…AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS?: I haven’t seen any explications of how we expect to transform Iraq into a liberal democracy once we’ve bulldozed lots of stuff. I’ve seen comparisons to post-WWII Japan and Germany (to which Unqualified Offerings replied by pointing out that we’d just, uh, dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, so they were smiling and playing nice for reasons that are really not relevant to Iraq’s situation; plus they were staring down the barrel of not one but two angry superpowers) but I haven’t really seen any thoughts on how we go from managerial/imperial-liberalism to actual liberalization. One of the basic points that tons of libertarians will bring up when discussing domestic politics is the need for people to feel like they have ownership of their lives–like they’re citizens, not subjects. What we’re proposing to do in Iraq, at best, is switch masters. I don’t see how that’s going to promote the kind of personal responsibility that drives liberalization; it sounds more like colonialism. And contemporary America–conflicted, filled with bad conscience about our role in the world–is likely to be even worse at colonialism than the British.

We need to think creatively about long-term ways of encouraging people in Middle Eastern dictatorships to want, demand, or prepare for liberalization. This article from Sojourners makes an effort, though its pacifist perspective limits it and even makes it somewhat disingenuous–the article talks as if peaceful citizen resistance never fails (Tiananmen…), and as if violent citizen resistance always fails (Ceaucescu? and I thought, contrary to the Sojourners account, Pinochet’s removal required the threat of violence?). I’ve got no problem with violent citizen resistance; I know it’s easy for the US government or individual US citizens to get sucked into supporting factions whose disputes and crimes we know little about (like the Kosovo Liberation Army, gah), but I definitely don’t rule out governmental or individual support for internal resistance movements. Other things we can promote: trade; missionary activity (obviously this is something for individual citizens to promote, not the Feds, though the Feds can perhaps apply pressure to keep Islamist countries from killing US missionaries); charitable activity; small loans; Internet use; and propaganda (actually just rhetoric–I think “propaganda” implies falsehood) for freedom and justice. I think all those things contribute to giving people, even rigidly oppressed people, some degree of control over their own destinies. And that experience of control is a much better enticement to and preparation for liberalization than the experience of the sack of Baghdad will be.

I hope to be proven wrong, of course.