Kurtz’s premise is wrong. Even after 150 years, the British were not able to successfully withdraw and leave a functioning liberal democracy.

First, British India was partitioned. “Ethnic cleansing” resulted. Next India went through a socialist phase, then an authoritarian phase. Yet another partition in 1972 (or 1974?) gave rise to an independent Bangladesh. Now, “democracy” has meant the coming to power of the BJP -a party with a Hindu “fundamentalist” ideology. Communitarian violence is rife between Muslims and Hindu’s, while Christians are persecuted. High caste Hindus are leaving the country in droves.

If the British empire builders, absolutely convinced of their cultural superiority, could not impose a functioning liberal democracy on India, how can modern, self doubting Western man impose one on Iraq?

BTW, the start of the project doesn’t look auspicious. BBC is reporting “jubiliation” at the fall of Baghdad, but looking at the scenes I see about 1/10 jubilation and 9/10 looting (of private facilities as well as regime structures). The green flag of Islam is being waved in Shia eastern Baghdad as a hundred or so bearded young men celebrate. I am not sure this is what Krystol and Kagan were expecting. The liberation of Paris this ain’t. About 100 American’s have died so our “friends” can shout La’ Allah illa Allah …

I don’t think that Kurtz would disagree too sharply with you, Mr. Young. My reading of his project in this and other essays is to insinuate himself to the Kagan and Kristol hawks in an effort to moderate their utopianism, to throw some sympathetic but firm skepticism on their illusions about permanent revolution in the Middle East. He may be mistaken, even foolish, in adopting this tactic; I for one hope he is successful.

To see how desperately the neoconservatives are in need of Kurtz’s realism, look at this comment by William Bennett in a brief symposium at National Review Online. Bennett actually seems to believe that people cheering at the removal of a tyrant is definitive proof that the Iraqis subscribe to the Declaration of Independence and are ready for “democracy.”

As I’ve said before, there is a complete split between, on one side, the neocons’ realistic, rational arguments on the need to remove Hussein, and, on the other side, their irrational utopianism regarding the ease of imposing “democracy” on Arab countries.

http://www.nationalreview.com/symposium/symposium040903.asp

EDITOR’S NOTE: This morning, we asked a few familiar faces for their thoughts as they watched the celebrations in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, as the Saddam Hussein regime seems to be officially coming to an end. We may add to this as the day rolls on, so check back in.

William J. Bennett:

Freedom unleashed and tyranny disabled is a wonderful thing to behold — and cherish. One sees the scenes in the south, middle, and north of Iraq and is taken back to the Berlin Wall just over a decade ago; one sees these scenes and wishes them for other oppressed peoples from Iran to China. “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal,” has been reified again, for a new generation — thanks to local resolve, patience, and American and British power. We have, yet again, deployed our power to liberate Muslims, even though it has often been Muslims who have attacked us. But that is who we are; and the dividend of Muslim democracy, however long it takes to entrench, will be worth the effort. The soul yearns for freedom, the arm brings it: we can take a good measure of repose in knowing we provided the strength behind both.

I read a book by Richard Goodwin some years ago, detailing Goodwin’s work in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Goodwin praised LBJ’s stance on civil rights and government spending. But Goodwin claimed LBJ was “crazy,” because of his prosecution of the Vietnam War. Well, did LBJ suddenly become “sane” when he conducted domestic and particularly immigration policy?

Are people “rational” one moment and then in the next demanding open borders?

An object lesson is Haiti. We’ve repeatedly shown the Haitians how to be democratic, we’ve set up government institutions that can function democratically, we’ve thrown out their military rulers (Cedras a few years ago, who wasn’t a bad guy compared to the democratically elected thug Aristide who has ruled ever since), we’ve withdrawn to let the Haitians solve their own problems with our advice and financial aid, we’ve etc., etc., etc. And after 3 centuries of practice they haven’t yet got the hang of it. Granted, the Arabs are smarter and more civilized, but the Haitians show that culture rules. It’s analogous to modern technology: the Arabs use what the West invented, they gladly import it and value it, but they can’t “possess” it in the way its originating culture can. So it is with limited government, an impartial judiciary, the rule of law, and protection for private property. Arabs can understand these things, but they will remain foreign, at least for a very long time, since they must grow organically out of a culture.

I wish to correct a typo on my previous post: where I wrote “3 centuries” I of course meant to write “2 centuries” [of Haitians’ efforts to learn how to construct a free and orderly polity].

I’m glad Frieda brought up Haiti. It is a good response, along with Liberia, when Liberals blame black “inequality” on past white oppression or continuing racism. The main division in Haiti is between the blacks and the Mulattoes, between which intermittent civil war has raged for two centuries. The Mulattoes, when they hold power, are able to provide Haiti with rudimentary governance but are now only are 5 percent of the population. Clinton favoured the black Arisitide because of his left wing credentials, because he was black, and his supporters murdered in a liberational ANC style, like necklacing, rather than more disciplined military hit squads of Cedras.

Liberia also has had nearly 200 years of “freedom”, was given a constitution modeled word for word on the US constitution in the early 1800s yet is in the same squalor as the rest of sub-Saharan Africa.

The extent democracy and the economy works in India is chiefly, (second is British tutelage) because that there is a hundred million odd higher caste Indians with European intelligence. The only reason that they exist, and have not become completely diluted is the caste system. With their lower fertility than the masses, and immigration to the West, governance in India will become progressively more difficult.

Regarding the Arabs and Iraq, as stated their strong tribal and familistic ties will make governance difficult. The best solution is a reinstallation of the monarchy, over a Federal structure. I read somewhere in the period of the monarchy there were only half a dozen political executions, and these were for good reason. The most stable countries in the Arab regions have been monarchies like Morocco and Jordan. Elsewhere strongmen such as Musharraf provide greater stability than previous democratic regimes. Democracy which implicitly presumes a blank slate theory where everyone is capable of the same achievement and has an opinion equally worthy, is most transparently unworkable in third world countries, with their cognitive deficiency, ethnic divisions, and strong familial and tribal loyalties. Frequently it only intensifies factional division, and provides a mechanism for the winning party to destroy traditional centres of authority and establish centralized regimes with control over the press and election fraud. With Universal Democracy in the West, the malignant decay is internal but if anything more deadly, allowing an economic and cultural ideological elite to rule with erroneous legitimacy. In many ways I have more respect for Arabs fanatics, at least they are defending their culture and homeland.

Any expectations the Arabs can reach Western prosperity are foolish. Along with kinship ties, and the divisions within and the primitive nature of Islam, the Arabs are not the race they were 1000 years ago, even less 4500 years ago when the Pyramids were built. Nearly a thousand years of black slavery, and the intelligence depressing effects of consanguineous unions have resulted in an average IQ in the 80s. Witness the mass looting, we see now.

Dan makes an interesting point about 1000 years of black slavery in the Arab world. I noticed in the coverage of the Iraq war that there were a number of the liberated Iraquis who clearly were of African origin and appearance. Others looked typically Arab, while others clearly had European features (Kurds?, descendants of Slavs taken in Slave raids?). I wonder what kind of racial caste system exists within the Arab world - I have read that one exists.

Certainly Arab leaders are typically lighter skinned, a general if not perfect indication of ancestry, than the multitude. Although not quite Arab, the same phenomena can be seen in Turkey, see the many fair skinned and blonde TV soap opera actors and actresses. The same, informal racist caste system occurs in Mexico and Brazil among other places.