29.08.2004 USA NY NEW YORK.
Protestors march with part of a group of mock coffins signifying American soldiers who have died in Irag during a protest march leading up to the Republican National Convention sponsored by the group United for Peace and Justice in New York, Sunday, Aug. 29, 2004.
Photo: AP
| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
Failure of the Blitzkreig
// Partisans of the "Advance of Democracy" Doctrine Hold Their Position
In a new strategy unveiled by the United States in the war on terror, the advancement of effective democracy throughout the world has again been declared the most important long-term "antidote" to the ideology of terrorism. Most terrorists and their sympathizers are concentrated in countries where no other method exists for influencing the government, where people feel themselves to be unfairly aggrieved, where there is no freedom of information, where the idea of the "worldwide conspiracy" thrives and Islam is distorted in the interest of justifying murder. Democracy demonstrates its superiority over the ideology of terror in each of these four points, claim the authors of a report. Instead of alienating people from politics, democracy gives them the chance to influence their society; instead of accumulating slights and offenses, democracy demonstrates the rule of law and the strength of compromise in the resolution of conflicts; instead of disinformation, democracy provides freedom of speech and of the press; and instead of justification for murder – respect for human dignity.
In developing and unfree countries, it is customary to regard the ideology of democracy as either na?ve or devious. And America's experiments with seeding democracy have been either unsuccessful or mercenary. A critical discussion of the ideology of "seeding democracy" is unfolding in the US as well. The Iraqi experiment seems to be vivid proof that such an ideology is bankrupt. The democratically-elected government of Iraq is still not in any condition to maintain even minimal order without US troops. In the simplest sense, American experts on the problem of the "advance of democracy" tend to be divided into two camps. The first group believes that the strategy of "seeding" is valid but that the tactics of democratization ought to be improved. The other group believes that such a strategy will not bring America any success and that its costs are too high.
"We should remain firm in our convictions with regard to what we are trying to achieve. But their realization should be adapted to the specific conditions of a concrete region," declared former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in an interview with The National Interest. Ian Bremmer created an entire theory of in what regions and to what degree strategies for the seeding of democracy are applicable. His main idea is that the fruits of democracy will become available to formerly "closed" societies only after a period of instability caused by the transition to an "open" society. Accordingly, assistance in the creation of democracy demands a loyal long-term relationship as well as concentrated support in overcoming this period.
Many experts, however, believe that the issue does not lie in tactical errors. Jeffery Record from the US Military Aviation College in Montgomery, Alabama analyzes the failures of decisions to use force in American foreign policy – in places like Iraq, Somalia, and Vietnam. In his view, it is the attempt to use the "blitzkrieg" model on the side of democracy that is at fault.
The successes scored by American troops in the first phase of the war in Iraq were thanks to technological supremacy, a massive scale of operations, and efforts to hold the number of casualties to a minimum, a goal that was realized by groundwork of concerted firepower. But against the partisan resistance arising in the country, the "blitzkrieg" tactic will begin to work against the Americans. In particular, the lack of desire to become deeply involved in the country's internal affairs will lead to the early collapse of Western social institutions there. The use of massive firepower during anti-partisan raids will lead to civilian deaths and will stir local citizens up against the occupying forces and the "values" that they bring. Experts thus believe that, inasmuch as America's lack of success in local wars (Vietnam, Iraq, and others) is due to the American philosophy of how a war should be conducted, Washington must rethink its basic idea and meddle in local conflicts only if they directly threaten America's security.
The historian Niall Ferguson believes that the weakening of America's position as a world leader capable of exporting its institutions and worldview is linked to other factors. History teaches that neither military might alone, nor a strong economy, nor even cultural expansion can guarantee a government's survival. Supremacy can be assured only by such nonmaterial means as trust between governments and the affirmation of a government's legitimacy. Of course, social polls show that, incidentally, it is this last resource that America is losing faster than anything else. For example, according to data from World Public Opinion, in 1998 59% of British people and 61% of Germans believed that America played a positive role in the advancement of human rights. Now, only 39% of Brits and 16% of Germans think so. In other words, trust in America as a defender of democracy and human rights is eroding precisely at the moment when the US is most actively trying to defend and promulgate these values.
www.kommersant.com
All the Article in Russian as of Sep. 07, 2006
|
|
|
