Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread - Essay Example

"Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom is Theirs to Spread" Michael Ignatieff's article en d "Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom is Theirs to Spread" examines the American psyche and the predicament the situation in Iraq presents. This is a well-executed article that examines America's past and raises serious questions about present day America, both internally and with its foreign policy. Ultimately the war is Iraq is a complex situation that contains countless unforeseen ramifications. The outcome will however help redefine the relationship between realists and idealists in the United States. For the "American dream", a clear lose would be devastating and an evaluation of democracy as America sees it would be in order. Either way, there is more to consider when gauging the situation in Iraq than casualties and tax dollars. In section VI Ignatieff addresses a major issue that has divided the nation internally and raised comparisons to Vietnam. Recruitment is down and it appears that the price to preserve and spread American ideals may be too high. (Ignatieff, 2005, Section VI, par. 5). Another view presented by journalist William Greider is that Iraq is already worse than Vietnam. He believes that "the war in Iraq is different from Vietnam in one fundamental respect: A substantial portion of Americans (and others around the world) were in the streets protesting this venture before the shooting startedvirtually every element of what has gone wrong in Iraq was cited by those demonstrators as among the reasons they opposed the march to war (Greider, 2004, par. 7). While Ignatieff may not full agree with such a statement, at the very least it outlines the foundation of realist sentiment. Thomas Jefferson is introduced as a fitting reference point for the reader. His questionable morals and apparent contradictions to American freedom reflect the current situation in the Middle East. It also quickly addresses the internal struggle of idealism versus realism that is threatening to further divide the nation (Ignatieff, 2005, Section IV, par. 5). Jefferson's idealism and his legacy present a problem on a global level and is one reason for the international dissention over the situation in Iraq. Also, this Jeffersonian idealism or more specifically, later President's striving to achieve it has made the situation in the Middle East volatile and has challenged the universal of acceptance of American democracy as ideal democracy. Ignatieff suggests that Iraq and the perceived democratization of the nation is an extension of Jeffersonian idealism. He further notes that Jefferson exemplifies the contradictions that continue to plague American freedom (Ignatieff, 2005, Section I, par. 3). One other point of interest is when Ignatieff states, that "until George W. Bush, no American President - not even Franklin Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson - actually risked his presidency on the premise that Jefferson might be right" (Ignatieff, 2005, Section I, par. 4). Herein lies the crux of the article, are Jeffersonian ideals and American democracy at this point, the same thing Looking at the reaction of the Middle East, most of Europe and Canada, this seems doubtful. Over the past 60 years in the Middle East, America has consistently become close to tyrants in the region (Ignatieff, 2005, Section I, par. 6). This in turn has caused a certain degree of instability in the region and certainly does not embody the democratic vision of the founders of the United States. This threatens to further alienate America on an international level, which can be a problem. Also noted as a sign that American democracy may not be universal democracy, is that while other powerful nations have shifted left on the political spectrum, America has moved further right. This is shown by among other things a huge divide in rights for homosexuals, concern for healthcare and America's willingness to use God's will as motivating factor behind foreign policy (Ignatieff, 2005, Section III, par. 3). Overall, this article does an exceptional job of illustrating that American democracy may in fact not be universal democracy, which makes their efforts in Iraq even more troubling especially from a realist point of view. Ignatieff mentions that Jefferson's "vaunting language" makes modesty a difficult task for Americans (Ignatieff, 2005, Section II, par. 4). Unfortunately this also clouds judgement when gauging their involvement in the spread of democracy across the globe. This is perfectly illustrated when Ignatieff states, "freedom's global dispersion owes less to America and more to a contagion of local civic courage" (Ignatieff, 2005, Section II, par. 4). To a realist, this idealism can be problematic. If this idealism fails or at least is prolonged, it may prove that America is not the superior democratic force that it perceives itself to be, which is damaging to the collective American psyche. While the arguments presented in this article tend to make George W. Bush's government and American foreign policy look like an imperfect fit for the conditions of the world today, Ignatieff is careful in noting that America's role in the Middle East is not necessarily wrong. He stresses that it is still too early to judge. One underlying theme of this article is that America, both internally and internationally is at a crossroads in its evolution. The argument that Ignatieff presents surrounding "what if Bush is right" is interesting (Ignatieff, 2005, Section II, par. 9). Likewise what if American imperialism succeeds Ignatieff asserts that "no one wants imperialism to win, no one in his right mind can want liberty to fail either" (Ignatieff, 2005, Section III, par. 9). This means that if Bush is in fact correct about America's necessity to be involved in the Middle East and its ability to stabilize the region, it can potentially prove historians wrong. Idealism would triumph over these realists; what then becomes of these realists, are their core beliefs not shaken Regardless of the outcome there will be an abundance of uncertainty. America is also at a crossroads because if Jeffersonian ideals fail, it leaves the nation searching. How can a nation simply turn its back on Jeffersonian ideals that have in part helped to dictate foreign policy and the identity of a nation for years Internally this will continue to be a conundrum. While people, particularly in the media, like to predict, who knows what will happen with the Middle East; this is a point Ignatieff conceded too late in his article, but nonetheless it is a point he makes. This is a very intricate situation in Iraq and it means a great deal to the fabric of American society. It is difficult to ignore how important a period this is to American culture, values and identity. In a realist America, this massive loss of troops would likely be enough to halt the current occupation of Iraq. Realism however is something that America is not traditionally fond of. Ignatieff probably says it best when he quips; "leave relativism, complexity and realism to other nations" America is "the last country with a mission, a mandate and a dream, as old as its founders" (Ignatieff, 2005, Section VI, par. 1). With this is mind, and respecting those without a realist viewpoint like those currently in power how can you realistically expect people to put a value on their way of life In a way, America is battling internally much like it is in Iraq. An entire way of life could potentially be altered and the rhetoric of past President's will be diminished. While this situation may turn out to be a success, it is difficult to imagine that this battle between realists and idealists will not influence future American Presidents. In particular, they will have to examine their democracy in relation to other successful democracies and react accordingly. In essence Iraq has manifested itself to the point that American leaders will be forced to confront the question "Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread" References Greider, William. (April 15, 2004). Iraq as Vietnam. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040503/greider. Ignatieff, Michael. (June 26, 2005). Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread Retrieved November 25, 2005, from http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ ksgnews/Features/opeds/062605_ignatieff.htm. Read More