2006 November 07 Tuesday
Steve Sailer: Political Correctness Keeps Us In Iraq

Steve Sailer argues that George W. Bush justifies US intervention with very liberal and unconservative beliefs about humanity.

Why are we in Iraq? There are many reasons, almost all of them bad.

But the one that deserves recounting is this: supporters of the war successfully bullied many skeptics into silence by declaring that anyone who doubted that Iraqis were ready for democracy was a racist.

Thus in a February 2003 speech to the American Enterprise Institute, George W. Bush said:

"There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. [Applause] … It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world—or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim—is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life."

Similarly, in August 2003, the Daily Telegraph summarized a speech by then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to the National Association of Black Journalists: "Critics of US policy are racist, says Rice" [By David Rennie]. An extract:

"Black Americans should stand by others seeking freedom today, she went on, and shun the 'condescending' argument that some races or nations were not interested in or ready for Western freedoms. 'We've heard that argument before. And we, more than any, as a people, should be ready to reject it,' she said. 'That view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham and it is wrong in 2003 in Baghdad and in the rest of the Middle East.'"

So supporters of the invasion intimidated onlookers by insinuating that unbelievers in the bright promise of Arab democracy were despicable bigots. Then they went on to spout even more bizarre nonsense about how Iraqis, a population notorious even among Arabs for their self-destructive homicidal lunacy, were practically New Hampshireites in their readiness for self-rule.

For example, Mr. Bush told the AEI:

"The nation of Iraq—with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people—is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom [Applause]."

Are Iraqis "skilled and educated?" The literacy rate in Iraq is 40.4%, according to Mr. Bush's own CIA.

The need to defend liberal myths about human nature is a major reason why the Democrats have not been more effective in their criticisms of the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq and the Middle East. In the minds of many intellectuals on the Left better that US foreign policy stay totally messed up than that truths about human nature that challenge liberal assumptions make it into mainstream newspaper reports and political discussions.

The big gains the Democrats have made in Congress place them in an interesting position. They have ridden to power as a result of popular anger about the course of the Iraq war. But can the Democrats manage to extricate US forces from Iraq without admitting that some nations lack the necessary conditions to become liberal democracies? Never mind that this lack is obvious in Iraq. You probably aren't going to hear Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pontificate about how we should cut our losses in Iraq since democracy and Arabs are not compatible. She isn't going to say we should just let non-Western illiberal people go their very undemocratic and very unfree way. Leading liberals are not going to admit that their secular faith is not the universal aspiration of all the peoples of the world.

You aren't going to get much reality on Iraq from the mainstream media or politicians of either party in Washington DC. But you can read about reality on the web. Start with my posts John Tierney On Cousin Marriage As Reform Obstacle In Iraq (admittedly he writes for the New York Times but his arguments are rarely repeated elsewhere), Pessimists on Muslim Democracy, Unilaterally Withdraw From Iraq Or First Partition?, Pope Benedict Sees Islam Incompatible With Western Societies, Consanguinity prevents Middle Eastern political development, and History Of American Interventions Bodes Poorly For Democracy.

Also see the consang.net map Global Prevalence of consanguinity.

Myths are killing and maiming lots of American soldiers and Iraqis. Hasn't the cost of these myths gotten too high? Greater honesty and realism would save lives.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 November 07 07:32 PM  Mideast Iraq Human Nature

John S Bolton said at November 8, 2006 12:45 AM:

Moslem nations being "untouched by basic aspirations" vs.
their wanting freedom from aggression, is not known to be other than a false dilemma.
Those who say that a moslem cannot want freedom from aggression, when his faith demands the freedom to impose Islam by aggression, are not saying that the moslem is literally "untouched" by aspirations in a direction other than what his faith requires.
What is meant is that the moslem as such, and the moslem nation as such, do not participate in any such western concept of freedom and democracy.
If the administration line were rationally supportable, why would they have to use the smear approach of suggesting that only racists would find lack of desire for western ideas of freedom in a moslem nation?
If the administration line were correct, the iraqis should be grateful, not hostile for their liberation. Likewise the moslem nations in general should be pleased, not alarmed and displeased by the intervention.
The administration strategy assumed freedom-loving Iraqis, but there were few if any to be found. They assumed competence in democratic governance, widespread in a moslem population, just because of the presumptive equality of man; but inequality in those departments is what exists.
Smearing those who tell the truth on such inequalities, indicates a weakness in the egalitarian premisses; and it changes no facts, thus causing falsely-based strategies to founder.

Mark said at November 9, 2006 12:59 AM:

Knowing the British coined territory "Iraq" since more than 40 years any "icon" as the Jewish Josh Bolton acting as an ambassador for the United States in the United Nations should be eliminated as soon as possible. The Western freedom was betrayed by the
Bush-bastards. And I recommend especially our GIs to back-bomb and shell
the bastard-kids of the trash Barbara Bush, id est the ridiculous Alabama soldier George
and his trash-twin-scumbags-bastards[to borrow a term from the canadian commander Hillier
who kills kids around Kandahar-Hindukush]. After 300'000 "Iraq"-kids killed it's now the turn to bomb
and attack the bastards of the in the U.S. state Maine well-known trash: Barbara Bush. Go after
her and hurt her bastards one by one.
To the next theme and our war agenda:
On the official websites
of the Congress and the
Senate during the confirmation hearings I have hailed in written form the former nsa chief heyden
for the top job in the cia knowing that 2006 we shooted down the nsa
website for 3 days
with success to demonstrate our military might. This said knowing
about the former cia-deputy,Robert Gates,
and "ad hoc" DoD chief
only failures as the
famous "Iran-Gate" I
recommend You to
confirm Robert Gates
in the coming Capitol
hearings as the new
"SoD"[GI acronym].

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©