Tweet
Ventura County Star, CA
Nobody said world democracy would be easy
By George Sjostrom
September 16, 2006
In a recent interview conducted by the Wall Street Journal's Paul
Gigot, President Bush came up with a truism that is the cornerstone of
his personal philosophy, "Democracy is not easy."
Bush points out that the road to our own Constitution was not smooth
and easy. His freedom agenda calls for the spread of democracy to the
peoples of the world. That hasn't been easy, either.
The Mideast, in particular, is run by a group of regimes empowered by
resentment and hatred, and by leaders without conscience who are
willing to fan the fires of that hatred with death and blood. The
president said, "The only way to make sure your grandchildren are
protected is to win the battle of ideas, is to defeat the ideology of
hatred and resentment."
Trying to create a coherent foreign policy for the United States is
like playing hopscotch in a minefield. Our presidents have tried for
years to establish coalitions of common belief with nation after
nation. The countries of the world awaken to a new kind of turmoil
each morning, and they go to bed each night with a renewed indecision.
One thing is certain, the dislike and distrust of American dominance
is growing worldwide. Take Russia, for example. After 10 years of
belief that Russia was gradually moving toward the West, inching
toward democracy, we now see President Vladimir Putin increasing his
personal powers, clamping down on dissent and freedom of information,
and moving toward a re-establishment of the Russian Union, this time
to include Iran and Iraq.
Vice President Dick Cheney has now accused the Kremlin of using its
energy resources as "tools of intimidation and blackmail." The
hoped-for chance that Russia might eventually adopt a pro-Western
foreign policy is all but dead.
In Iraq, we were momentarily elated to see millions of Iraqis hold up
their purple ink-stained fingers to signify their delight in finally
participating in a free election. Toppling a Sunni dictator seemed to
offer them a release from tyranny. But we underestimated the
difficulty in toppling an Arab police state.
We also underestimated the newly distorted influence of Iran on the
Iraq transition. In 2005, there was a political shift in Iran, for the
worse, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president. Iran always has been
one of the Muslim world's most sophisticated societies. A major
portion of its population was comfortable with a pro-American
view. But under Ahmadinejad, all that has changed.
Iran now proclaims an unfettered right to nuclear development,
threatens to annihilate Israel, and continues to preach hatred toward
the United States. Iran has signed a $100 billion agreement with
China for natural gas development, and is trying to negotiate trade
deals with France, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Greece, Australia,
Austria, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Ukraine, Armenia, Norway, Kuwait,
Turkmenistan, and, of course, Iraq. Small wonder that U.N. sanctions
are meaningless.
Although much of the public, at home as well as abroad, are reluctant
to admit it, the radical Muslim brotherhood has developed a love for
violence. In training camps all over the world, these jihadists are
training youngsters, preaching that it is there duty to kill infidels
in the name of God, and to sacrifice their own lives in the process.
Their miserable lives on Earth can be traded for eternal
happiness. This avalanche of terror is not going to stop. For every
terrorist killed or captured, hundreds more are spawned. In the fight
against terror, meaningful foreign alliances are hard to find. The
problem is ours, whether we are comfortable with it or not. It
certainly can't be resolved by frivolous campaign slogans.
Bush has chosen a courageous road, one that most politicians are
afraid to walk. He is willing to recognize that we cannot have liberty
without limits, that we cannot have freedom without responsibility.
Most of us are unwilling to address head-on the immense problem of
radical Muslimism. They have become radicals because they are willing
to promise rewards greater than life itself, and in the process they
reject the very civil liberties that gave them a voice in the first
place. George W. Bush is correct. To back away from terrorism is to
encourage it. If we believe in freedom through responsibility, then we
have no choice but to stay the course.
- George Sjostrom is a Simi Valley freelance writer. His column
appears biweekly in The Star. His e-mail address is [email protected].
Nobody said world democracy would be easy
By George Sjostrom
September 16, 2006
In a recent interview conducted by the Wall Street Journal's Paul
Gigot, President Bush came up with a truism that is the cornerstone of
his personal philosophy, "Democracy is not easy."
Bush points out that the road to our own Constitution was not smooth
and easy. His freedom agenda calls for the spread of democracy to the
peoples of the world. That hasn't been easy, either.
The Mideast, in particular, is run by a group of regimes empowered by
resentment and hatred, and by leaders without conscience who are
willing to fan the fires of that hatred with death and blood. The
president said, "The only way to make sure your grandchildren are
protected is to win the battle of ideas, is to defeat the ideology of
hatred and resentment."
Trying to create a coherent foreign policy for the United States is
like playing hopscotch in a minefield. Our presidents have tried for
years to establish coalitions of common belief with nation after
nation. The countries of the world awaken to a new kind of turmoil
each morning, and they go to bed each night with a renewed indecision.
One thing is certain, the dislike and distrust of American dominance
is growing worldwide. Take Russia, for example. After 10 years of
belief that Russia was gradually moving toward the West, inching
toward democracy, we now see President Vladimir Putin increasing his
personal powers, clamping down on dissent and freedom of information,
and moving toward a re-establishment of the Russian Union, this time
to include Iran and Iraq.
Vice President Dick Cheney has now accused the Kremlin of using its
energy resources as "tools of intimidation and blackmail." The
hoped-for chance that Russia might eventually adopt a pro-Western
foreign policy is all but dead.
In Iraq, we were momentarily elated to see millions of Iraqis hold up
their purple ink-stained fingers to signify their delight in finally
participating in a free election. Toppling a Sunni dictator seemed to
offer them a release from tyranny. But we underestimated the
difficulty in toppling an Arab police state.
We also underestimated the newly distorted influence of Iran on the
Iraq transition. In 2005, there was a political shift in Iran, for the
worse, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president. Iran always has been
one of the Muslim world's most sophisticated societies. A major
portion of its population was comfortable with a pro-American
view. But under Ahmadinejad, all that has changed.
Iran now proclaims an unfettered right to nuclear development,
threatens to annihilate Israel, and continues to preach hatred toward
the United States. Iran has signed a $100 billion agreement with
China for natural gas development, and is trying to negotiate trade
deals with France, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Greece, Australia,
Austria, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Ukraine, Armenia, Norway, Kuwait,
Turkmenistan, and, of course, Iraq. Small wonder that U.N. sanctions
are meaningless.
Although much of the public, at home as well as abroad, are reluctant
to admit it, the radical Muslim brotherhood has developed a love for
violence. In training camps all over the world, these jihadists are
training youngsters, preaching that it is there duty to kill infidels
in the name of God, and to sacrifice their own lives in the process.
Their miserable lives on Earth can be traded for eternal
happiness. This avalanche of terror is not going to stop. For every
terrorist killed or captured, hundreds more are spawned. In the fight
against terror, meaningful foreign alliances are hard to find. The
problem is ours, whether we are comfortable with it or not. It
certainly can't be resolved by frivolous campaign slogans.
Bush has chosen a courageous road, one that most politicians are
afraid to walk. He is willing to recognize that we cannot have liberty
without limits, that we cannot have freedom without responsibility.
Most of us are unwilling to address head-on the immense problem of
radical Muslimism. They have become radicals because they are willing
to promise rewards greater than life itself, and in the process they
reject the very civil liberties that gave them a voice in the first
place. George W. Bush is correct. To back away from terrorism is to
encourage it. If we believe in freedom through responsibility, then we
have no choice but to stay the course.
- George Sjostrom is a Simi Valley freelance writer. His column
appears biweekly in The Star. His e-mail address is [email protected].