LarryInNYC on DailyKos (where I've been spending a lot of Blog-time recently) pointed out this interesting little discrepancy in his post. Here's my contribution to the discussion:
I agree with your insight concerning the disconnect between right-wing thinking on immigration ("We can't make them like us!") and Iraq ("We can make them like us!"). I think this is a part of the larger disconnect in what used to be the conservative movement but now seems to be the followers-of-Bush movement: ambitious plans to expend blood and treasure for sweeping social change in the Middle East, combined with an unwillingness to lift a finger to redress any social problem within our own society. I think it is was foolish enough for the neo-cons to think we could change Iraqi society into something great by military force, but to think we could do so easily, quickly, and cheaply is stupidity on a pretty large scale.
I have my doubts, though, about how much the wingers really care about democratizing Iraq. If a pro-US dictor came to power there, would they support a coup in the name of democracy? After all, they seem fine with pro-US (relatively speaking) dictatorships/monarchies in Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. I'll believe this pro-democracy talk when we start leaning on the dictators who are nice to us (to say nothing of ensuring that our own citizens are enfranchised). Why can't our government just be honest and say that sometimes realpolitik is going to trump our moral urges? It would be so much more honest and refreshing.
So maybe there isn't as much of a right-wing disconnect as there seems: They don't really want to "assimilate" the Middle-East, they just want it docile and useful. And they don't want to assimilate Mexican immigrants either. If Shias, Kurds, and Sunnis were all trying to get into the United States in large numbers, I'm sure the very same people who say Iraq is "turning the corner" would be saying that these people are too different to adopt our ways.
Maybe the disconnect is in how right-wingers see military strength vs. social strength. They think military strength can do anything: make Iraq stable, pro-US, prosperous, and democratic all at the same time with a minimum of effort. But they think social strength can do nothing: can't assimilate immigrants who very much wish to be here and make them prosperous, productive, law-abiding members of society, even though most of them already are.
Comments