Would the situation in Iran - where people are protesting for free and fair elections - be happening today if not for President Bush? Some people praise President Obama for his restraint on this others are condemning him. However, I have yet to see anyone in the media speak to the role President Bush and the United States have played in making this possible.
President Obama's comments on the situation in Iran can be called measured. He is trying to not to say anything that might give the Iranian regime ammunition to use in putting down the protesters. Some are criticizing the President for not saying more in support of the protesters. Others believe the President is doing the right thing. I agree with the idea that the President should not provide ammunition for the current regime. However, I recall the days of President Carter and President Reagan. President Carter spoke nicely to enemies and harshly or (at best) not at all to friends, and his Administration was a disaster for American foreign policy. Ronald Reagan on the other hand, found ways to speak out in support of our allies in Communist Countries and to provide support for those allies (remember the Solidarity movement in Poland, for example). President Obama should be able to offer support for freedom in Iran and he should be pressuring the U.N. and countries that have influence over Iran (France and other Middle East nations) to support the protesters as well.
But in the course of that debate people are not mentioning a key point about what the U.S. has already done. At the beginning of this decade, the current Iranian Regime was re-elected over opposition in suspicious circumstances not unlike the ones we see today. Votes were supposedly counted and the Religious Council quickly declared the existing regime the winners. There was some question about whether the election was thus stolen, but protests were few.
Now in 2009, similar situation and we see massive protests in Iran. What is different?
Well, what happened in Iraq is what is different. Do you remember the photos of people holding up their ink stained fingers at that first election showing that they voted. Do you remember stories of the Iraqi people braving the threats of terrorists to go to the polls, standing in lines for hours and hours, in order to vote. With the help of U.S. troops, the Iraqi government continues to function today - governing the country and holding periodic elections - despite ongoing efforts by terrorists to bring that government down.
President Bush talked repeatedly about the fact that the best hope for long lasting peace was for the seeds of democracy planted in Iraq to spread to other countries in that region. It was a very well defined policy goal of the Bush Administration. Even so, the political opposition in the U.S. and elsewhere derided the policy of the Bush Administration for doing this, saying it would never work in the Middle East.
Now in 2009, the Iranians hold an election and the people are showing the world that they will not be denied the right to have a free and fair election.
Would that have happened if the Bush Administration had not aggressively pursued a policy of planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East? I am not an expert on the Middle East, so I cannot answer that question definitively but I can say that I think it deserves some attention and discussion.
President Obama's comments on the situation in Iran can be called measured. He is trying to not to say anything that might give the Iranian regime ammunition to use in putting down the protesters. Some are criticizing the President for not saying more in support of the protesters. Others believe the President is doing the right thing. I agree with the idea that the President should not provide ammunition for the current regime. However, I recall the days of President Carter and President Reagan. President Carter spoke nicely to enemies and harshly or (at best) not at all to friends, and his Administration was a disaster for American foreign policy. Ronald Reagan on the other hand, found ways to speak out in support of our allies in Communist Countries and to provide support for those allies (remember the Solidarity movement in Poland, for example). President Obama should be able to offer support for freedom in Iran and he should be pressuring the U.N. and countries that have influence over Iran (France and other Middle East nations) to support the protesters as well.
But in the course of that debate people are not mentioning a key point about what the U.S. has already done. At the beginning of this decade, the current Iranian Regime was re-elected over opposition in suspicious circumstances not unlike the ones we see today. Votes were supposedly counted and the Religious Council quickly declared the existing regime the winners. There was some question about whether the election was thus stolen, but protests were few.
Now in 2009, similar situation and we see massive protests in Iran. What is different?
Well, what happened in Iraq is what is different. Do you remember the photos of people holding up their ink stained fingers at that first election showing that they voted. Do you remember stories of the Iraqi people braving the threats of terrorists to go to the polls, standing in lines for hours and hours, in order to vote. With the help of U.S. troops, the Iraqi government continues to function today - governing the country and holding periodic elections - despite ongoing efforts by terrorists to bring that government down.
President Bush talked repeatedly about the fact that the best hope for long lasting peace was for the seeds of democracy planted in Iraq to spread to other countries in that region. It was a very well defined policy goal of the Bush Administration. Even so, the political opposition in the U.S. and elsewhere derided the policy of the Bush Administration for doing this, saying it would never work in the Middle East.
Now in 2009, the Iranians hold an election and the people are showing the world that they will not be denied the right to have a free and fair election.
Would that have happened if the Bush Administration had not aggressively pursued a policy of planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East? I am not an expert on the Middle East, so I cannot answer that question definitively but I can say that I think it deserves some attention and discussion.
Comments