted us instability.

[mtnbkr]

Yes.  Interventioninsim has netted us instability.

Don't forget dead soldiers and more debt.

Chris

[MicroBalrog]

Yes.  Interventioninsim has netted us instability.

Evil regimes being destabilized is a good thing.

[mtnbkr]

Evil regimes being destabilized is a good thing.

Iraqis aren't  worth what we've spent in terms of lives and money.

Neither would be Europeans for that matter.

Chris

[SADShooter]

OK. Then let's build the wall. Now.

[grampster]

Maybe the reality of the powder keg that is and has been the ME might just seep into the American consciousness at last!  Then instead of sitting on our hands we'll begin to get serious about electing people who have America's progress on their mind with respect to energy, borders, getting the government in it's proper place with respect to industry and business, welfare and taxation.

We've had 40 years to get our country free of foreign energy sources and we've accomplished what?  We've had a war on poverty for nearly 50 years...where is the exit strategy, Liberal Left?  Fill in the rest of the blanks.

Maybe if we ban latte unless we get an "All of the above" energy policy, or you can't send your kid to Harvard unless we build a nuclear powerplant; one kid, one plant.  Or you can't have an electric organ donor vehicle unless we repeal the law against recycling nuclear material.  Or you can't name your daughter Muffy till we secure our borders and have a guest worker/sane immigration policy. 

Didn't the Constitution say that there is a "Wall of separation between Liberals and State".  Can you find me a judge?

[Monkeyleg]

Let's try this - can anyone find a protestor in one of these countries citing Iraq as inspiration?  How about any positive comments at all about Iraq's new government from these places?

De Selby, you're once again putting the onus on other APS members to spend time gathering information to dispute your positions.

Why don't you go find a credible news source that proves that none of the protestors were moved by the freedom Iraqi's now enjoy.

I expect you to give this your due diligence, and to not post on other topics until you've completed this research.

[Perd Hapley]

Sorry, Monkeyleg, but I don't think that's DeSelby's job here. He's asking for more direct evidence of Krauthammer's position, which is not out of bounds.

That being said, Krauthammer could be right, even without any protesters saying nice things about Iraq. What the protesters don't say doesn't necessarily prove anything.

[TommyGunn]

Napoleonic law has never had a de-jure presumption of guilt in it. On the other hand, it did have provisions for freedom of religion and equality before the law......

The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries. However, the legal proceedings certainly did not have de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror's oath explicitly recommended that the jury did not betray the interests of the defendants, and took attention of the means of defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_law

OK ....   Maybe I was "wrong" .... but I was sorta right.

[Monkeyleg]

Fistful, De Selby is asking for facts that are I believe unavailable to dispute Krauthammer's opinion.

He's asking for these facts as he's been challenged on his assertion as fact that Ghadaffi (sp?), Mubarek, etc are being overthrown because they didn't oppose the Iraq war.

I've never said that the upheaval in these countries was due to the success of the Iraq war, but I've questioned whether there could be a conneciton. That's considerably different than making blanket statements, as De Selby has and always does, and then demanding that others produce evidence to disprove those blanket statements, which De Selby is doing now and has done before.

In another thread, De Selby made the blanket assertion that Iraq was poorer and had slower economic growth since the beginning of the Iraq war. He used as his basis a blog written by an anonymous blogger. I produced information from the CIA which countered the facts from his anonymous blogger.

At some point I think it should be up to De Selby to do some legwork, instead of making bold statements and then making others do the research to disprove them.