April 28, 2005
Can Freedom Be Far Behind?
Fear:
Freedom:
There is a consensus among many that United States policy as it is being implemented in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, is wrong and wrong headed. The storyline was often "Arabs aren't ready for democracy" or perhaps "can't handle democracy." In some circles, the worry was a mass uprising of the "arab street" that would show the American Neo-Con Warmongers exactly what pan-arabia thought about Americans in general and American Policy (read Bush policy) in particular. None-the-less, Bush pushed ahead believing that all peoples would savor freedom given half a chance.
To date, Bush seems to have the better of the argument. From the New York Times (No kidding?...ed.) comes this:
In Cairo, more than 30 truckloads of riot police blocked the downtown streets around the Supreme Court. In a swift maneuver, plainclothes officers dispersed the first demonstrators to arrive by forcing taxis to halt, shoving the protestors inside and ordering the drivers to move along.In Lebanon, Michael Totten has been reporting a lengthy series of articles the most recent of which is this poignant description of Beirut. Indeed, the much vaunted "arab street" is described by Totten as "Our Friend, The Arab Street:"In response, some 200 participants, including a smattering of well-known Egyptian writers, filmmakers and politicians, regrouped on the front steps of the nearby Journalists' Syndicate. They stood hemmed in by the police for more than four hours, chanting anti-government slogans including their trademark catchphrase of "Kifaya!" or "Enough!" in Arabic. This refers to their primary demand that President Hosni Mubarak step aside after 24 years in power.
"Right now we're seeing two revolutions at once: a literal revolution by the "Arab street" against a dictatorship, and an intellectual revolution in the West about what "Arab street" means in the first place."Totten has it right. Freedom is busting out all over. Lest we be overly zealous in our rejoicing however, there remain dangers and setbacks in the future. As the NYTimes reported:
"Egypt's fledgling movement for political reform tried to extend its reach nationally today by organizing demonstrations in 14 major cities from Aswan to Alexandria, but a major deployment of riot police and scores of detentions drastically minimized the effort."The urge to repress is rampant among the powers that be in much of the Middle East. In part that is our fault, meaning the West in general, and the US in particular for shoring up many of these dictatorships and oligarchies. We too can be faulted for not doing something "more" about the mullah's in Iran and their devotion to islamo-fascism and support of terrorists; and this fault goes back decades - it is not a recent development.
Carter blew it in Iran when he didn't take out Kohmeni in '79 following the act of war commonly called the "Embassy Hostage" crisis. Reagan screwed the pooch for not responding more aggressively when the Marine Barracks was bombed. Bush père didn't complete Gulf War I and Clinton tossed munitions at empty tents and camels.
Of course 20/20 vision in hindsight is a wonderful thing. It allows us to see what whe should have done but didn't; and for reasons that seemed fairly cogent at the time.
That was, as they say, then and this is now. Today, we have not only a strategic reason to support the democracy movements in the Middle East, but also a moral reason and that reason is simple: Free peoples seldom make trouble for other free peoples.
If the Middle East is ever to realize its potential, freedom must ring out loud and clear, and all the nay-sayers, all the pundits, all the doubters need to get behind the freedom movement and PUSH.
Posted by GM Roper at April 28, 2005 04:14 AM | TrackBackThe United States cannot become an isolationist nation; the responsibilities of world leadership are too demanding, and if we don’t lead the world, who will? At the same time, our foreign policy (no matter how well meaning) has not always been in America’s short/long term interests. Our nation cannot maintain the moral high ground when we endorse or support petty dictators, just because it happens to be expedient. We must be mindful that democracy takes on different forms because it is culture-dependent. We have the right to be hopeful, but we should not assume that “a move toward democracy†is the same thing as actually achieving it. For any nation that makes the move (including Russia) it will be a long and difficult road  as ours was. In many ways, the American experiment with democracy continues. Our role as a world leader, I think, should be to encourage perseverance, but limited direct involvement. People of other nations resent direct action by the “arrogant Americans,†and with some historical justification. It is a very thin line to walk, and that is why we need statesmen, rather than politicians, in the State Department.
HB sends
Posted by HB at April 28, 2005 03:27 PM
I don't think it is selective thinking - though I am open to challenge on this - when I say that a review of the last 50 - 75 years of our diplomatic history would show that the moral or principled path would have yielded the best long term result.
I'm thinking about the Korean conflict (remains unresolved), Castro's Cuba, Vietnam, the appeasement policies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan (yes, in the Middle East at least), Bush, and Clinton. Look at Africa and Central/South America. Is it true that many of the troublesome leaders (Mugabe, Chavez, Hussein, Mubarak, Assad, Khoemehni) are in place, in part, because we calculated based on the lesser of two evils? Sort of the "sure, he's a despot, but he's our despot" way of thinking.
Contrast all that with the current Administration and the volcanic effects the War in Iraq and the War on Terror are having on the reshaping of the political landscape in the Mid-East.
Could we have gotten here sooner if we had only been true to our own founding principles of democracy and freedom?
++++++++++
Great Comment TMS! Much appreciated
GMR
Posted by too many steves at April 29, 2005 08:20 AM
Nice guys like Carter do us no good--that's what I' learned from history. How much of the Iraqi insurgency is the result of our dithering at the UN trying to be "legal" and nice?
We have to support the democracy movement ourselves. Now that the Syrian army is gone, will Hezbollah start a war? We can't let the media ignore this.
Posted by PJ at April 29, 2005 10:51 AM
Aye, tis a wise and moral thing to offer the hand of friendship and a smile of peace.
But, always let them see yer bayonets glittering and the hard faces of your soldiery.
If any clutch daggers behind their backs, they must KNOW that you'll come at them hard.
There are evil men about. Crush them that are not willing to be at peace. The others will notice. Help them that are truly your allies and win them to your side. However, always keep your bayonets a'glittering. Warriors know the truth of the ages. Tis sad, the way of the world, but it is truth and yea must stay ready.
Posted by tad at April 29, 2005 09:23 PM
