That was what we were told by our elected and/or appointed leaders when we invaded foreign countries. The United States is “spreading democracy”. Exactly how do we do that?
I realize that members of Al Qaeda plotted to attack symbols of the United States (World Trade Center, Pentagon) in the attempt to undo the foundation of our country, and that the controller of the plot was a potentate located in Afghanistan. Our invasion of Afghanistan was for the purposes of finding Osama bin Laden and for weeding out the taleban who ruled Afghanistan and who afforded bin Laden a safe haven. Spreading democracy was not likely the first or second goal we had, but how is it doing as a third goal?
In our primary goal to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice, we have failed completely. We continue to be mocked by bin Laden whenever he chooses to issue a video update. His exact whereabouts may or may not be known, but the longer we go in capturing him not only points to our own impotence but bleeds time, energy and money from other things that could actually help our country. In our secondary goal to weed out the taleban from Afghanistan, we have largely failed. Sure, the taleban may not be in direct control of the government any longer, but the taleban cannot be eradicated. The taleban, however organized, represent a thought process. They can control from the top down, the bottom up or from the side. Apparently, the taleban continue to control Afghanistan from the side. A deep thought process still alive and well.
In the examination of our third goal, the spreading of democracy, we have failed once again. Today, we have in the news the story of Parwez Kambakhsh,1 a college student in Afghanistan who has been prosecuted for … guess … no really, take a guess. Oh, c’mon, what do you think he could be prosecuted for? Rape? Drugs? Theft? Securing materials to make bombs? No, no, no — nothing that exotic. No, today we have learned that Parwez was convicted of free speech. That’s right! What we consider the bedrock of democracy, the right of free speech as granted by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, has completely passed by the Afghan courts. They have convicted Parwez of blaspheming Islam because he asked questions about womens’ rights within Islam in a university class. I know what you are thinking — Parwez must have done something else, something more extreme? Well, yes, he did. He printed an article from the Internet that asks many of the same questions and [illegally] distributed that article.
What the hell is happening here? Our government spends billions every month to occupy two countries for the purpose of spreading democracy and we have yet another example of how the basic tenets of democracy that we cherish are flagrantly ignored by the courts of another country. We have been in Afghanistan for seven years — just how long does it take to instill in another culture the basic civil rights and basic premises of democracy? Worse, and as a matter of high protest, the courts in Afghanistan can take action on a blasphemy of religion. That’s not just a violation of the First Amendment, it’s a repudiation of it. This is what religion offers. There is no equality in religion. It is impossible. The Afghan courts are essentially arms of the taleban — we didn’t weed out the taleban, we just moved them over to the side and put them in a place where they can control the law.
We need to get out of Afghanistan (and Iraq) as quickly as possible. We obviously are completely incompetent in meeting any of our goals and we are wasting money that we could desperately use for ourselves. A friend of mine used to say frequently when faced by an impossible circumstance, “You can’t teach a pig to sing. It just frustrates you and it annoys the pig.” Let’s stop trying to teach the pig to sing.
- Afghan court spares life of inquisitive journalism student, CNN.com, October 8, 2008. [<]
Tags: Afghan, Afghanistan, Amendment, Asia, ban, blasphemy, bomb, Civil Rights, CNN, Constitution, Democracy, First Amendment, foundation, free speech, Government, Iraq, islam, journalism, Law, legal, Qaeda, rape, Religion, rights, United States
Maybe the Bush administration confuses democracy with tangible goods: they seem to think that reducing democracy domestically will somehow spread it around … :/
The argument could be made that the afghanis and Iranis are better off now. I am not convinced that the US presence in these countrys is balanced to the negative. What this article does convince me of, is the nasty, terrible, awful things that people can do in the name of religion. Until there is a major shift of focus in the rational thinking people in the world, along with a concerted effort to remove religious influence from world governments, these types of civil violations will continue.
I think baby steps of democracy could work in the Middle East in the countries that have never had it before; and I don’t believe that Religious-based States could ever really be truly democratic; and not every place has to be. There are countries in the Middle East that aren’t as bad as Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan when it comes to the people. Though I wouldn’t want to use Saudi Arabia as a good example (and I won’t) but Oman, or Jordan, or Kuwait, or Turkey (though that’s probably more in Europe than the Middle East) etc., which have democracies in them, even if quite minimally. But democracy isn’t for everyone; though I do feel one should have the freedom to speak their mind (to a point) without being sent for jail for doing so, or killed for that matter — Capitalism is; these days, the forefront of Democracies, at least in the United States, and not really Freedom of Speech because even in the United States, Freedom of Speech is supressed by many people, against many other people. They may not be charged with a crime but, close enough.
Basically, we conquer a previously non-democratic country, and then provide the male citizens there the right to decide, in a majority vote, to oppress women and implement insane religious law.
That’s democracy at work!
I cannot comprehend how completely blinded these leaders must be by ignorance, power, conceit, and fear to consider it a crime to even suggest that women ought to have rights.
In 20/20 hindsight, trying to spread democracy to places where the majority have despicable views is obviously bad idea.
The solution could to be Cold War style intervention, invade and install a non-democratic, Western-friendly government. These days we’d probably require a more benevolent rule than during the Cold War, but the principle seem sound.
Spreading democracy was never even the tenth reason for going in. The only reason we go into any of these countries is to allow us Americans to consume, consume, consume. Our way of life requires that we be in this region because they have something we need. There is no other reason to be there. Our government will do anything in its power to never have to tell us that we have enough. That would be “un-American.”
Hehehe, JNTB, your article has made me realise what a stupid phrase “spreading democracy” is. In itself it implies a lack of democracy. How democratic is a war when it’s waged by foreign invading forces? Can you really “spread” democracy by force? Nicholas D’s suggestion doesn’t sit well with my sensibilities but then again, how much more democratic is it to replace old tyrants with new democratically elected ones? It’s not really democracy if it just becomes tyranny of the people – surely there is more to democracy than just a vote.
spider, None of those countries in that region are capable of being true democracies as Americans think of the term. Their religion will always get in the way. Not that our religions don’t get in the way of American democracy, but at least our founding documents make it clear (to me anyway) that we are in no way a “religious state.” I realize this is less clear to others, but that is what happens when the crazy gets in your head and puts up curtains and throws some paint on the walls…and throw pillows. Crazy always loves lots and lots of throw pillows.