Motives

Johann Hari, a former left-wing Iraq hawk like myself, turns a review of a book by Nick Cohen, current left-wing Iraq hawk, into the opportunity for a great essay on the phenomenon. My main disagreement is that I think Hari overemphasizes the idea that democracy, freedom, etc. aren't important subjective aims of Bush, Cheney, neoconservatism etc.

I spent a lot of time puzzling over Bush's sincerity or lack thereof with regard to his idealistic rhetoric before the war, and in retrospect it was all wasted time. It's interesting to wonder how it's possible -- or if it's possible -- for a man to speak grand words about liberty in the morning and defending systematic torture in the afternoon, but it's not actually relevant. The main point was that there was simply never any good reason to believe the more idealistic aspiration sometimes associated with the war had any decent prospects of success. It was fundamentally dumb to think that invading and conquering Iraq could turn it into a stable liberal democracy if only we wanted it badly enough and that the main issue was whether or not Bush "really" wanted it. It was just fundamentally a dumb idea, and that's what I should have seen at the time. It still seems to me that Bush may well have been dumb enough to sincerely believe in it on some level, but it was still dumb -- that's what matters.

Defense Department photo courtesy of Ping News.

Comments

"It's interesting to wonder how it's possible -- or if it's possible -- for a man to speak grand words about liberty in the morning and defending systematic torture in the afternoon..."

Of course it's possible. The man is a liar. He tells lies. He says whatever will get him what he wants with no regard for truth or even consistency. It has nothing to do with intelligence. The world is full of people like him. Haven't you ever met any before? Why is this so difficult for you?

Posted by Bloix | July 25, 2007 12:43 AM

Well, he might be a liar, and/or he might be stupid enough not to realize that torture and a Jihad for Democracy are not compatible goals. He might be limited and spoiled enough not to bother to examine his inclinations.

I too was a liberal hawk on this war. It was a bad idea, at the time, because of the war supporters' fundamental ignorance about Iraq and overconfidence in our ability to snap our fingers and transform a country. I also should have realized that it was a bad idea at the time because administration claims, ie re UAVs and aluminum tubes, did not stand up to scrutiny.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 25, 2007 12:59 AM

I don't know. I don't think the essay hits the mark.

1. The debate over the Iraq War on the left was not about the root causes of jihadism or the nature Islamism, except maybe in the minds of people like Cohen and Hitchens. They seemed to be caught up in some Romantic notion of liberating the world of tyranny. For a much larger group, the cost/benefit analysis just did not make a case for the war, not by a longshot. When sensible people tried to argue that invading Iraq was just not a good idea and would likely cause more harm than good, they were accused of being appeasers, traitors, Islamo-fascist symps, and so on.

2. He conflates support for the invasion of Afghanistan with support for the invasion of Iraq. Lots of people on the left thought the invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and root out Al Qaeda was well justified, but did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq.

3. I think he really overstates the degree to which people on the left sympathized with Islamists as a third-world liberation movement. There may have been a small percentage of such people on the fringe, such as Ward Churchill, but in no way did this represent the mainstream left. This is a pretty big strawman.

Posted by blah | July 25, 2007 1:03 AM

Yglesias, are you saying that you agree with him as regards Islamism? Both the fascism claim and the Great Man theory that pervades his description of "Islamism" seem stretched, the former because consensus definition of fascism is hard to find and it's not self-evident that Islamism falls within fascism, the latter because...well, you're either the sort that still believes that stuff or you're not, I guess.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 25, 2007 1:29 AM

I've thought since the first WTC attack that given a chance the most dedicated jihaidsts would nuke an American city if they could, and I was 100% against the Iraq invasion. For the simple reason that Saddam didn't have one fucking thing to do with jihad. Because the invasion was a surefired way to stoke jihad against America and our allies..

Hey, I don't have any answers for the cultural/economic mess that is Muslim Middle East. I do know that if they didn't have the oil we wouldn't give a shit, so you can take The Party line about freedom and democracy and stick it you know where. Absent the oil we wouldn't have been there, behind and in front of the scenes, in the post WWII era installing, removing and supporting governments, being king makes and thus inventing jihad against us..

We aren't leaving, soon or ever. The deaths in the region will go on and on till the oil runs out. In numbers that will exceed all previous genocides. We will play our part but mostly the people there will do the dirty work among themselves. We will be there to sop up the oil as much as possible.

Posted by rapier | July 25, 2007 1:38 AM

Well, MY, you're right and you're wrong. Insofar as when determining whether something will occur one should ask, "Is it possible?" before one asks "Is it intended?" you are, of course, right. But you are limiting yourself to only the question of whether the Iraq war will produce a stable and democratic Iraq, when there are many more lessons to be drawn from this little experiment. For instance, a cynic might be tempted to conclude that when he hears the words, "democracy promotion", he should reach for either his pistol or his wallet, as his political affiliation dictates. An advocate of worldwide democracy, however, might,if GWB were to have launched the war in good faith,might conclude that war is an unsuitable tool for spreading democracy. If not, said advocate might say the unsuitable tool was Bush himself, and support HRC's liberation of Iran. In either case, the final disposition of Iraq is both a result and a predictor.

Posted by foolishmortal | July 25, 2007 1:45 AM

Nah, next time their declared goal might be remotely possible, but it still will be a bullshit goal.

It's important to understand that their real, bottom-line goals never-ever have anything to do with any grand ideas, it's always money and power.

Posted by abb1 | July 25, 2007 2:14 AM

I wonder how much of the recanting by former liberal hawks is them simply getting going when the going got tough ("tough" in the relative sense of armchair hawks and doves of course, not tough in the sense of the folks dodging bullets).

The former lefty hawk reasoning seems to be: it didn't work out the way we hoped, so therefor it was a stupid idea. This is a naive cop-out. Wars are inevitably risky, bloody, and to some extent unpredictable; a rational recantation should be based on the information available at the time your decision to support the war was made. The lefty hawk ship-jumping also ignores another possibility: that deposing Saddam was the right thing to do and the result has been a mess.

I was in the Army Reserve during the first Gulf War, and remember the pre-war debate then -- it was conducted with a lot more seriousness than the one in '02. Those who voted to authorize Desert Storm did so with a clearer understanding of negative consequences; had the war ended up being far more costly in lives, I think you would have seen fewer fair weather hawks scurrying to recant than you see today.

One other point, about Iraqis and democracy: Given that third world countries such as El Salvador have survived civil wars to become functioning democracies, is it really so crazy to think Iraqis might be as politically capable as Salvadorans? If so, what other countries/swaths of the globe are liberals prepared to write off as incapable of governing themselves democratically? What impact might this have on liberal foreign policy going forward? Should we, for example, just shitcan all of our diplomatic pro-democracy initiatives?

Posted by Fred | July 25, 2007 2:51 AM

It's interesting to wonder. It's interesting to wonder how it's possible. It's interesting to wonder how it's possible for a relatively intelligent, well-educated, well-informed person (like Matt?) not to have seen through the bullshit sooner. Many others did, without the benefit of (blah blah). But it certainly is interesting to wonder. And to spend time puzzling, while taking breaks from wondering.

Posted by live | July 25, 2007 3:25 AM

Johann Hari tells us that, "[Cohen's] initial reaction to the September 11th massacres was, he writes now, 'that they were a nuisance that got in the way of more pressing concerns.'" I think it's a safe bet that Cohen doesn't actually care about the victims of fascism.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | July 25, 2007 4:08 AM

The elusiveness of Bush's motives for the war is significant and notable, in and of itself. My own guess is that the recipe for war was a mix of domestic politics and frat-boy aggressiveness-- with a dash of oil. But that's just a guess.

Posted by MattF | July 25, 2007 4:31 AM

"former left-wing Iraq hawk like myself"

I can't figure out whether Yglesias is saying he used to be, but is not longer...

* a hawk

* an Iraq hawk

* a left-wing Iraq hawk

* a left-winger

* all of the above!!

any clarification would be appreciated.

Posted by heatkernel | July 25, 2007 5:47 AM

It's interesting to wonder what's supposed to be "neo" about the conservatism of Karl Rove and company, that liberals insist on using the name of a political movement that expired with the Cold war as a content free epithet for their enemies. It's interesting to wonder if Matt actually knows what a "neocon" really is, when he misuses the term. It's interesting to wonder if it's just a liberal code-word for "conservative Jew".

But I guess I'll just have to wonder, since phrasing things this way doesn't really constitute asking a question...

Posted by Brett Bellmore | July 25, 2007 6:45 AM

I do not know why Bush went to war. I do know that his stated reasons for doing it were self-evidently false. Did he lie? I don't know. He is certainly indifferent to the truth. At least that what he told Judy Woodruff in response to the question: What if there are no WMD? Bush replied: what difference does it make? And to those of us who give a rat's ass about the republic, that is a question worth answering.
In the meantime, the people who can't see it was a bad idea today, whatever they thought at the time, whatever sorry excuse for their idiocy, (I was lied to, he didn't run the war right, the democrats made me lose, etc) lack the judgment to have a driver's license. If you thought this war was a good idea, you should say you are sorry, act humble and help us get out. Then you should devote your life to making sure this never happens again. If you can't do that, STFU.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | July 25, 2007 7:02 AM

It seems kind of funny that in the morning Matt would describe Pete Seeger as a communist dupe, and in the afternoon he would tell us he still thinks Republicans may be sincere devotees of freedom and democracy.

Matt, what part of warrantless searches, indefinite detention, stolen elections, and contempt of Congress do you not understand?

I especially enjoyed learning recently that when Hitler invaded Russia, he too issued a general order that the Russians were 'illegal combatants' and were not entitled to the protection of the international laws of war.

At some point you just have to give up and face reality, as unpleasant as that experience has now become.

Posted by serial catowner | July 25, 2007 8:01 AM

Matt. People. Cheney Cheney Cheney Cheney. And a dash of Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz for good measure. Bush doesn't know what he believes or thinks from one day to the next. He was and is easily manipulated by the real power brokers. Cheney wanted this war for his own geostrategic neoconservative (or rather, purely business) reasons and considered that a behind-the-scenes vice presidency was THE perfect vehicle with which to prosecute it. He almost certainly knew it wouldn't go perfectly but that any political fallout would be Mr. World-Historical Figure Bush's (and the party's) to deal with, which he decided he didn't care about so much as long as certain business interests were served. "Democracy in the Middle East" is a red herring; the United States has never acted as though that were truly important to it. Look at fucking Saudi Arabia, our bestest friends.

Posted by Bill | July 25, 2007 8:20 AM

Sincerity is pretty overrated as a political virtue. Leaders who are sincere in their delusions tend to be the most dangerous.

Posted by RC | July 25, 2007 8:39 AM

It's interesting to wonder if it's just a liberal code-word for "conservative Jew".

oh Brett, put a sock in it.

Posted by cleek | July 25, 2007 8:39 AM

It was a bad idea, at the time, because of the war supporters' fundamental ignorance about Iraq and overconfidence in our ability to snap our fingers and transform a country.

No, you putz. It was a bad idea at the time BECAUSE KILLING TENS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE IS NEVER JUSTIFIED UNLESS YOU ARE COMBATTING A GREATER AND/OR EXISTENTIAL THREAT.

Sorry I raised my voice. I get a little frustated, sometimes.

Posted by Brautigan | July 25, 2007 9:31 AM

Judging by this post and others, Matt seems to think that political debate should take place in the arena of evaluating policies, rather than character or intentions. And of course it is true that policies are ultimately what matter. But character and intentions matter much more in an instrumental sense. Holders of political office have enormous discretionary power, especially the President with regard to matters of war. By the time you know what his real policies are, it's too late to debate them. So there is no choice but to try to figure out what the ideological commitments of individual candidates or of the political movements that generate them, and to act and vote accordingly.

Posted by David J. Balan | July 25, 2007 10:10 AM

One other point, about Iraqis and democracy: Given that third world countries such as El Salvador have survived civil wars to become functioning democracies, is it really so crazy to think Iraqis might be as politically capable as Salvadorans? If so, what other countries/swaths of the globe are liberals prepared to write off as incapable of governing themselves democratically? What impact might this have on liberal foreign policy going forward? Should we, for example, just shitcan all of our diplomatic pro-democracy initiatives?
Posted by Fred | July 25, 2007 2:51 AM

You know I've though about this too. And I think the lessons go way beyong what liberals or non liberals believe and move up to what the United States FP establishment and other first world FP establishments believe. It goes beyond political self identification and belief.

And the irony is that I'm forced to draw a 'conservative' conclusion. Conservative, in the original 18th century meaning of term, traditional with an emphasis on contunuity and organic change. In short when it comes to transformative interventions, culture matters. Culture Culture Culture. It is more powerful a determanant of your end result then your power or your good will. So in the comparision with Iraq and El Salvador, the fact that El Salvador was a Christian country that had been colonised by Europeans and had a familiarity with European institutions, makes all the difference in the world. There is a path from A (dictatorship) to B (liberal democracy) for elSalvador. If nothing else you had the example of newly democratic Spain, the cultural homeland, pointing the way.

It is the cultural content of the invaded country that should determine our expectations of success in transformative change. For non-christian, non-western countries the change to democracy can only come internally. If an outside force pushes it you will get an automatic resistence. Turkey, South Korea, China. Japan incidently is not a counter example. The most dominant fact of the Japanese tranformation post 45 is that culturally it was acceptable because the Emperor had decreed it as such. It was voluntary. Don't let the physical presence of the American troops confuse you. India is different, but the British were there for 300 years, I don't think we have the patience for that kind of "good occupation".

So if you create a hierarchy of expectation for transformative change, those countires with cultures most like us are most likely to be amendable to becoming like us, those that are less so, you can make a case for US involvement for strategic purposes, but a case for democracy promotion is less certain.

So Afghanistan is a problem. Maybe UN sponsored democracy promotion there is actually hurting our overall efforts. As a liberal I don't like thinking this way but part of being responsible about foreign policy is realising that your domestic political beliefs should not automatically dictate your foreign policy approach. Foreign policy requires its own knowledge and conclusions. Not respecting that is the modern conservative mistake.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 25, 2007 10:21 AM

Keep in mind, NO, that in Afghanistan, there was really nothing left to lose by unifying under the banner of Hamid Karzai and the Northern Alliance. Heck, much of Afghanistan was willing to tolerate the Taliban because the alternative -- non-stop civil war -- was considered worse. In Iraq, the various factions still have a lot to lose before they'll be ready to vote over and issue rather than fight over it.

MattY continually looks at the Iraq adventure through a 19th-century imperial lens. Personally, I think Bush's motivations for the Iraq venture were ego-related. It was a good chance for him to "show up his dad" and "avenge the family honor," and I don't think he thought about it much more deeply than that. He thought that a victorious war would be glorious. The "democracy/freedom/wonderfulness" rhetoric came to the fore later, when it was clear that things in Iraq weren't going well and that there were no WMDs or nuclear programs.

On the continuum of bad ideas, the Iraq venture was particularly bad-- I thought that bombing Serbia was a bad idea, too, but the consequences of this bad idea weren't so great. Iraq was not just a bad idea, it is something that has been wasteful and stupid, too. I'm willing to accept that a president will make a few bad moves, but we can't accept our government bogging us down and forcing us to lay down a lot of lives and treasure to support those bad moves.

And Fred: remember that El Salvador was in a hemisphere that was democratizing, with plenty of neighbors who had experience with democracy AND dealing with civil wars as well as a history of attempts at forming democratic governments (as well as being much, much smaller and with a much clearer form of unified identity than Iraq). Totally different situation.

Posted by Tyro | July 25, 2007 10:39 AM

Bush is a gangster, and his sincerity matters because he's the guy with the power. (There are other insincere people involved in the war -- rhetoricians of the right wing, for example, but they're hangers on and without Bush's power, eventually, will be as impotent as marionettes. I hope that Bush would be checked by the electorate if his core insincerity and criminality were exposed. Naive? I hope not.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 25, 2007 10:42 AM

Although I usually disagree with Fred, I do think the El Salvador comparison is right. El Salvador has a system of harsh, right wing Catholic laws - for instance, an absolute ban on abortion, a gang problem on par with Colombia, and is extremely poor. It is not wracked by civil war however. I don't think it is impossible that Iraq will end up with a theocratic government, a party system allowing elections, and a vast gang criminal problem. I do think that this outcome will have nothing to do with the U.S. staying or leaving, nor do I think Iraq will become what the Bushies dreamed, the Chile or Singapore of the Middle East, casting off the shackles of the state and becoming the happy hunting ground of U.S. corporations in search of petro-wealth. At the most, as part of the package of withdrawing U.S. forces, the Americans can strongly emphasize internal negotiation including all players, and that party with which the U.S. still has influence around Maliki could actually make a move that is already being made by Sadr and Allawi. Unfortunately, I don't think this will happen under the Bush administration. The alternative is that the U.S. will play a very destructive role in Iraq, but an ultimately irrelevant one. This seems to be what is happening.

Posted by roger | July 25, 2007 11:12 AM

I was worse. I supported the war even though I believed the WMD claims and exporting democracy to Iraq were bogus. I simply *assumed* that the administration was lying and that the real goal was to replace Saddam with more a friendly strongman and get the hell out. The evidence for my belief was the forces being lined up in Kuwait would be capable of a coup--but not a full-scale nation building effort (and besides I thought conservatives hated nation building).

Doing this would enable us to get the troops out of Saudi Arabia, end the sanctions, and reduce the American presence in the region. It would re-establish Iraq as a threat to Sauid Arabia and (I hoped) cause OBL to refocus his attention from the distant Satan (USA) to the nearby one (Saddam). If the new guy was ineffective, and a civil war developed between the Shia and Sunnis we would have Saudi Arabia facing an Iranian/Shia threat. I believed that the result would be the same: a refocus of al Qaeda attention away from us to somebody else.

Of course simply ending the embargo and pulling the troops out of Saudi Arabia would accomplish the same goal, but I couldn't see any administration (and especially not this one) ever doing this.

Posted by Mike Alexander | July 25, 2007 11:15 AM

Hmm. Johann Hari-- the British Matthew Yglesias? Just like Matthew Yglesias -- but can spell?

Dare I say it -- the smarter, funnier version of Matthew Yglesias. No -- that's heresy.

Posted by Ikram | July 25, 2007 11:22 AM

Posted by Northern Observer | July 25, 2007 10:21 AM :"For non-christian, non-western countries the change to democracy can only come internally. If an outside force pushes it you will get an automatic resistence. Turkey, South Korea, China. Japan incidently is not a counter example. The most dominant fact of the Japanese tranformation post 45 is that culturally it was acceptable because the Emperor had decreed it as such. It was voluntary. Don't let the physical presence of the American troops confuse you."

I'd think the opposite conclusion is far more reasonable - there is no change without an outside push. Turkey? You mean the actual occupation of Istanbul by foreigners had no impact at all? Not that it became democratic. Indeed the rule in Turkey seems to be the Army kicks out governments whenever the US will tolerate it and go back to the barracks when they won't. South Korea? The US pulling support had nothing to do with that? China? You mean that Jiang Jingguo was not lent on by the Americans? Japan is an example of my point not yours. Democracy came with Admiral Perry. It came again with the US Army. The fact that the Emperor changed his mind surely had a lot to do with the fact that the alternative was a short trip on a long rope.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 25, 2007 10:21 AM:"India is different, but the British were there for 300 years"

Sure they were. But what about Pakistan? Or Bangladesh?

In the end Bush's mistake was to listen to the Neo-Cons who stupidly and arrogantly assumed that everyone wants peace, democracy and prosperity. They were wrong.

Posted by HeiGou | July 25, 2007 11:26 AM

I'm always happy when Fred says something I agree with. When he's not putting on his shotgun wielding VFW anti-tax rebel act, he actually can actually make an intelligent argument. Fred said this:

I was in the Army Reserve during the first Gulf War, and remember the pre-war debate then -- it was conducted with a lot more seriousness than the one in '02.

And he goes on to say that because of this, even if the war had gone badly (as many expected it to), those who supported it would not have jumped ship. I think he's right on.

Then he goes on to ask why liberals think brown skinned people can't form democracies and what other swaths of the globe liberals are willing to abandon, etc. This is a pretty lame argument and I'm sorry to see Northern Observer give it so much support.

Norther Observer, your "culture" argument is deeply suspect. How would this culture argument look if made in, say, 1848, when most of Europe lived under oppressive religious totalitarian governments (well, monarchies) using all measures available to them to maintain power? Or even in 1975, when half of Europe lived under the most oppressive of regimes and even Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships? This argument of inherent European cultural superiority just holds no water.

Let's take the example of Taiwan. There was no "culture" of democracy there, not one imposed from the outside nor one locally grown. And until the late 80s, Taiwan was a quasi-fascist totalitarian dictatorship. Yet things changed. Without any outside force stepping in, Taiwan slowly liberalized and at this point it is a fully functioning democracy--perhaps the most completely democratic in all of Asia. What happened?

Well, there are too many variables to really add them all up, but what I think we generally see is that when a large middle class emerges in a prosperous country, they began to demand more freedoms and a voice in how things are run. Yet even this doesn't seem to be the only requirement.

A burgeoning democracy in Iran was crushed by a CIA backed coup in the 50s. A burgeoning democracy in Iraq was crushing by a US backed coup in the 60s. Democracy (and more importantly, a free society) is something that must evolve locally for it to have any permanence. And, in fact, with the institutions they have built since their revolution, Iran looks to be on a slow road to building a free and democratic society of their own. Give them another 20 years and they'll probably get there.

So, to answer Fred's point, I don't think anyone on the left wants to abandon the idea of spreading democracy and freedom around the world. What we want to abandon is the idea of doing so militarily. There are much better ways of doing this. And hopefully one thing the Iraq war has shown us, once and for all, is that invading countries to give them "freedom" is not something that is ever going to work.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 25, 2007 11:28 AM

It’s funny how much time people have spent wondering if Bush is a liar or simply a moron. Obviously, one can be both, and Bush has spent most of his life demonstrating quite clearly that he is both dishonest and hopelessly incompetent. (Philip Roth may have said it best when he commented that Bush shouldn’t be in charge of a hardware store, let alone a country.) The issue of his sincerity or good nature is also not an either/or choice. I do not doubt that Bush wept when he saw that footage of the autistic high school basketball player/manager hitting 8 straight three-pointers, nor do I doubt that he is capable of being a nice guy at barbecues. But he has also demonstrated extreme callousness, insensitivity, and obliviousness to various realities and conditions of both humanity and the rest of the biosphere. It is clearly possible for the same man to get misty at a heartwarming evening news story AND to scoff at the idea of granting clemency to a retarded man on death row. What we should pay attention to about this man is not that he actually has a pulse or that “cares” about puppy dogs and children, but that he only manages to be human and humane in the least-challenging of times. I’m sure his tears during the “mission accomplished” carrier speech were genuine. And his palpable emotion in the aftermath of 9/11 (after he got out of that classroom in Florida, that is) was obviously something that all Americans were happy to see.

But that shit is EASY.

Why wasn’t he similarly moved by what happened to New Orleans? Why is he so cavalier about other murders, deaths, and atrocities? I think in time we will realize that his “faith” enabled his irrational, illogical, delusional, insane side even if it helped “change his heart” and quit booze and coke. The media, the congress, and millions of civilians have done a terrible job calling this man a liar and a fool, but we have also avoided the rather obvious truth that Bush’s indomitable faith in an imaginary, omnipotent, America-loving, Republican-favoring deity has played a huge role in making him the disaster that he is.

Posted by tinisoli | July 25, 2007 11:55 AM

"Norther Observer, your "culture" argument is deeply suspect. How would this culture argument look if made in, say, 1848, when most of Europe lived under oppressive religious totalitarian governments (well, monarchies) using all measures available to them to maintain power? Or even in 1975, when half of Europe lived under the most oppressive of regimes and even Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships? This argument of inherent European cultural superiority just holds no water."

Exactly. Go ahead and argue that toppling a psychopathic dictator wasn't worth the cost (but don't forget to include everything in your calculations, like the devastating cost of sanctions, the cost of maintaing the no-fly zones, etc. Lots of things are conveniently left out, like the fact that now we know for sure that Iraq is disarmed.)

But please dont say the Iraqis can't handle democracy. If you're gonna complain about wasting money on Iraqis, why waste money on, say, the residents of New Orleans? Cant they move somewhere else? (Oh I forget, the folks in Louisianna are Americans...)

The Republicans mostly just want the world safe for business and getting rich (while some Christians do have some liberal hawkish concerns for the darkies in Darfur).

The US-subsidized elites of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. are relics of the Cold War, when we would back "our bastards", as FDR put it, against the perceived Soviet threat. The Cold War is long gone. Time to slowly dump the elites who gave us 9-11.

At least some conservatives recognize that torture is going to backfire rather than prevent a nuclear 9-11. At least the U.S. is talking to Iran (and interesting to see the anti-war drama queens have shut up about Bush/Cheney bombing Iran.)

Posted by Peter K. | July 25, 2007 12:03 PM

For the record, I do find NorthernObserver's argument to be suspect. Certainly it's possible that circumstances will conspire to send Iraq down the Afghanistan/Sudan route. On the other hand, simply doing nothing could simply turn it into a Shi'ite-dominated authoritarian republic. Like roger, however, I don't believe our presence in Iraq has any bearing on that outcome, and probably sends it more in the bad direction.

The circumstances of Taiwan's and South Korea's democratization were that they were peaceful for a long period of time under their authoritarian leaders. The question about Iraq hinges on whether our presence there ensures that the country remains peaceful. I think it's obvious to most that it doesn't.

Posted by Tyro | July 25, 2007 12:14 PM

Posted by Rob Mac | July 25, 2007 11:28 AM:"Norther Observer, your "culture" argument is deeply suspect. How would this culture argument look if made in, say, 1848, when most of Europe lived under oppressive religious totalitarian governments (well, monarchies) using all measures available to them to maintain power? Or even in 1975, when half of Europe lived under the most oppressive of regimes and even Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships? This argument of inherent European cultural superiority just holds no water."

I would think it would stand up rather well. Even in 1848. It was clear in Europe that democracy began among tolerant Protestant-ish nations in Northern Europe. That is obvious in 1848 with even the non-democratic ones being more liberal and tolerant than the rest. Europe democratized under the impact and influence of the US after 1945 when democracy in Europe was all but dead. However again it spread by cultural zone - the Catholic South was authoritarian much longer than the North. Democracy does not appear across the world at random. It appears in a specific cultural context and then spreads to the near neighbours and outwards. Notice that Latin America has tended to share southern Europe's authoritarian non-democratic tradition despite the efforts of the US.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 25, 2007 11:28 AM:"Let's take the example of Taiwan. There was no "culture" of democracy there, not one imposed from the outside nor one locally grown. And until the late 80s, Taiwan was a quasi-fascist totalitarian dictatorship. Yet things changed. Without any outside force stepping in, Taiwan slowly liberalized and at this point it is a fully functioning democracy--perhaps the most completely democratic in all of Asia. What happened?"

It was hardly quasi-Fascist at the best of times and it was never ever totalitarian. But there was an outside force - the US. The US did, in the end, put pressure on Taiwan to Taiwanize and then democratize. These were not purely internal issues.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 25, 2007 11:28 AM:"A burgeoning democracy in Iran was crushed by a CIA backed coup in the 50s."

What burgeoning democracy? You mean that a coup by a populist and not-very-democratic leader was crushed by the Army with the tacit backing of the US? How does Mossadegh's rule by decree count as democratic? Nor was the Shah incapable of putting himself back into power. So the CIA hardly led the charge.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 25, 2007 11:28 AM:"A burgeoning democracy in Iraq was crushing by a US backed coup in the 60s."

What democracy in Iraq? Some times the hatred of the US shown by the internet Leftists is bizarre. By what measure was the military coup that brought Qassim to power, and the military dictatorship he established thereafter, democratic? What is the evidence that the US backed a damn thing?

Posted by Rob Mac | July 25, 2007 11:28 AM:"And, in fact, with the institutions they have built since their revolution, Iran looks to be on a slow road to building a free and democratic society of their own. Give them another 20 years and they'll probably get there."

You mean despite the institutions they have built since the Revolution. They have done that with the legacy of the Shah who produced a large, highly educated and Westernized middle class.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 25, 2007 11:28 AM:"And hopefully one thing the Iraq war has shown us, once and for all, is that invading countries to give them "freedom" is not something that is ever going to work."

Apart from Japan and Germany and Panama and Grenada and the Philippines and Italy. It does work actually.

Posted by HeiGou | July 25, 2007 12:30 PM

Brautigan-- (1) the status quo ante in Iraq was not so good, and (2) had the war been conducted in a more competent manner, hundreds of thousands of people would not have died. It was not unreasonable to believe that a war in which even a substantial number of Iraqi troops were killed would result in a better life for most Iraqis.

Fred-- the argument liberals are making is not that Iraqis, because they're foreign, are incapable of democracy; rather, it's that a foreign power creating chaos in a country that underwent decades of autocratic rule is not conducive to democracy. There was foreign intervention in El Salvador, and it was very bad news, but post-civil war El Salvador did not democratize under occupation.

Northern Observer-- Culture matters. But culture changes over time. The US South in 1960 is different from the US South in 2007. South Korea 2007 is different from South Korea 1960. We have to understand culture, but we also have to resist thinking that culture is immutable. As astute an observer as Max Weber lapsed into determinism, writing that East Asians would never be able to industrialize because of their family-based outlook. (East Asia actually industrialized successfully).

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 25, 2007 12:55 PM

The main point was that there was simply never any good reason to believe the more idealistic aspiration sometimes associated with the war had any decent prospects of success.

I don't like to be so nit-picky towards those who are sincerely reviewing their own reasons for supporting the war, but the humanitarian justification for an invasion of Iraq was never a good one, even if one happened to believe that it would be a success. Put simply, you don't amass armies of hundreds of thousands of soldiers to go toppling other people's governments (elected or not) on the notion that you're doing it for their own good. There's little support for it in either international law or theories of war. When you add to that the fact that it seemed blatantly obvious to me and others like me at the time that a stable Iraqi democracy was an unlikely result of even a humitarian-motivated invasion, it seems all the more foolish to have supported invasion. And then when you add to that the fact that our invasion had little to do with humanitarian concerns and more to do with our own national security and imperial (yes, I used that word) interests, it seems incredibly silly to have thought that a humanitarian rationale for the invasion would somehow survive such narrow and selfish considerations.

I honestly don't understand how anyone managed to think the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, for any reason, humanitarian or otherwise. I think it was only possible when intelligent and thoughtful people got too hung up on stories of Saddam's grotesque abuses of power and human rights, over-rationalized a fairly simple moral issue (the illegality of preventive war), bought into the WMD fears, bought into the President's rhetoric, or all of the above.

Posted by Xanthippas | July 25, 2007 1:09 PM

Initial US war propaganda was not about the spread of DemFree, but to destroy WMD that were known not to exist. DemFree propaganda came to the fore only after WMD pretext collapsed. Furthermore, US has not voluntarily pursued DemFree policies; this only happened after Sistani threatened Shiite rebellion on top of hte Sunni rebellion already underway, and in any event, apart from the right to purple fingers, there is still no DemFree to speak of in Iraq.

If Matt could be bothered to remember this, he would understand a good deal more about the way his own country works than he presently does.

Posted by RLaing | July 25, 2007 1:43 PM

"how it's possible -- or if it's possible -- for a man to speak grand words about liberty in the morning and defending systematic torture in the afternoon,"

Easy, he has speech writers.

Posted by DonB | July 25, 2007 2:22 PM

HeiGou, you're rather confused. Mossadegh was a democratically chosen prime minister, and there's no evidence the Shah was anywhere near launching a coup prior to U.S. and British intervention. Qassim's coup was in the 50s, and while his regime wasn't democratic, it was popular and established independence from British colonial control. The U.S. backed a Ba'thist coup against it in the late 1960s, and supported Saddam for two decades.

Taiwan's government was established by U.S. allies and remained a close ally throughout its dictatorial period. The same is true of South Korea, under partial U.S. occupation. The U.S. defeated a Filipino nationalist insurgency in the early 20th century by scorched-earth tactics and massacre, and ruled the country as a quasi-colony till after the Second World War.

As for the picture of Latin America remaining undemocratic "despite" some sort of sustained U.S. effort otherwise... I just don't know where to start.

The U.S. certainly hasn't always established dictatorial governments where it could. But you have to be blindly ignorant or blithely dishonest to view it as the burning torch of freedom in the 20th century - which brings me to the "culture" argument. If the West has a culture of democracy, why slavery and colonialism? How can Western influence be responsible for democratization abroad while Western countries are frequently crushing democracy abroad? If Protestantism is the cultural background for democracy, where did Nazism come from? How has India's democracy survived?

Certainly there are cultural tropes associated with the presence of political democracy. But a culturalist explanation of democracy requires, at minimum, identifying one or more cultural traits which consistently precede democratization. Waving your hands and reciting associative chains of adjectives like "liberal", "tolerant", and "Protestant-ish" won't cut it.

Posted by Kalkin | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM

The elephant in the room is that Ahmad Chalabi's people whispered sweet nothings into Cohen's ear, turning him into their most useful booster in the left-of-centre British press. Hari doesn't mention this, though I think it's important in Cohen's evolution from useful idiot to neoconnerie underpinned by a convert's zealotry. That's to say, he can't admit he was conned.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 26, 2007 1:47 AM

And [Fred] goes on to say that because of this, even if the war had gone badly (as many expected it to), those who supported it would not have jumped ship. I think he's right on.

Indeed. The Westphalian principle of territorial integrity appears to have fallen swiftly out of fashion, but it's one of the easiest ways to justify military action against a third party.

As for the 'democracy' strawman Fred threw out: if you decide that you're in a post-Westphalian environment, but haven't worked out the new rules, then you're going to fuck up in the execution.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 26, 2007 2:04 AM

Posted by Kalkin | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM:"Mossadegh was a democratically chosen prime minister, and there's no evidence the Shah was anywhere near launching a coup prior to U.S. and British intervention."

Someone needs to tell Wikipedia:

"Due to a multitude of disagreements with his former allies, especially the communists and Islamists, and disagreements with the Shah and with the parliament over his handling of the talks regarding compensation of the British side, he dissolved the parliament using a referendum to avoid impeachment. This act was characterized as unconstitutional by some of his closest allies as well as opponents, and led to the Shah's dismissing him from office on August 16, 1953"

When the Shah dismissed him from office, he refused to go. The Shah fled to Italy. That is what is technically called a coup.

To say that Mossadegh was "democratically" chosen is to assert that the "democratically" chosen Shah-appointed Parliament that chose him was democratically chosen. Are you, by any chance, making that interesting assertion? If you mean he had a mandate from the masses, I'd like to see it.

Posted by Kalkin | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM:"Qassim's coup was in the 50s, and while his regime wasn't democratic, it was popular and established independence from British colonial control."

1958 to be exact. So when someone refers to an anti-democratic coup in the 1960s, they must be referring to the coup that ousted Qassim. Which is to say it was not anti-democratic at all because, as you admit, I was right and Qassim was not a democrat. I am trying not to be snarky about this, but why are you claiming I am not right?

So what if it was popular (whatever the Hell that means in the Middle East except that he wanted to kill Westerners) and anti-British? Who says otherwise?

Posted by Kalkin | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM:"The U.S. backed a Ba'thist coup against it in the late 1960s, and supported Saddam for two decades."

A shred of evidence please. Even if the Americans gave some tactical information to the 1963 Coup leaders (like where all the Communists lived) that does not mean they supported or much less orchestrated it. Nor does that mean they were involved in the 1968 coup which eventually brought Saddam to power. So, no offense, not only are you wrong to attack me when I am right, and in claiming that the Americans supported Saddam when they did not, but also you ignore the 1963 coup that brought the Bathists to power - and the fact that Saddam did not take power until 1979 at least formally.

By the way, when Rumsfeld famously went to Iraq he did so with a promise of restoring "normal" trade relations with Iraq. Which never happened but they got closer. So the obvious question is, when did Iraq cease to have normal trade relations with America? When did the US slap sanctions on Iraq? You think that perhaps that might have been in 1963?

Posted by Kalkin | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM:"Taiwan's government was established by U.S. allies and remained a close ally throughout its dictatorial period."

Sorry but what? The Goumindang was created as an explicitly anti-Western party as it remained for many years.

Posted by Kalkin | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM:"As for the picture of Latin America remaining undemocratic "despite" some sort of sustained U.S. effort otherwise... I just don't know where to start."

Go on. I'd love to see it. The US has made a sustained effort. Which is why Latin America is so democratic now and no one, not even Chavez, has been thrown out by the Army lately.

Posted by Kalkin | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM:"The U.S. certainly hasn't always established dictatorial governments where it could. But you have to be blindly ignorant or blithely dishonest to view it as the burning torch of freedom in the 20th century"

Actually it has clearly been the *ONLY* torch of freedom in the 20th century. Tell me about the massive commitment of the Soviets to democracy. Or the Japanese. Or the French. Or even the British. In 1940 there were democracies in the English speaking world, and a few minor European states. Britain was still declining to share the benefits of democracy with any of their non-White colonies. Only America stood up for democracy and wherever America went, it imposed democracy if possible. Or military rule if the alternative was seen as Communism. As you say, you'd have to be blindly ignorant or blithely dishonest to ignore that fact. Much of the world is not democratic because of the French, the Russians, the Chinese, the British, the Baathists or the Communists, but because of the Americans. There is no rational argument otherwise.

Posted by Kalkin | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM:"If the West has a culture of democracy, why slavery and colonialism?"

The world is not black and white. It is not an either/or question. The West has many political forms. Colonialism is one. Not that I see any real contradiction with slavery but that is a more complex argument. The point is that democracy is the other - unlike, say, traditional Japan.

Posted by Kalkin | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM:"How can Western influence be responsible for democratization abroad while Western countries are frequently crushing democracy abroad?"

Frequently? The West almost never crushes democracy abroad. In fact it would take me a minute to think of a single case. The point is again that this is not black and white. America is a consistent friend of democracy but if democracy is failing, will opt for military rule rather than Communism. This makes it different from China or Russia etc etc which have never supported democracy anywhere at any time.

Posted by Kalkin | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM:"If Protestantism is the cultural background for democracy, where did Nazism come from? How has India's democracy survived?"

India is the interesting case and I don't know. For some reason it has not yet shaken off the legacy of the British. The Nazi question is irrelevant. See that black and white thing.

Posted by Kalkin | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM:"Certainly there are cultural tropes associated with the presence of political democracy. But a culturalist explanation of democracy requires, at minimum, identifying one or more cultural traits which consistently precede democratization. Waving your hands and reciting associative chains of adjectives like "liberal", "tolerant", and "Protestant-ish" won't cut it."

For the purposes of this blog I think they will.

They also describe pretty clearly precisely what happened - democracy grows in the Netherlands and the UK. It spreads to North America and gradually across Europe eastward and then southward. Clearly this is a cultural phenomenon. Precisely what is arguable I admit.

Posted by HeiGou | July 26, 2007 7:42 AM

HeiGou, that you actually are promoting the idea that the Shah was deposed in a coup is hilarious! This is an excuse even the CIA didn't use. Ah, history via odd Wikipedia readings. You might branch out and read the chapter on Iran in Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes, or you could read the more extensive reconstruction of the coup in Stephen Kinzer's "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror."
Although Kinzer is a NYT reporter. Not anywhere in the class of Michael Yon, a real reporter - he works for Pajamas Media, the place for all your patriotic news. Why pay attention to anything else?

Posted by roger | July 26, 2007 9:17 AM

Posted by roger | July 26, 2007 9:17 AM :"HeiGou, that you actually are promoting the idea that the Shah was deposed in a coup is hilarious!"

Well I am glad to amuse. I do try hard. However that does not mean I am wrong. Try this site:

http://www.iranian.com/Tabari/2006/September/Constitutionalism/Docs/MusadiqConstitutionalism.pdf

Perhaps you can think of a word to better describe a situation where the "elected" Prime Minister is dismissed from office by the Head of State but refuses to go, Parliament dismisses him as well, by he suspends Parliament through a rigged plebicite, and is eventually removed by the Army. No doubt if this was America and Nancy Pelosi decided to suspend the Constitution, remove all power from Bush, and appoint herself Dictator de jour you may approve, but I don't see why the rest of us wouldn't call it like it would be.

Posted by HeiGou | July 26, 2007 11:15 AM

I want to clear something up based on the responses to my original post. People seem to have overinterpreted my argument into one where change is inherently impossible. I am making a much more limited claim. Maybe it was too subtle. My argument is about when we can expect intervention to produce democratic change and when it will not. The point is that democratic change in countries that are culturally different from the West are adversely affected in their progress to democracy by intervention. For nonWestern political cultures, the change must be internal, driven by domestic actors working with domestic ideas and motives, for it to be real and lasting. An outside imperial intervention even from the most well meaning Western Democracy will likely not be effective.

HuiGoo - your grasp of history is poor. Sorry mate.

Posted by Northern Obsever | July 26, 2007 3:06 PM

To say that Mossadegh was "democratically" chosen is to assert that the "democratically" chosen Shah-appointed Parliament that chose him was democratically chosen. Are you, by any chance, making that interesting assertion? If you mean he had a mandate from the masses, I'd like to see it.

The very same Wikipedia article you cite suggests that Mossadegh was "democratically" elected to Parliament. I'm not an expert on Iranian history but my memory and every source on a quick Google agree that the Iranian parliament which selected Mossadegh was democratically elected under the rules of the 1906 Constitution.

1958 to be exact. So when someone refers to an anti-democratic coup in the 1960s, they must be referring to the coup that ousted Qassim. Which is to say it was not anti-democratic at all because, as you admit, I was right and Qassim was not a democrat. I am trying not to be snarky about this, but why are you claiming I am not right?

The original assertion was "a burgeoning democracy". I count a popular anti-colonial revolution as democratic progress. The US-backed coup reversed this. And, as below, it was US-backed.

(whatever the Hell that means in the Middle East except that he wanted to kill Westerners)

Psst - your prejudices are showing.

A shred of evidence please. Even if the Americans gave some tactical information to the 1963 Coup leaders (like where all the Communists lived) that does not mean they supported or much less orchestrated it.

I said support. I didn't say orchestrate. The US collaborated with Saddam by providing him with military aid for his war against Iran.

When did the US slap sanctions on Iraq? You think that perhaps that might have been in 1963?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't, though I'm willing to be corrected. I suspect it was in the 1970s, when the U.S. briefly supported Kurdish rebels, in collaboration with the Shah.

The Goumindang was created as an explicitly anti-Western party as it remained for many years.

The Goumindang was created as a nationalist party but became a U.S. ally during its war against Japan and remained one in its opposition to Communism. This is, um, pretty well known.

Which is why Latin America is so democratic now and no one, not even Chavez, has been thrown out by the Army lately.

Let's just take the second half of the century and countries I can name off the top of my head. Support for Batista in Cuba. Overthrow of Arbenz, Guatemala. Assassination of Trujullo in the Dominican Republic. Support for Pinochet in Chile. Proxy war against the Sandinistas, Nicaragua. Support for the Junta in El Salvador.

Actually it has clearly been the *ONLY* torch of freedom in the 20th century. Tell me about the massive commitment of the Soviets to democracy. Or the Japanese. Or the French. Or even the British.

It's interesting that you can only conceive of democracy as being imposed by an imperial power. Interesting in a symptomatic sense, but not as an argument.

The world is not black and white.

... which is exactly why this is so dumb: "Only America stood up for democracy and wherever America went, it imposed democracy if possible."

You're the only one putting anything in "black and white". I have presented no saints or demons. You present the U.S. as the torchbearer of freedom, except when I succeed in finding a bit of history even you can't whitewash, at which point you excuse it with the empty truism that "the world isn't black and white."

The West almost never crushes democracy abroad. In fact it would take me a minute to think of a single case.

...

This makes it different from China or Russia etc etc which have never supported democracy anywhere at any time.

You say "never", so I can pick a really easy example. Tell me, where did the South African Communists stand relative to Apartheid? What was the ideological background of the ANC?

India is the interesting case and I don't know. For some reason it has not yet shaken off the legacy of the British. The Nazi question is irrelevant. See that black and white thing.

...

For the purposes of this blog I think they will.

I suspect even you realize how unpersuasive these responses are.

Posted by Kalkin | July 26, 2007 4:40 PM

For a balanced analysis of Johann, Nick and Oliver see this and its links -
http://threescoreyearsandten.blogspot.com/2007/07/ups-and-downs-of-nick-cohen.html

Posted by Harry Barnes | July 30, 2007 5:10 AM

Posted by Kalkin | July 26, 2007 4:40 PM:"The very same Wikipedia article you cite suggests that Mossadegh was "democratically" elected to Parliament. I'm not an expert on Iranian history but my memory and every source on a quick Google agree that the Iranian parliament which selected Mossadegh was democratically elected under the rules of the 1906 Constitution."

Well I am not happy with Wikipedia as a source of all knowledge, but let's go with it for now. What does it say about the 1906 Constitution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Constitution_of_1906

"Disfranchised

Article 3 of this chapter stated that (1) women, (2) foreigners, (3) those under 25, (4) "persons notorious for mischievous opinions," (5) those with a criminal record, (6) active military personnel, and a few other group are not permitted to vote."

Notice category 4. I assume we all know what the Shah did with the the Constitution when it suited him. Anyone want to call Iran democratic?

Posted by Kalkin | July 26, 2007 4:40 PM :"The original assertion was "a burgeoning democracy". I count a popular anti-colonial revolution as democratic progress. The US-backed coup reversed this. And, as below, it was US-backed."

That is a very interesting definition of democratic and one so absurd I'll dismiss it out of hand. Anti-Colonial revolutions, almost by definition, are not democratic and you'd have to go back to, when? Washington?, to find one that was. Popular in what sense?

Posted by Kalkin | July 26, 2007 4:40 PM :"Psst - your prejudices are showing."

Actually no. At any one time whatever political force in the Middle East wants to kill Westerners, is also, as a general rule, popular. That is not a prejudice per se or if it is, it is also true.

Posted by Kalkin | July 26, 2007 4:40 PM :"I said support. I didn't say orchestrate. The US collaborated with Saddam by providing him with military aid for his war against Iran."

Support on what possible sense? When they were firmly in power, the CIA may or may not have told the Baathists who they thought were Communists. That is not support for their revolution but a hope they will hate other revolutionaries more. The US provided roughly 0.5 percent of all of Saddam's weapons. As opposed to the USSR's rouhgly 70 percent and France and China both around 12 each. Aid? You mean they gave him some photos of Iranian positions - you know, the sort of thing Google Earth provides these days? Big deal. You keep making claims and each one is wilder and more absurd that the previous one.

Posted by Kalkin | July 26, 2007 4:40 PM :"I'm pretty sure it wasn't, though I'm willing to be corrected. I suspect it was in the 1970s, when the U.S. briefly supported Kurdish rebels, in collaboration with the Shah."

I suspect that is quite likely too.

Posted by Kalkin | July 26, 2007 4:40 PM :"The Goumindang was created as a nationalist party but became a U.S. ally during its war against Japan and remained one in its opposition to Communism. This is, um, pretty well known."

And it is also well known that Chiang's book "China's Destiny" was so anti-Western that in WW2 it had to be censored to be published in America. There is no contradiction here. They just hated the Communists worse.

Posted by Kalkin | July 26, 2007 4:40 PM :"It's interesting that you can only conceive of democracy as being imposed by an imperial power. Interesting in a symptomatic sense, but not as an argument."

I can easily conceive of it being a bottom-up process but in fact it has not worked that way. Democracy is unfashionable and unpopular. If America does not work to support it, it does not take root. As a general rule.

Posted by Kalkin | July 26, 2007 4:40 PM :"which is exactly why this is so dumb: "Only America stood up for democracy and wherever America went, it imposed democracy if possible.""

And yet that is factually true. Which is not to say America is perfect, but it is still true.

Posted by Kalkin | July 26, 2007 4:40 PM :"You say "never", so I can pick a really easy example. Tell me, where did the South African Communists stand relative to Apartheid? What was the ideological background of the ANC?"

They were opposed to Apartheid. The ANC was and is a front for the SACP. Where did the SACP stand with respect to democracy until the fall of the USSR - they were opposed to it of course weren't they? Until the ANC ditched its support for a "real" worker's democracy, opposing them was hardly opposing democracy.

Posted by HeiGou | July 30, 2007 7:38 AM