Straw Men in TNR

Peter Beinart had a much discussed article in The New Republic recently in which he criticises Bush’s intellectual consistency. Beinart begins “Double Standards II” with three propositions:

As far as I can tell, George W. Bush believes three things about his war on terrorism. First, it can only be won by promoting democracy. Second, the more integral a country is to the war on terrorism, the less principle number one applies. Third, moral consistency matters above all else.

This “intellectual train wreck”, as Beinart calls it, is illustrated by the United States’ relationship with three countries in particular—Russia, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. These three countries are not known for their civil rights. Indeed, while the United States is promoting democracy in the Middle East, these nations have been steadily clamping down on dissent, throwing people into jail without trial and employing strong-arm tactics on their own citizens.

After showing their shortcomings, Beinart cites Jeane Kirkpatrick’s famous distinction from the early eighties between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, the former being less offensive to America than the latter, and more likely to move towards democracy on their own. Beinart says:

It is not sure how one would update that logic to distinguish, say, proAmerican Saudi Arabia, which has no democractic mechanisms whatsoever, from anti-American Iran, which has regular, partially free elections. But it remains a theoretical question because Bush officials don’t grapple with the intellectual contradiction underlying their war on terrorism—they ignore it.

Actually, it is quite simply to update this logic. Certainly, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the other non-democratic countries that the United States is forced to work with in the war on terrorism are not perfect, but they are not as bad as the countries that the West is currently concerned with. Saudi Arabia is not Iran, Pakistan is not North Korea, Russia is not Syria. There is a hierarchy of values and interests, and these countries we will tolerate while we deal with the more urgent international situations.

Some critics on the left have asked, if the Bush administration is so belligerent, why not go after another, stronger country like Iran or North Korea rather than Iraq. The answer is that North Korea is, at the moment at least, relatively inward looking and insular, while Iran has a nascent democratic movement and there is hope that a new generation of Iranians will bring about an internal cultural revolution. Iraq, on the other hand, has a history of wanting regional dominance, has invaded and attempted to annex a sovereign nation and has been at the very least uncooperative with regard to complying with United Nations inspections.

I certainly agree with the illogicality of the premises that Beinart identifies. But of course, this is his phrasing and understanding, and designed to set up the argument he makes. Such constructions of straw men are beneath the dignity of The New Republic.