It occurred to me while watching the protests against PresidentBush in London last week that it is no small irony that the largestprotests in the history of the world have taken place indemocracies. It is no less ironic that these protests haveprimarily been against...other democracies.
These protests are nothing new. President Reagan was protestedall through Europe during the 80s for calling the Soviet Union whatit was, an "evil empire." Indeed, the citizens of France andGermany regularly protest against their own governments overmatters of public policy.
However, recent visits to London by Syrian President Basharal-Assad, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President JiangZemin and President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, all of whom havedeplorable human-rights records, drew virtually no reaction fromour British friends.
For Bush though, protesters took the time to recreate thetearing down of the Saddam statue in Baghdad; only the statuewasn't of Saddam, it was of Bush.
Clever, these protesters.
To Bush's credit, he seemed unbothered by the animosity directedat him.
Perhaps he's used to it. Still, he did manage to get in a quipabout Britain's love of free speech, noting that, "they now havethat right in Baghdad, as well."
So what exactly are they protesting? The major operations inIraq and Afghanistan are over; both regimes in each country areeffectively out of power.
The only thing left to do in these countries is to make surethey are secure, install a framework to help them rule themselves,and return sovereignty to the people of these countries.
Would the protesters have us pull out and watch these countriesdescend into chaos, followed by inevitable totalitarian rule?Surely that would not be the way to "win the peace." Of course, Iassume the overwhelming majority of those protesting did not wishfor the U.S. to go into Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.Some surely had valid and noble reasons for holding this position.However, the undeniable consequence of this position remains thesame: If the U.S. did not invade Iraq and Afghanistan, SaddamHussein and the Taliban would still be in power.
Is this what the protesters want? In Iraq, we have uncoveredhundreds of mass graves with over 300,000 bodies inside them. Isthis preferable to the U.S.-led occupation? Is the torture andoppression of woman that took place under the Taliban better thanthe U.S. bombing al Qaeda camps?
It is interesting to note that the group that organized theLondon protest, the Stop the War Coalition, was founded on Sept.21, 2001, 10 days after 9/11.
To them, it seems, the mass killing of civilians is better than"American imperialism."
All of those who love "peace" so much should rejoice at the fallof Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people do. Those who are such staunchadvocates of "human-rights" should applaud the removal of theTaliban. The Afghan people do.
Those same lovers of peace and human-rights should recognizethat two of the greatest offenders of those ideals were removed notby appeasement, and not by talk, but by force, and by America.
Among democracies in the post 9/11 world, there are two camps:those who believe that terrorism is caused by an overt U.S. foreignpolicy, and that terrorists can be reasoned with, and those whobelieve that terrorism is caused by a hatred and suppression offreedom, and that terrorists should be held accountable for theiractions by force.
This columnist falls into the second camp. I hate war and lovepeace, but I love freedom more. Those who choose to protest shouldthink about what they love most. Those who love peace more thanfreedom will ultimately receive neither.
