I’m one of those foolish, unrealistic people that actually have the audacity to believe that others have the right to determine the character of their own government without fear of external collusion. While some of my more vocal critics would argue to the contrary, I am an eternal optimist with regards to the plight of liberty, and zealously endorse Emerson’s belief that “Emancipation is the demand of civilization.”.

Democracy is defined as a government in which the common people are considered the primary source of political power, championing the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

After reading that I’m sure many of you are asking yourselves ‘so what happened’? - and so you should. The best answer to that question may have been unwittingly provided by once Harvard President Derek Bok - “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.”.

In a recent article, The Independent’s Andrew Osborn wrote of ‘compelling evidence of America’s behind-the-scenes role in Ukraine’s orange revolution’. Likewise, Russian influencing is also mentioned. ‘Behind the scenes’, where does that leave the new Ukrainian government? In Washington’s debt? And if that’s the case, how will that effect the people’s role as the primary source of power in Ukrainian democracy? I’m sure the vast majority of those that withstood the freezing temperatures in Kiev did so because of their desire to have ‘the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within the community’ represented at the highest levels. But given the external influencing that has occurred, how realistic should public expectation be? As in most cases, the public remains ignorant as to what goes on behind closed doors, surviving wholly on the democratic mythology taught in schools and echoed in election speeches. In new democracies, the rift between government reality and the McDonald’s commercial version of democracy swallowed by the public is often significant.

Lebanon is another burgeoning example of external influencing, despite the purist of public intentions on either side. An opposition rally today in Beirut attracted almost 1 million people demanding the expedient removal of Syrian troops and, more to the point, an end to Syrian influence in Lebanon. Last week saw large rallies supporting Syria’s role in Lebanon and denouncing US and EU influencing. And in the background? Some believe that violence will mar what has been, up until this point, peaceful.

Ultimately the Lebanese people have to decide what is to become of Lebanon. But like Ukraine, how truly representative of the Lebanese people will their government be? When all is said and done, to whom will the Lebanese government be indebted?

In the end, the people’s role as the primary source of power must be properly represented. Never mind the idiocies of Lippmann and Hamilton and their loathing of true public power. As strange as it might seem, democracy breeds quiet autocrats that are rarely, if ever, confronted by the general public and held accountable. No better example of recent public failing is to be found than the disastrous inaction of the American public following the Bush administration’s declaration that it was suspending its search for that which was the primary justification for aggression against another country. Agree with the continued occupation of Iraq or not, support the current foreign policy platform of the United States or not, the inaction of the American public to properly hold accountable those that, in their name, used deceptive practices to push an agenda unequivocally indicates the dire depression of true democratic practice in the United States.

And yet it is that very agenda, one orchestrated by the sort of people that most likely deem Public Opinion an accurate commentary, that is committed to the spread of democracy in those regions deemed threatening, profitable, or otherwise advantageous. Instilling the virtues of true democracy is, in truth, not in the best interest of those governments that claim democracy their primary cause. How, when the state of their own democracies is dysfunctional, can the spread of a lesser democratic ideal be viewed as anything but neocolonialist? For where third rate democracy flourishes, so too does exploitation.

In a letter to Joshua Speed, Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1855…

“As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.â€?

The spread of a half measure is not the spread of freedom. People, their chief desire being liberty, will ultimately revolt against that which is revealed to be false. Time is all that is required to ensure this.

Guerilla resistance is the bane of imperial arrogance. Ironically, despite a myriad of historical examples providing fair warning, world powers never seem to initially take them all that seriously. Most are nearly identical in their impact and combat philosophy, be they fought in the jungles of Vietnam, the mountains of Afghanistan, or on the streets of Iraq. The demoralization, not military defeat, of the enemy is their guiding principle.

In the latter half of the 20th century a variety of groups throughout the world have used such tactics to great effect against world powers, such as the Vietnamese with regards to the French and Americans, and the Mujahideen with the Soviets. But such tactics are by no means wholly modern. In fact, their roots stretch back into imperial antiquity.

The occupation of Iraq is simply another example of the refusal of a world power to come to terms with the reality that the success of modern warfare cannot be based on the possession of vast numbers, technological advantages, and superior economics. Despite the possession of all these things, without a clear and unspotted military mandate, such advantages quickly turn into disadvantages.

To effectively train a soldier in a time of war you must instill in them a sense of purpose. At the same time you must also instill in them the unwavering ability to kill. And to do so the defamation of the enemy is a commonly employed method used to heighten aggression. Thus, you have American and British men and women referring to Iraqis as ’sand niggers’, ‘rag heads’, ‘camel jockeys’, and so forth. To motivate a person to kill it is important to demean those being targeted. But when fighting an enemy employing tactics that confuse the purpose given a soldier for being actively engaged, it is also important to provide undeniable justification.

Like Vietnam, the justification for being in Iraq is tenuous. Therefore, you have a healthy segment of those engaged that have become conflicted or outright disenfranchised. This produces a phenomenon that alters the basis of their involvement, complicating the basic information provided them to perform their jobs. While they are in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people, they cannot understand why the Iraqis dislike them so much. This leads to heightened personal anxiety, altering the purpose of performance to that of ensuring personal survival and not enthusiastically engaging in the overall ambitions of policy.

This is the primary advantage of the guerilla, and an aspect that guerilla movements have capitalized on for centuries. Armies that believe they are acting against just principles, be they realistically just or not, lose their resolve to effectively wage war. Once this occurs, the exploitation of personal fear becomes one of the most effective weapons on earth.

Ultimately, a people that refuse to acquiesce can only be subdued by a determined policy of complete and utter extermination. This is where the realities of warfare and modern, democratic foreign policy ambitions diverge. The winning of hearts and minds, call it what you will, has never succeeded in permanently altering the resolution of a people that refuse to accept the interference or governance of a foreign power. In the case of the Vietnamese, it was a struggle that began during 1000 years of Chinese rule and lasted through a further 100 years of French colonialism, 5 years of Japanese occupation, and 10 years of American militarism. Likewise, Iraq has a long history of enduring external influences.

From roughly 540 BC to 640 AD the Greeks and Persians ruled Mesopotamia. Then, from roughly 640 to the tenth century it was governed by Arabs. The Mongols then conquered it in 1258 until, in 1375, the Turkmen tribes took control. In 1508 the Iranian Safavids ruled until the Ottomans took control in 1534. They would remain in control, for the most part, until 1918. Following the First World War, the British merged the three provinces into what is now modern Iraq and, for the better part of the first half of the 20th century, meddled in Iraqi affairs.

Were the American political landscape to continue to deteriorate, resulting in a noticeable loss of civil liberties and absolute, corrupted federal control, who in the United States would demand the government step down if it meant the possibility of arrest or death? Who in the US would take up the struggle to overthrow the government? Given the fact that the US is, like many other Western plutocracies, a shadow of its former promise, why is it currently deemed near treason to demand the complete reform of government?

What would American reaction, or Canadian reaction for that matter, be to an invasion by a foreign power whose mandate was to liberate the people of the US or Canada? What if their justification was based on concerns that the massive US nuclear arsenal posed a threat to global security? What would the reaction of the people be do you suppose? The resistance that would follow would most likely dwarf any guerilla movement in history, even if its objective was not the defense of the government. The people of the United States would, without doubt, fight and struggle until the end of time to dispatch any foreign invader. Canadians, I’m sure, would do the same.

So why is it that we can’t recognize that motivation in others? And when it is met, why is it always painted as barbarism? Why is it that Western governments charge into foreign lands firmly convinced of swift and decisive victories without first contemplating the reality of what will occur if their actions cause the formation of a highly motivated guerilla resistance? Add to that the denial that follows such a realization, a denial that is paid for with the lives of young men and women – not Senators or Congressman or White House staffers, and you’ve got nothing more than a good year for grave diggers.

Where will the next unseen and unacknowledged suffocation of liberty occur? Where, other than right here, are the conditions not better suited for the quiet smothering of those rights and freedoms and beliefs that we refuse to believe corruptible? Simply because we believe it impossible, it has become entirely so. Thus, if ever there was a time for guerillas, it’s now. But rather than employing the gun and the bomb, let it be fought with the resolute voices of those that refuse to lower themselves to the same level as those that would kill, maim, invade, or occupy. And in doing so deny those profiteers of death everything but a future of assured unemployment.