In 1945, seven months after VE Day, "perplexed" American soldiers in occupied Germany were asking journalist Demaree Bess the following question: "What are we Americans supposed to be doing here? Are we going to take over this place and stay here forever?"
The establishment of democracy in a country isn't easy. Democracies are inherently fragile. Just look around. France is on its fifth republic. The first attempt at German democracy ended with Adolf Hitler. Democracies in Latin America have frequently degenerated into despotism. Ditto for African democracies.
American troops were necessary to building democracy in Germany and Japan after World War II. Today there is an effort underway, backed by American forces, to repeat this process in Iraq. Some critics believe that this effort is hopeless, that Arabs (or Muslims in general) are incapable of maintaining stable democratic institutions.
Are these critics right?
Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the book "Democracy in America," wrote of France's "disorderly" democratic beginnings. He was interested in studying American society because he wanted to know the secret of America's successful experiment in freedom. At the end of his book, Tocqueville warned against the idea that certain peoples are incapable of democracy because "they are bound to obey some insuperable and unthinking power, the product of pre-existing facts, of race, or soil, or climate." According to Tocqueville, "These are false and cowardly doctrines which can only produce feeble men and pusillanimous nations. Providence has, in truth, drawn a predestined circle around each man beyond which he cannot pass; but within those vast limits man is strong and free, and so are peoples."
For those who don't know, Alexis de Tocqueville's book on American democracy is regarded as a classic. And it was his view that freedom is within the reach of all. To be sure, there are those who believe that the Islamic mind, the Arab mind, is too clannish, too xenophobic for democratic institutions. The worst gangsters easily take charge of the "Arab street." Corruption flourishes on all sides. It is also said that the Arab temperament is prone to extremes. But similar statements were made about the French in Tocqueville's day.
The English statesman Edmund Burke once explained, "History consists, for the greater part, of the miseries brought upon the world by pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, and all the train of disorderly appetites, which shake the public with the same."
If democracy is to succeed, the Iraqi people must struggle against "all the train of disorderly appetites." And they have good reason to do so. They have seen the face of hypocrisy, ambition and revenge. They saw its mustache on Baghdad city billboards. They lost countless sons to the "ungoverned zeal" of religious fanaticism in the Iran-Iraq War. If any people on this planet are in a position to appreciate a moderate outlook, it is the Iraqis. And now it is up to them to seize the moment and build a genuinely free country. To do this, they must cultivate moderation in the face of religious zealotry, Ba'athist gangsterism and ethnic hatred. This is not an easy assignment. In fact, without American troops to maintain order during the interregnum, the Iraqi people don't stand a chance.
The Iraqi struggle for freedom is also threatened from within the United States: by a skeptical American press and the demagoguery of the domestic opposition. If President Bush's critics had their way, if America's troops were pulled from Iraq, a violent man would come to power in that country. And this is no mere speculation. If America abandoned the Iraqi people, nothing would stop Saddam Hussein from returning to Baghdad, and the human cost would be high. Thousands would be executed. Meanwhile, the world's worst thugs and dictators would note the weakness of the United States. They would rejoice at the feeble resolve of the American people. Seeing the collapse of America's Middle East policy, totalitarianism would be emboldened - in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Terrorism would declare victory. The attack of September 11, 2001, would be celebrated as a successful provocation.
America has a stake in Iraqi democracy. A stable, prosperous and free Iraq, allied to the West, is not only desirable for strategic reasons. It is good for humanitarian reasons. Americans of all political parties ought to be pulling for democracy in Iraq, for the success of our troops in their struggle against "disorder." As long as American troops hold the streets of Baghdad, no dictator will arise.
The stability of the Middle East, the need for a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, may depend on the moderating power of a successful Arab democracy. Such a country would genuinely seek peace, even as dictatorships predicate themselves on war.
Those who argue against the possibility of democracy in Iraq should consider the words of Tocqueville. Democracy is possible for all people, he said. President Bush is betting on the Iraqi people. He has faith in democracy and he has faith in the people we have liberated. I am sure it is sad for President Bush to hear, day by day, that American soldiers are dying in Iraq. But during an average week several hundred Americans are killed in automobile accidents. Yet nobody is suggesting that we give up our automobiles.
The Middle East is strategically important. We need oil to make gasoline for our automobiles. Our democratic allies in Europe and Asia also need oil. Because of this we need friends and allies in the Middle East. And what better way is there to win friends than by helping them to freedom?
