A reasoned response needed: Why Bush's Iraq is not responsible

[garthranzz]

for the Middle East (North African) revolutions and uprisings.

I refer specifically to Charles Krauthammer's latest column. He makes what appears to be a reasonable cause-and-effect: the so-called "Bush Doctrine" led to the Tunisian, Egyptian, etc., revolutions. After all, he says, there are few, if any, anti-American slogans, no "no blood for oil," etc. And we're leaving Iraq without its oil, without permanent bases, and with a functioning democracy.

I have my own thoughts about this - it's really specious and a case of cum hoc as well as post hoc.

(Has there been much reference by the protestors, leaders or otherwise, to the American presence or activity in Iraq - either way?)

But I'd like input from the reasoning thinkers on DU. Anyone care to help with the counter-arguments?

Thanks.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. The premise of "a functioning democracy in Iraq" is a HIGHLY debatable point

Whoever is pushing the meme that Bush's Iraq invasion/occupation was responsible needs to be asked the following questions:

1. If Iraq was the "catalyst", why did it take EIGHT years for these uprisings to begin in the ME? It might make a little more sense if they started shortly after the invasion but they didn't though a small wave of uprisings started in 2005-2006 (i.e. Syria)- but they didn't have the force and power of what we're seeing now.

2. HOW did what Bush did in Iraq in 2003 lead to uprisings against these regimes? What is the precise cause/correlation between the Iraq invasion of 2003 and the uprisings (by these countries' OWN PEOPLE)? If there was ever a "lesson" taught to the world with Iraq it's that: If you're a ME country (preferably with oil) and we don't happen to like your particular dictator, we'll turn that dictator into the next "Hitler" and threaten to invade your a** (with only the intention of "spreading freedom" and liberation, of course ;))! Of course, we did nothing of the sort to Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, so..........what exactly is the connection??? :shrug:

I personally don't know how what happened in Iraq has anything to do with what's going on now. :shrug: So, the neocons suddenly believe in self-determination for people in the ME living under oppressive regimes. Weren't the neocons trying to prop up Mubarak before he left?

[garthranzz]

2. Good points

(love the quote, btw)

The second one is stronger. I think Krauthammer is arguing that the so-called "Bush Doctrine" (like the alcoholic thief thought of it himself) gave inspiration, or is the right approach, or something.

From what I've read, what's happening is, as you said, a people's revolt led by, surprise, surprise, women and young people.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Thanks

I revised and extended some of my remarks. I think that this sudden wave of self-congratulatory behavior among Republicans for what is happening in the ME is about not only claiming responsibility for what appears to be a positive outcome (they're always quick to claim credit for POSITIVE outcomes but eschew any sort of responsibility for negative ones, like say the deaths of 4000+ American soldiers and inestimable Iraqi citizensbut to rehabilitate GWB's image and make the Bush-created Iraq steaming dogpile mess seem like it was actually a worthwhile endeavor even though any right-thinking person knows it damned well wasn't (and should NEVER be considered such).

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. Bush and friends LIED us into invading a soveriegn nation.

No WMD, no imminent threat, no Saddam involved in 9/11, no sign of Bin Laden either...and they knew all of that. Consider that they may have had the "patriot act" waiting in the wings for just such an emergency. Very difficult to put something like that together so quickly after a major disaster...if Republicans can do that, why can't they balance the budget.

Anyone even remotely considering the concept that BushCo are in any way responsible for the wave of protest and freedom currently engulfing the region should turn it into "because people are sick of assholes like Bush". Bush and friends, very very similar to the dictators in those contested regions...

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. That and lying about wire-tapping, torture, etc.

What's not to love about BushCo? And by "love", I mean "Calling the Narn bat squad".

[JoePhilly]

5. The people of Iraq were never allowed to lead their own revolution.

The Bush Doctrine, also know as the PNAC Doctrine (because that's where it comes from), concluded that when you set up "functional" democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, then other countries in the region would follow.

One problem with giving the Bush/PNAC doctrine credit is that NEITHER of those countries are actually functional democracies. In fact, both are a mess. And the population in both basically want us, and the governments we installed OUT.

My sense is that the youth of the ME is starting to get tired of the 100 years of hate. The internet connects the many "tribes" and "sects". Moderates can now find other moderates.

Dictators need to control the message. And their ability to do so is coming to and end through social networking on the web. That's a much better reason for what's happening.

[garthranzz]

6. Yup

Another great quote as a sig - and from my old stomping area.

:)

[TheKentuckian]

7. The most reasonable response is to laugh until you puke.

What is with the recent Krauthammer infatuation around here? Why are folks reading this fuckwit all the time and acting like he has anything of importance to add?

Might as well be Joe the stooge.

[walldude]

8. Yeah ask that petty fuck why the government they installed

is cracking down on protesters? I thought they had a functioning Democracy.... When you finish with that one ask him how living in a place that barely has clean water and has electricity for just a few hours a day is a good thing... Ask him if things are so hunky dory why the Iraqi's are taking to the streets to demand basic services.

Then when you are done tell him to sell it elsewhere, somewhere where people only watch Fox News.