People cannot be “made” free by an outside power.

The question the neoconservatives can’t answer is what will happen if Iraq elects a thoroughly Islamic government that is overtly hostile to the United States, which is by no means outside the realm of possibility. If keeping order and suppressing revolutionaries is the goal, overthrowing the Saddams, Somozas, and Pahlavis of the world is the worst thing a country could do.

The obvious models would be occupied Germany and Japan after the Second World War. But these nations were devestated. Not to mention non-Islamic.

What is interesting about the examples of Germany and Japan is that they are both extraordinarily corrupt countries today. Japan had a war criminal as its prime minister within ten years of 1947. Allowing the Showa emperor, who was very culpable in Japan’s crimes, to remain as titular head of the Japanese people was a grave mistake that has led to the problems Japan faces today.

“The question the neoconservatives can’t answer is what will happen if Iraq elects a thoroughly Islamic government that is overtly hostile to the United States, …”

They just need to do what we do in America: make it a practical impossibility for anyone genuinely illiberal to run. Just like in glorious America, you can have any government you want as long as it is a liberal one.

“They just need to do what we do in America: make it a practical impossibility for anyone genuinely illiberal to run.”

Although in Iraq, if that occurs, it’s likely that the solution that the non-liberals will come up with isn’t to grin and bear it or to write long internet dissertations as we do in the US. They will probably just shoot the government.

Ah, see now, Mr. Jose has to go and spoil the big plan with that inconvenient reality stuff.

John Ring opines,

>People cannot be “made” free by an outside power.

-This is false. The little girl in Texas, Baby Jessica I believe, was “made” free by an outside power. I would contest she was made free both physically and perhaps spiritually by powers beyond her grasp. These attributes would comprise your “made” parameters, no?

The question is not whether outside powers can make people free, but whether the US will allow the liberated Iraqis to use their freedom against us. I think it is more than reasonable to suggest that the people and hence government of Iraq show friendly tendencies towards America. I don’t think such an reasonable obligation would suggest a loss of freedom. Freedom has responsibilities, including Iraqi ones!

thordaddy writes:
“I don’t think such an reasonable obligation would suggest a loss of freedom.”

Right. Freedom under liberal modernism means freedom to be a liberal modern. You can be whatever you want to be, as long as what you want to be is a liberal modern.

Mind you I have no problem with a polity enforcing an authoritative public standard of what every person has to be. What I have a problem with is liberal polities hypocritically disclaiming that that is what they are doing. You aren’t free to be whatever you want to be in a liberal polity: you are only free to be a liberal in a liberal polity. Iraq isn’t being given “freedom,” it is being placed under the authority of liberalism.

The problem isn’t that liberalism requires substantive conformity of thought, punishing and ostracizing those who dissent. Every polity requires that to some greater or lesser extent. The problem is that liberalism falsely pretends not to require such conformity, and that this (counterfactual) freedom from enforced conformity is the very basis of liberalism’s moral superiority over competing political views. The problem is that liberalism is self-contradictory.

“The question is not whether outside powers can make people free, but whether the US will allow the liberated Iraqis to use their freedom against us.”

This is double-talk. This is also why I despise the term “liberation” when applied to Iraq. We conquer a nation and insist on its fealty to us, and then claim that it is liberation because the previous ruler did not live up to our standards. It sounds vaguely communistic to me, to refer to any conquest made by your country as liberation. This isn’t France in World War II, this is more like Germany or Japan in that regard.

And no, we didn’t “liberate” Germany in World War II, nor did we “liberate” Japan. We conquered them.

“I think it is more than reasonable to suggest that the people and hence government of Iraq show friendly tendencies towards America.”

Even if they do not want to.

“I don’t think such an reasonable obligation would suggest a loss of freedom. Freedom has responsibilities, including Iraqi ones!”

So what “freedom” means is subservience to the US.

“This isn’t France in World War II, this is more like Germany or Japan in that regard.”

I was referring to Iraq here, if that wasnt clear. I meant that we conquered Iraq as we conquered Germany or Japan rather than liberating it as we did France.

Mr. Jose is right, but does the Administration know this? Half or more of the time it yaks about liberating Iraq as though it were France.

It’s one thing to occupy a country and attempt to introduce an outside political system-in the case of Iraq, Western democracy-and expect some problems with acceptance. But that’s a far cry from Muslim immigrants moving to the Netherlands, for example, and placing the onus on an unwitting host country to integrate a foreign opposition element into its own society. What does France or Holland “owe” the several hundred thousand Moroccans who flood those borders? What burden is the United States expected to shoulder for the hordes of Mexicans who illegally sneak through our borders?

These questions could be answered in one word: nothing. And no degree of coddling will guarantee a society that aligns itself with the philosopy of Jihad will suddenly begin to assimilate without ulterior motive.

During the last presidential debate, neither candidate directly answered any question that addressed immigration. This is another example of the huge disconnect that exists between politicians and the populace. Dammit, in many liberal PC circles, referring to a foreigner as an “alien” , legal or not, is considered “insensitive” to men from Mars. Had Kerry summoned the guts to say “the borders must be sealed against further illegal immigration”, he might have won the election. And he might have won my vote as well.

Michael Jose,

The dispute was whether people can be “made” free by outside powers. Clearly, people can be made free by outside powers. This isn’t to suggest that everyone will perceive liberation or conquering in the same light. You aren’t actually contesting that some Iraqis feel liberated and therefore America their liberator? How come we can’t define our mission with their perception of reality in mind? It’s very multicultural!