A setback for the US is a setback to democracy

The few European democracies that withstood the inter-war years were easily and ruthlessly devoured by the German juggernaut; only Great Britain passed the test of war. Then at war’s end, came the threat from communism: Nations only recently liberated from the Germans were swallowed by the USSR. In the West, France lurched from Republic to Republic and civil war loomed on the horizon. Spain, Greece and Portugal underwent their own versions of internal strife and autocratic rule. And yet, despite these bloody and protracted teething problems democracy has taken hold, and there is one country to whom much of the thanks must go.

The Guardian’s lonely supporter of the invasion and occupation, David Aaronovitch, recently wrote, “Opposition to the actions of Bush and Blair had become a tolerance of the inhumanity of the insurgents and an utter failure to identify with those extraordinarily brave and determined Iraqis who are fighting for democracy”. He asked simply, “Are you for or against democracy in Iraq?”

It would appear that many would begin their answer with “Yes, but it’s all about oil, George lied and people died” or the lame “It’s not that simple…”. Failure of democracy in Iraq will see a subsequent limiting of US power and many in the world see that as a positive.

But the question remains, who would take their place?

When the commitment to democracy from most of the international community rarely ever extends beyond a willingness to fight to the last American dollar and the last American soldier, any setback for the United States is a setback to democracy. And that will damage us all.