Spreading Freedom and Democracy

If I understand your most recent comments to my post of yesterday, it appears that the core of our discrepancy lies in the validity of why we should (or should not) be critical of the Bush administration for their prosecution of war in Afghanistan. We both agree:

(1) that it was the right decision to go in;
(2) that it is a terribly difficult challenge; and
(3) that the situation is deteriorating (I feel that it is worse than you feel that it is).

I am highly critical of the Administration for having let the situation get to where I suspect that it is. You feel that the situation is not that bad. Furthermore, you feel that because of the difficulty of the challenge, the Administration deserves the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Iraq was a major diversion that didn’t allow us to do the important work that must be done right in Afghanistan. You believe that the Iraq war hasn’t detracted from our efforts in Afghanistan. Is this an accurate summing up? If you agree that it is, we should monitor things in the coming months as more information becomes available. Perhaps the facts on the ground will support one of our positions.


One other issue I wanted to address: your proposition that we should try to spread freedom and democracy even if it has a small chance of succeeding. As I understand it, you believe this because it is the right thing to do. Let me agree, at the outset, that spreading freedom and democracy is a noble goal and it is the right thing to do. We have no argument there. My thought is that this doesn’t appear to be a valid justification for policy and I have a concrete parallel that I think you will agree with. I would like to make the proposal that eradicating poverty in the US is the right thing to do. Furthermore, this policy is necessary because the two economic classes in the US are getting farther apart and the divergence will threaten our national security if we let this gap continue to grow. I have a proposal that will take a lot of work and that will be fraught with setbacks along the way. But I believe that a series of government-funded policies to help the poor will eradicate poverty.

I would imagine that you would reply that this type of policy (i.e., government-funded programs to eradicate poverty) – although noble and potentially beneficial to the country overall – are not realistic and have been shown not to work. Indeed, I would agree with you.
My only point is that it is not enough for a policy to be noble and well-intentioned. It must be based on a sound premise with facts that support its success. I would speculate that this is the foundation of good conservative values and I adhere to it. I believe that our policy in Afghanistan is somehow not based on a good foundation and that we will pay a great price for it. I suppose that you are right that only time will tell whether that is true. If true, I blame the architect of the policy. I also believe that “spreading freedom and democracy” are indeed the reasons being given for the policy and that this is not a valid reason at all.