Gorbachev hates children.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Um, hows about a policy that neither specifically supports such regimes, nor advocates the use of US military force to remove such regimes and replace them with democracies?

How freaking hard is that sort of realism? Support for democratization doesn't have to mean tanks & bombs. Until rather recently, such a thing was a radical theory. Sure, without the tanks & bombs, progress is slower - the regimes will remain in place. At the same time, you don't end up being responsible (in whole or in part) for the type of cluster**** currently happening in Iraq.

-Arrian

It was a radical theory? Then you actually bought the causus belli asserted wrt Grenada and Panama? Our position on Nicaragua? (or maybe the latter was okay, cause people didnt really think the Contras would implement democracy) Oh and of course overthrowing democratic regimes, like in the Domican Republic, now that wasnt so radical.

Iraq maybe a cluster**** but the hypocrites, with their Saudi connections(im talking big deal DC types, not you Arrian) , who blame the neocons for this 'change' of orientation from the good old days of Reagan and Bush Sr and Nixon, are talking so much bunk. Its esp ironic coming from folks who were all on board for the support of the Shah, which arguably is still the root of our problems in the region.

[Arrian]

I was too young for Grenada, LotM. I actually have no idea what that was about.

Panama, as far as I can remember, was about removing a nasty fellow we no longer liked (in large part due to drug trafficking). You say it was about spreading democracy?

Nicaragua is another one I know little about, though I don't recall "our side" in that being particularly democratic.

...

Look, I understand that invading Iraq wasn't just (or even primarily) about spreading democracy (though that was one of the big justifications for it, which has grown with time as the others fall apart). There were both "realist" and "neocon" reasons to take down Saddam and their combination with the overall (geo)political situaiton resulted in the invasion.

So perhaps "radical theory" is overstating it. Or, to be more accurate, spreading democracy by force remains a radical theory and still has never been the sole casus belli in a war.

Fine. I still like what Gorby said, ok?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
"I was too young for Grenada, LotM. I actually have no idea what that was about."

It was kinda fuzzy to me at the time. Some combination of dangers to American med students there, a commie threat to the canal, and undemocratic regime which had just taken power. No real CB.

"Panama, as far as I can remember, was about removing a nasty fellow we no longer liked (in large part due to drug trafficking). You say it was about spreading democracy?"

Nominally cause of some minor border incident between Panama and the Canal Zone, which we had not yet left. In fact cause Bush Sr was embarrassed about his earlier support for drug smuggling dictator. Emphasis on dictator.


"Nicaragua is another one I know little about, though I don't recall "our side" in that being particularly democratic."

Maybe not, but the admin quite definitely said it was about democracy.

...

"Look, I understand that invading Iraq wasn't just (or even primarily) about spreading democracy (though that was one of the big justifications for it, which has grown with time as the others fall apart). There were both "realist" and "neocon" reasons to take down Saddam and their combination with the overall (geo)political situaiton resulted in the invasion.

So perhaps "radical theory" is overstating it. Or, to be more accurate, spreading democracy by force remains a radical theory and still has never been the sole casus belli in a war.

Fine. I still like what Gorby said, ok?"


Fine. And I still see the discussions of cultural mindsets, etc as more aimed at everything from change in Syria, to change in Georgia, to change in Khazakhstan, using Iraq as support, and I fear, that we are entering an era when any real substantive support for democratization will be off the agenda, and that many will suffer for it - and we will not end up better off for it.

[Arrian]

Define "real substantive support for democratization" though.

Invasions to topple dictators and set up democracies? Sure, probably off the table. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Other support (Orange & Cedar "revolutions", pressure on our authoritarian "allies" to reform, etc) will likely remain.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

One of the problems with 'orange-style-support' is that it encourages political parties to look outward from their countries, and play to a gallery of international sympathy, at the possible expense of appealing directly to the people in their own country.

I think this happened in Zimbabwe, where opposition leaders seemed more interested in winning votes in London and Washington than building support amongst their own people.

[Arrian]

Possible, I suppose, but then again did the opposition in Zimbabwe really stand any chance against ZanuPF anyway? Mugabe had no intention of letting them win. Did playing for international support really hurt them any more, or perhaps help a bit, or neither?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Define "real substantive support for democratization" though.

Invasions to topple dictators and set up democracies? Sure, probably off the table. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Other support (Orange & Cedar "revolutions", pressure on our authoritarian "allies" to reform, etc) will likely remain.

-Arrian

real substantive support in the above statement could range from verbal declarations (in the case of the recent meeting with the head of Kazakhstan we didnt even do that) to the kind of modest support to non-violent dissidents typical of the color revolutions, to denial of aid (which we DID do wrt Uzbekistan) to sanctions, to an actual CIA planned coup d'etat. Anything short of sending in the 3rd Infantry Division, IOW. I think the focus on "domestically grown democracy" is skeptical of ALL of the above, and not just of invasions.


There are also issues of what to wrt democracy if and when we invade a country for other reasons. But I would agree that is at least somewhat a seperate issue.

[lord of the mark]

"One of the problems with 'orange-style-support' is that it encourages political parties to look outward from their countries, and play to a gallery of international sympathy, at the possible expense of appealing directly to the people in their own country."

I dont think that was quite how it played out in Ukraine. it certainly wasnt how it played out in Serbia, which was really the model. Part of Orange style support is providing the training that will, among other things, warn of pitfalls like that.

[Arrian]

I'd agree with those realists with regard to CIA coups d'etat. I remain generally skeptical of sanctions (again looking at Iraq, but obviously 1991-2003 Iraq).

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'd agree with those realists with regard to CIA coups d'etat. I remain generally skeptical of sanctions (again looking at Iraq, but obviously 1991-2003 Iraq).

-Arrian

Those sanctions werent aimed at creating democracy.


You arent going to get democratic change in Syria by cutting off US aid, which doesnt go to Syria. Or by promoting domestic NGOs, which are generally suppressed, IIUC. Youre allowing only tools that work against US allies (like Egypt) or against regimes that are already relatively open (like Ukraine). This takes away democratization as a strategy in precisely some of the cases where we need it most - and it perversely incentivizes dictators to A. Not be US allies and B. Not allow any openness in their societies.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by LordShiva
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omlette [sic.], it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omlettehood [sic.].

That almost sounds Marxist.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Well, Gorbachev may hate children,
but Putin loves them (remembering him when he was kissing the belly of this little child )

[Elok]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"Democracy wont work in Russia in 2006 cause the in 1000 CE Kievan Rus adopted Orthodoxy instead of Catholicsm, and the Orthodox civ is less inclined to democracy,

Do some nincompoops actually say this, or are you just making it up on the fly, or are you jerking my chain to get back at me? Dagnabit, now I'm paranoid.

[Kuciwalker]

*cough*Europa Universalis*cough*

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Elok
Do some nincompoops actually say this, or are you just making it up on the fly, or are you jerking my chain to get back at me? Dagnabit, now I'm paranoid.

Is "jerking my chain" really a commonly-used phrase?