Taylor passed this article about the falling dominoes of the Middle East on to me late last night his time and in the wee hours Zulu here on the right bank of the pond. Articles by Taylor appear here from time to time as well as in a few other publications like WSJ. – ed
Last year I was having a drink with a space guy from the Pentagon and we started talking about the Middle East, Iraq etc etc. He made some comment about the need to ‘stabilize the region’. He is a great guy and definitely on the side of the angels but I had to tell him. The strategy is the opposite. Bush wants to destabilize the area. It is the only way there will be change. Stability is what brought us 9/11.
With what has been happening, with elections in the PA, in Iraq, and now in the instability in Lebanon; with the governments of Egypt and Syria floundering about and grasping at straws, the US strategy is beginning to work. It is going to be a long hard slog as our Rummy put it, but there is a sense that the corner has been turned.
You have to give Bush and the neocons credit, after the attack my first instinct was to say that these people deserved to have self government taken away from them. The administration chose the opposite path, they were going to try and inflict real self government on the Muslim and Arab world.
It is an imperfect and messy process and democracy by itself is not necessarily a friend of liberal human rights. Over time, if they keep it up they will soon find themselves practicing some form of grown up politics. That process will eventually dry up the pond of paranoia and rage which the terrorist scum have thrived on for the last three or four decades.
We, less than perfect human beings, make progress in the oddest and least likely ways. The bombs in Tel Aviv and Hilla are not going to stop this process. For the moment give Wolfowitz and the neocons credit, they did not let their anger after the attack blind them to the essential humanity of the Arab and Muslim people. Reagan used to hammer home the idea that Americans and Russian wanted pretty much the same thing, the giant Communist stone was in the way of the Russian people getting it.
The realist move would have been to get even deeper into bed with the Arab and Muslim despots: instead they chose to take a big chance and bet on democracy and on the people. For a while it looked like they would over reached and gone too far. They certainly have got a long ways to go. Today however they deserve a pat on the back.
Bravo Zulu.
Mark Steyn has a similar piece in today’s Telegraph.
One way you know the strategy is working: since the Iraq elections until yesterday’s suicide bomb, hardly any headline coverage of the region. Minimal coverage of Egypt’s announcement of multiparty elections, and other than the occasional conspiracy theorist nattering on about how the US were really behind the Beirut carbomb that’s led to a ‘people power’ moment, there’s no clear storyline that fits the agenda.
That awkward silence is the sound of assumptions drowning in new and unexpected facts.
Yes! Yes! Yes! So far I have managed to avoid calling the few people I knew against the war and gloating. Instapundit’s and Rummy are right its a process and there may be dark days ahead, but tonight I am going out with some girl friends to celebrate the fact that SA women are going to be voting even if it is in somewhat small, powerless local elections. Its the nose under the camel’s tent. Bush does deserve credit and so do those “How can this many people be so dumb?” Americans who voted for him.
camel’s nose under the tent that is. too excited to think straight!
Speaking of news coverage, have the comments of Walid Jumblatt(Link), a Lebanese Druze leader, gotten much attention?
You fight malaria by draining swamps, not by swatting mosquitoes.
Thinking about the analogy between Bush and Reagan and looking at some of the recent blogging, one comment gave me a chilling moment of deja vu:
“A Syrian withdrawal is inevitable. History is on the move and nobody can halt its progress,” said Syrian filmmaker Omar Amiralay. He said Lebanon was now playing the role of “engine for change” in the region.
I certainly hope so. However, I keep thinking about another analogy. Oddly enough, it is the other US President, before Reagan, who sent troops into Beirut: Dwight Eisenhower. While he sent a reasonably sized force into Lebanon, (unlike Reagan with his ridiculous ‘token force’ that turned out to be a token of nothing when it made one of our first contacts with islamofascists), Eisenhower was far less effective than Reagan when dealing with the Soviets.
The affair that strikes me so strongly when viewing the photos of the hopeful Lebanese demonstrators is the Hungarian Revolution and the pitiful appeals for aid when the Soviets moved in to crush it.
There is an oversupply of critics to tell Americans that they should be ashamed of everything from pollution to Indian Reservations to just existing. It is uniform hogwash. There are things of which we may justly be ashamed which are rarely mentioned. The hopes of the Hungarians which we first encouraged and then betrayed are high on that painful list.
I think we may be getting into a similar situation. The people who are acting on their aspirations would never be doing so without the proximity of American and British armed force. We have encouraged them in the most concrete way possible. The question we will face, if an Assad decides to go down the Khrushchev road, will be “Do we have the will and the means to back up our encouragement with action” or will we find some contemporary equivalent of Austrian neutrality to back down.
The Bush family has a bit of a debt to the Shiites. This might be Payback Time.
“The realist move would have been to get even deeper into bed with the Arab and Muslim despots”‘
Nope. The realist move is to say “fiddling about with foreigners is directly contrary to the founding principles of the USA, and is a waste of time, blood and treasure. It doesn’t matter what sort of government they have, as long as they do not menace the American homeland.”
It is probably impossible for those of us blessed by our birth in a relatively free and lawful society to understand the depths of emotion we have unleashed in the average Afghan or Iraqi by deposing the tyrants who had so brutally oppressed them.
There is an apocryphal story that, during the Korean War, Poles would tip their hats to the guards outside the US embassy as they walked by, in a quiet show of respect for our effort to prevent the marxist north from conquering the south.
It should not come as any surprize that Walesa, Havel, and many others recently released from their imprisonment support the actions in the ME. It is not unanimous, of course—that’s the whole point of a free society, people can have differing views without fearing for their lives.
While I sincerely doubt that the road ahead is covered with rose petals, I am very confident that ordinary men and women in the ME would rather breathe free than be strangled.
Liberty is a very contagious, and very human, virus. I doubt the infection can be stopped any more. I’m hoping for a pandemic.
Luniversal wrote:
“fiddling about with foreigners is directly contrary to the founding principles of the USA, and is a waste of time, blood and treasure. It doesn’t matter what sort of government they have, as long as they do not menace the American homeland.”
But the entire festering pit of middle eastern, arab, and islamist governments have been, and continue to, menace the American homeland. In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s a war on, Luniversal. 9/11, the shoe bomber, anthrax, the LAX shooting in 2002 (on July 4, no less)… some fiddling about with such murderous regimes seems to be a wise investment, despite the cost in blood and treasure.
As for being “contrary to the founding principles of the USA,” this isn’t the first time the United States has had to go to the old world to to stop a menace that the European powers ignored. It was founding father Thomas Jefferson himself who pressured the Congress into supporting an unpopular war against the Barbary Coast Pirates, which succeeded quite well. The parallels to the events of two centuries ago are remarkable.
— The hopes of the Hungarians which we first encouraged and then betrayed are high on that painful list. —
AND the South Vietnamese and the Kurds.
Generalizing what Doug Jones wrote: the “Bush Doctrine” is that evil and corrupt foreign governments are intrinsically dangerous to the USA. Directly because they attack and they harbour bad guys. But also and probably more importantly, they have the indirect effect of spreading and stabilizing their like. The more bad states, the easier it is to get away with being bad. Thus, “isolationism” would eventually result in the USA being hemmed in by evil. Ergo: seek out and preemptively topple all bad states, even if they pose no direct threat.
Up until recently it’s been theoretical. But the current changes in the mideast do tend to bear out that theory.
No, there is not.
It is not a war, it is a terrorist problem of the kind many European nations have faced for several decades without resorting to the hysteria, overreaction and misunderstanding that has sucked America in. Perhaps many Americans do not realise terrorism was not invented on September 11, 2001, and perhaps some of them can only understand it if it is put in the form of a “war,” but it is not in reality a war.
EG
Euan
American readers in here are perfectly capable of defending their end. Off the top of my head, I can recall: 241 Marines killed in a terrorist attack in Beirut in 1983; 19 in the Khobar Towers in Saudi in 1996; attacks against the WTC prior to 9/11; successful attacks against US embassies in east Africa; a successsful terrorist attack on the USS Cole; numerous attacks against US citizens (remember Leon Klinghoffer?) etc so I’m sure that that most Americans were, indeed, aware of terrorism prior to 9/11. Now numerous Islamofascist terrorists have declared war on the US amongst other nations/religions/cultures. Bush has spoken often of the US ‘war’ on terrorists and terrorism. So by what authority do you declare that no such war exists?
If the success of the US (and other) forces so far in killing and arresting Islamic terrorists and in degrading their ability to kill us is anything to go by then we needed a bit more hysteria, overreaction and misunderstanding in Northern Ireland.
Just because the president says something does not make it fact.
No state of war exists between the US and any other nation.
EG
Er … riiight.
Bush has spoken often of the US ‘war’ on terrorists and terrorism
Yea and Regan declared a “war on drugs”… doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.
Terrorism is certainly something that needs to be dealt with, and perhaps what we have been doing is the correct way of going about it… But in the US, unfortunately, the easiest way to exert goverment power, take more money from its people to pay for it, and limit our rights, is to declare a “war” is on.
Thanks Duncan, whatever your point is.
Very good, Euan. Thanks for pointing out the perfectly obvious. I wasn’t aware that the US had to be at war with a country to be at war with terrorists. How foolish of me.
BTW, just because you say something does not make it fact.
Well, perhaps you need to consider what war actually means. Use of the term “war” to define current operations against terrorists is histrionic melodrama rather than fact. The War on Terror ™ is no more a war than the War on Drugs.
Britain with the IRA (and many others over the years), Germany with the Red Brigades & Red Army Faction, Spain with ETA and so on have all managed to engage in operations against terrorist enemies without feeling the need to call it a war or pretend their presidents, prime ministers or chancellors are “war leaders. ” Such overreaction is simply unwarranted & the pretence is vanity. The result, of course, is insecurity, overweening state control, the erosion of privacy and the negation of basic rights and liberties.
Of course, if “war” is given as a justification, it is somewhat easier for the government to get away with gross violations of the most basic principles of justice (e.g. Guantanamo, Belmarsh, control orders, etc). Seeing it for what it is (a counter-terrorist campaign, not a war) brings these Draconian and needless measures into perspective.
EG
Afghanistan and Iraq – some counter-terrorist measure.
You are right that we did not declare war upon the IRA and look at what a marvellous, enlightened policy that was. No ‘war’ has made it easier for governments to get away with gross violations of basic principles of justice. That process has long been aided and abetted by a lazy, comfortable, self-indulgent and selfish populace. A practical example is meekly and pathetically accepting that the EU should impose on an ancient culture an alien system of weights and measures. Do excuse me if I invite you to take the lecture elsewhere.
In any case this government has not cited ‘war’ as an excuse to dispense with 900 years of due process, it has consistently pushed the line that it is an anti-terror measure. The words mean nothing anyway. Call it what you like, it simply is what it is. If the British or anyone else aren’t willing to fight for their freedoms they deserve to lose them.
Obviously you are unaware of the various measures taken during both WW1 and WW2, then. Read some history.
Dear me. I think there should be an informal law about ending discussion by introducing the bogeyman of metricating the UK, just as there is about mentioning Hitler or the Nazis.
FYI:
The ancient and venerable Imperial system dates back to all of 1824, when the vast number of inches, gallons, etc., were reduced to a single common standard. People bitched and moaned then. A lot.
The metric system has been in use legally in the UK as an alternative system of weights and measures (with a few specific exceptions) since 1897.
Formal metrication was first considered in the UK in 1950 (i.e. not an EU imposition), and was adopted as a long term plan in 1953 (still nothing to do with the EU).
Metrication has been formal UK policy since 1965.
So, metrication is not an EU imposition we meekly accept, rather it was British policy since long before the UK intended to join the EEC/EU. Had we not joined the EEC/EU, we would still have adopted the metric system.
Ah, so now it isn’t important, but two posts earlier it was?
EG
Euan
‘War’ is one excuse amongst many used by statists to extend their power. That they can get away with it is due to the governed not cherishing their freedoms. Try thinking.
A quick lesson for someone who needs it – the foot dates back over a thousand years, the inch and yard to medieval times. You confuse the issue anyway. The comment was directed at you and pertains to a foreign power having the impertinence to tell us what weights and measures we use. You also believe that Parliament holds power and that we, the people, have none and are therefore not sovereign. Why whinge when your masters do what masters do?
In that context I won’t take lessons in freedom and liberty from someone who bends the knee so willingly to state power. I’ve made mention in here before of the peasant, serf-like nature of your comments. It’s not a gratuitous insult, it’s simply a fact.
Now I’m out of here. I’ve learnt in the past that playing tennis with you is a pointless exercise so carry on alone if you like.
Doug Jones: “It was founding father Thomas Jefferson himself who pressured the Congress into supporting an unpopular war against the Barbary Coast Pirates, which succeeded quite well. The parallels to the events of two centuries ago are remarkable.”
Ah, so when Jefferson heard that a bunch of marine thieves from several different parts of North Africa were raiding US ships, he responded by invading and occupying a sovereign state which had no links with them, alienating the USA’s friends in Europe and creating five times as much enmity in the region.
Makes you wonder why he’s regarded as an apostle of isolationism. Why, he didn’t stop till the whole of North Africa was converted to “democracy” and “modernity”.
“…the entire festering pit of middle eastern, arab, and islamist governments have been, and continue to, menace the American homeland. In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s a war on, Luniversal. 9/11, the shoe bomber, anthrax, the LAX shooting in 2002 (on July 4, no less)…”
Oh really? I didn’t realise that these acts are all sponsored by governments, or indeed that there are any Islamist governments left in the ME. But I daresay any silly old confection of scare stories and conspiracy theories, however pathetic and trivial or non-existent in actual harm done (even 9/11 was only the equivalent of one night in the Blitz, and that was more than three years ago) will serve to keep the military industrial complex raking in the “defense” orders now they haven’t got the Red Menace to keep their nests feathered. Just as long as enough ignorant, jittery lamebrains can be panicked into voting for the “right-wing” statists and quasi-socialists who work hand in glove with the war profiteers.
But these things weren’t standardised until 1824. The Imperial standard system as you know and defend it is less than 200 years old. This is fact.
The foot, incidentally, is actually derived from the Roman measure (another foreign system, but there it is), so can be traced back 2,500 years. The age of a system of measures does not mean anything when it comes to how useful or sensible it is.
But we had already decided that was the way were going to go in any case, so how the hell is it a foreign power telling us what to do? In any case, what does the metric system have to do with American foreign policy in the middle east?
As you have been several times before when your arguments are exposed for what they are. Nothing new here, I’m afraid.
If you can’t lose with good grace, don’t play.
EG
Way to go, Euan….Impressive debating skills. Collapse of stout party.
(Your general principles and analysis are always sound in my experience, but how the hell do you have all these facts at your fingertips?)
I don’t own a television and I read a lot 🙂
EG