Necessary Risks
Shadi Hamid writes that the United States needs to rethink its approach to the Middle East in a more fundamental way than perhaps many progressive leaders are thus far prepared to do:
While there is a well-deserved consensus that the Bush administration has caused untold damage to our relationship with the Arab
and Muslim world, it would be a mistake to think that eight years of Republican rule are an anomaly in an otherwise proud history of
successful engagement. The reality is more troubling: American policy has been consistently self-defeating under administrations of both parties for more than five decades.
I think that’s right. As Hamid says, America’s cozy relationship with unpopular Arab despots is, in many ways, at the root of our larger problem vis-a-vis the Muslim world. Simply stepping back from Bush-style unilateralism is a good idea, but it won’t actually resolve that problem. And I think most of his policy recommendations are good. I’m a bit wary, however, of the idea that we should “elevate democracy promotion through aid conditionality.” This is a popular suggestion, but I think it has a lot of problems. One way you could implement it would be to say to the King of Jordan “either write and adopt a democratic constitution and hold free and fair elections to fill the office by 2010 after which you step aside or we’re cutting you off.” That would presumably result in the King telling us to get lost, and us cutting off aid. But that’s typically not what democracy promoters have in mind. Instead, they want us to make more moderate demands (”a set of benchmarks, including respect of opposition rights, freedom of expression, and progress toward holding free elections, even if only on the municipal level at first”) that, presumably, the incumbent authorities are more likely to accept.
But this sets up an odd dynamic. In effect, clever State Department bureaucrats are trying to trick the Mubaraks and Husseins of the world into accepting deals that lead to them losing their grip on power. But common sense indicates that this is closer to the core area of competence of the dictators than of the State Department. Most likely, they’ll trick us, proposing cosmetic reforms that fundamentally change nothing. Meanwhile, we’re now officially certifying shame reform processes. Beyond that, in a larger sense the nexus of terrorism, US policy, and Arab autocracy isn’t just about electoral systems, it’s about control and autonomy and specifically the sense that the United States is trying to push Arabs around, tell them what to do, and control their lives and their countries. Attempting to micromanage political reform in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere is likely to compound that problem rather than ameliorate it. This is especially true in light of the fact that, as Hamid says, American motives are viewed with enormous suspicion in the region.
Better would be to embrace Hamid’s other ideas and then, I think, just distance ourselves from some of these autocratic regimes. The next president should decline to invite Saudi princes to his vacation house. Instead of selling these regimes advanced weaponry and then offsetting that with special extra goodies for Israel, we could just not sell the advanced weaponry and eschew the extra goodies for Israel. And the president can say that while he won’t dictate internal policy to Arab governments, America’s view is that democracy is good, and we would be happy to deal with democratically elected governments no matter who won which elections.
59 Responses to “Necessary Risks”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
If so, our dependance on their oil is the fertile topsoil in which that root is planted.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
The addict will always find it difficult to adopt sensible poicies toward his dealers.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Re “As Hamid says, America’s cozy relationship with unpopular Arab despots is, in many ways, at the root of our larger problem vis-a-vis the Muslim world ”
————-
1) Given that President Bush lied through his teeth to the country after Sept 11 — regarding why that attack occurred–, given that the Democratic and Republican members of the 911 Commission DELIBERATELY CHOSE to let that lie to the victims families stand, and given that the NY Times did not let the fucking ashes from the World Trade Center cool off before it started misleading the country, I don’t think we are likely to change policy any time soon.
2) Especially since all the lying shitheads in Washington DC — in both parties — are still supporting Bush’s lies 7 years later. For different reasons, but the result is the same.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
This post perfectly exemplifies the insane and fantastic nonsense of the ‘democracy promotion’, ‘liberal internationalist’ crowd.
Liberal democracy is simply unworkable and impossible in the Middle East. Any liberal government that is established will be unstable, and any ‘democracy’ will rapidly become antiliberal. The fact is that authoritarian leaders along the lines of Assad and Mubarak are our only hope to keep their countries out of the hands of the Islamic Jihadists. If you want the Arab states to fall to the forces of jihadism, then by all means encourage “democracy” and see what happens.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Oversimplified. For one, if US doesn’t sell them arms, someone else will. That’s self-defeating.* That’s only one of the problems with what you’re proposing. More important is the overall approach.
A hypothetical approach is more than pointlessly academic. It is misleading, assuming you can a priori decide how the world will work. The only way to deal with, say, the Saudis is to have a good sense of our needs, their needs, and the needs of the community that is impacted by the Saudis, then craft solutions custom-made for that situaton.
*I”m not suggesting the US continue selling arms to the Saudis. I’m asserting that this is a complex problem that can’t be solved by simplistic solutions which will, inevitably, create new unanticipated problems.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
And the president can say that while he won’t dictate internal policy to Arab governments, America’s view is that democracy is good, and we would be happy to deal with democratically elected governments no matter who won which elections.
I think this is about right – we should reorient our aid programs to favor democracies. Great, big Obama tour in India, complete with one of those oversized checks, in front of one of those oversized crowds, while Jordan, ah geez, times are tight, we’re going to have to ease back a bit.
They’ll get the hint.
Worst case scenario: the dictatorships don’t change, but they get a little weaker and the democracies get a little stronger.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Hector,
Democracy promotion doesn’t have to mean nationwide presidential elections tomorrow.
Look at our own history. Democracy started at the level of the town meeting, and we didn’t get to an elected chief executive for almost 200 years.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Better yet, let’s bomb those Saudi princes’ own vacation houses. They are, after all, the ones who have been attacking us all along:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
“The fact is that authoritarian leaders along the lines of Assad and Mubarak are our only hope to keep their countries out of the hands of the Islamic Jihadists.”
Authoritarian like say Saddam Hussein? Oh wait, he was bad so we invaded his country. Assad and Mubarak are good- so we support them. Thanks for clearing that up.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
we would be happy to deal with democratically elected governments no matter who won which elections.
This last point is key. Given the state of politics in the Middle East, there is a very sharp tradeoff between supporting democracy and opposing Islamism. Sharp almost to the point of either/or.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Have to agree with Hector on this. The worst thing we could do is to try and “manage” change in that region. And most of the oil rich Arab kingdoms/sheikhdoms are not really that despotic (talking in relative terms). Their population gets a lot of freebies and pays no taxes. They are probably much better off than the Chinese.
The only positive thing we can do is try and facilitate a resolution to the Palestinian issue. Other than that we need to invest in alternative energy sources and stay the hell away from the middle east.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
You can’t promote late stage capitalism in places that aren’t to the level of even the earliest of early-stage capitalism. Thus, in the Middle East, you can either promote socialism or you promote traditional Islam. Since America can’t promote either, we’re fucked. (We should simply promote socialism, but we can’t do that because it’s one of our taboo words).
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
So, Matthew wants to actively push away our few freinds in the Middle East, thereby creating a new Cold War by causing those countries to all be against us. It’s funny, Matthew objects to McCain’s League of Democracies proposal because he thinks it is liable to create a new Cold War between us and the non-democracies. And yet, here’s Matthew proposing to do the very same thing.
Let’s face it, what this really stems from is Matthew’s hatred of democracy. He opposes supporting the Middle East democracy we have already created in Iraq, he supports the most anti-democractic movements in the Middle East such as Somalia’s ICU, and he opposes the a league of democracies. What’s the thread that ties all of this together? If something pro-democracy Matthew opposes is; if something is anti-democracy Matthew is for it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
You’re full of shit, Al. “Promoting democracy” is Cheney-speak for “grabbing the oil”. By setting up puppet governments — you can’t BUY an election if no one holds one.
It is NOT democracy when a few plutocratic shitheads in the USA claim a right to micromanage the affairs of countries on the other side of the globe for the personal benefit of said plutocrats. Especially when the cost to the common US citizen is 7500+ dead, 30,000 crippled, and $1 Trillion of our tax dollars.
IF we had any sense , we would bring back the Old English custom of “outlaw”. I.e, declare a number of traitors in our midst outside the protection of our law — and tell Al Qaeda those outlaws are fair game.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Of course, that’s really not the case. If the US would be happy to deal with democratically elected governments no matter who won, Mubarak would take over the Muslim Brotherhood’s most populist positions, for example repudiating Egypt’s cooperation with Israel, then hold marginally fair elections and win.
When Mubarak starts talking like Ahmadinejad or Nasrallah, he’ll be as popular in Egypt as Ahmadinejad or Nasrallah.
Most Western commentators, such as Matt and Brad Delong, do not allow themselves to understand the relationship between US support for Zionism and US opposition to democracy in the greater Middle East. It creates cognitive dissonance that they literally block it from their minds like a traumatic memory. Other Western commentators, such as MJ Rosenberg allow themselves the necessary cynical position.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
For those with half an eye on democratic reforms in the Middle East, the most important step is to develop, however gradually, a polity that’s conducive to arguments over relatively mundane issues.
The Northern Ireland example is useful here. For long periods since the Good Friday Agreement, power-sharing has broken down, and direct rule revived, but as long as there’s local progress — sometimes, ‘not going backward’ means ‘going forward’ — it creates space for that polity to emerge.
That avoids Crusader Boy’s reductive bipolarism. As long as authoritarians remain in power, the only organised political opposition will be gathered at the extremes.
Now, the Gulf petrostates are the hardest to budge; I hate to quote Tom Friedman, but I think he makes a good point when he describes the attitude towards governance as “If I don’t have to tax you, because I can get all the money I need from oil wells, I don’t have to listen to you.” But Egypt, Jordan, even Syria? There’s potential space, albeit very narrowly drawn.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Re Al’s comment “Matthew wants to actively push away our few freinds in the Middle East”
———-
They’re NOT our friends, Al. They’re friends of Exxon, Chevron and the Bush family. There’s a big difference.
Just as supporting that arrangement while waving the US flag is deceit –not loyalty to this country.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Al’s not even trying any more.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Re Arnold’s comment “Jordan, for instance, is not a democracy in the western sense but it is precisely the kind of neighbor Israel needs. Egypt is not a democracy but is at peace with Israel.”
————–
And why should a Real American give a hairy rat’s ass what Israel’s neighbors are like? If that’s a concern to someone, let them emigrate to Israel.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Re burritoboy’s comment “Since America can’t promote either, we’re fucked. ”
——————-
No we’re not. Because we shouldn’t be “promoting” anything — we should be letting the people of those countries run their countries as they see fit. We just tell them we will do business with whomever is in charge and we won’t intervene on behalf of any faction.
Even Bin Laden said Al-Qaeda would sell Saudi oil to the US — but that the sales and pricing would be conducted according to the interests of the Saudi people, not according to what Houston wants.
Stupid Americans have no idea what the US Government has done for decades to keep the Saudi people under the thumb of the royal family.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Don, that was a blockquote of MJ Rosenberg. A US citizen who while supportive of Israel, is at least honest about its cost. That honesty is something Matt is, not deliberately, incapable of having. I’ll separate it more clearly next time.
My point is that if the United States didn’t care what Israel’s neighbors think, Mubarak would be able to win elections by taking the Muslim Brotherhood’s positions without fear of reprisal from the US.
There is a tangible reason that the US opposes democracy in the Greater Middle East, and that reason is spelled out by Rosenberg in the above block quote. If you think it’s a bad reason, I agree.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I think that’s right. As Hamid says, America’s cozy relationship with unpopular Arab despots is, in many ways, at the root of our larger problem vis-a-vis the Muslim world.
If we are going to dig down to “root causes”, the root of the problem is why we need to have cozy relationships of any kind with any Middle East leaders, popular or unpopular, despotic or non-despotic. This is a question Shadi Hamid, whose only real issue of foreign policy concern appears to be the status of democracy in Egypt and Jordan, doesn’t really want to address. His PPI piece is also quite short on concrete proposals, and confines itself mainly to vague thematic suggestions.
Right now, a worrisome problem is that people from across the foreign policy spectrum, including Hamid, are still living in an imaginary world in which the United States has the same vast powers of leverage it had in, say, 1995. We don’t. This isn’t to say that there aren’t things the US can do to help foster the growth of democratic activism in other countries, and protect activists from government reprisals. But I’m not sure these countries are any longer in the same kind of dependent position where they need to crawl to the US and knuckle under to “conditions” on aid and security support. There are other vendors in the market.
I think we might want to look more at strategies of grass roots global democracy and good-government promotion rather than focusing so much on the large hammers of US central state power. As networked communication tools spread throughout the world and cross political borders, more can probably be done to network and publicize global non-governmental democracy promotion efforts, to identify transgressors and to mobilize campaigns of shame and economic retribution against countries run by despots, or corporations that are heavily invested in the regimes of those despots, or perhaps to reward foreign companies or groups that are playing a more positive role, through consumer-aimed point rating systems or publicized citations or seals of approval. It’s not all about using the Vast Power and Glory of the American Empire to accomplish everything. I’m sure many progressive Swedes, for example, are involved in a lot of democracy promotion and conflict resolution efforts, even though their country doesn’t have an empire to sell. Democracy promotion can be more of a bottom up thing, not only top down.
While the rest of us work on these things, the US government itself, however, is still going to have to make a lot of compromising deals with unsavory leaders, because there are unpleasant security realities that can’t be wished away.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Re Arnold’s comment “If you think it’s a bad reason, I agree.”
———–
I do, but I don’t think it’s even the real reason.
Dick Cheney wouldn’t care if Israel was nuked off the face of the earth tomorrow. The only think he ever cared for was manipulating the Democratic Party into supporting Big Oil by playing to the Party’s billionaire owners. Hence, grabbing Iraqi oil was depicted as “taking care of an enemy of Israel”.
That’s why corrupt Republican preachers violate the basic ideas of a peaceful Christ to promote an aggressive Zionism that’s not even supported by many Israelis themselves.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Re Dan Kervick’s comment “more can probably be done to network and publicize global non-governmental democracy promotion efforts, to identify transgressors and to mobilize campaigns of shame and economic retribution against countries run by despots, or corporations that are heavily invested in the regimes of those despots,”
—————–
Where is our moral authority to do that?
The US itself is a deeply corrupt oligarchy that’s not all that different from Saudi Arabia. Yes, We can vote for either of the two candidates that the Establishment puts forth, but anyone who threatens that Establishment in any way will be killed off in the primaries via the power of money and of a tightly controlled, deceitful news media.
We can vote for either party — but BOTH parties just joined together into giving $1.5 Trillion to Wall Street — while millions of our citizens have suffered for years from lack of medical care, lack of shelter, and from underfunded schools.
What foreigner in his right mind would take instruction from US citizens on how to run a government?
Why should we fight to promote “democracy” abroad when we don’t have it here? We should fix our own problems.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
What exactly are our priorities in the Middle East? Oil? Defense of Israel? Democracy? Stability? Secular rule? Because these things seem to be in constant competition with one another. I find it odd how those nations with the most open, stable “street” are often the prime targets of our most aggressive rhetoric: pre-invasion Iraq and current Iran as the prime examples. What level of despotism are we willing to live with? How does Mubarak compare with Saddam? Or Ahmadinejad? Or the Saudis? What I’m saying is, do we really want Iran to become Saudi Arabia? Or Iraq, for that matter? Is that a trade-off that we are willing to make? Because it has been really, really hard to have friendly relations with some democratically elected governments (Iran, at least at some level, and Hamas, and I can foresee Iraq in this category) and really, really easy to have friendly relations with some of the worst offenders (Saudi Arabia and Egypt).
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
No. Let the Palestinians elect Hamas and then treat Hamas as a legitimate political entity. The problem is that by supporting Arab dictatorships– and support is really a euphemism here: the US keeps the Mubaraks and Husseins and Saudi royalty in power– and then starving people with an embargo after the only free-ish and fair elections in the Arab world is what’s really undermining US policy.
No more goodies for Israel until they stop building settlements and agree to the Arab peace initiative which is totally reasonable. The Egpytian dictatorship will be out of luck in no time without weapons to put down their own people. And this time, when the strongest Arab movements are secular leftist ones, lets not undermine them because we fear their nationalizing their own resources. That’s the only policy that makes any sense. If people want Islamist rule, let them have it. They will tire of it quickly. These things ebb and flow. If the US does not totally fuck up the inevitable tide of political change in Iran, that country will be the next best place in the region in a few years– having done the whole religious fanatic thing. Party in Tehran, 2020.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I’ve never understood the neo-con idea that democracy and market capitalism would bring to power governments that are less threatening to US interests. Specifically, in the case of Jordon, I suspect that if the King was to hold free elections, that a radical Islamic government whose policies would not be in the best interest of the US would be elected and it would probably be the last government elected. I’d like to see a lot more realism in US foreign policy. Or to put it bluntly, I don’t really give a rat’s ass about spreading freedom and democracy at the cost of billions of dollars that would be better spent here in the US and the cost of thousands of lives.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Hector:
Liberal democracy is simply unworkable and impossible in the Middle East. Any liberal government that is established will be unstable, and any ‘democracy’ will rapidly become antiliberal. The fact is that authoritarian leaders along the lines of Assad and Mubarak are our only hope to keep their countries out of the hands of the Islamic Jihadists. If you want the Arab states to fall to the forces of jihadism, then by all means encourage “democracy” and see what happens.
I disagree. Along with all of the religion, the Middle East was a battleground in the Cold War because of oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey
Turkey borders Syria, Iraq and Iran and it hasn’t fallen to Islamic Jihadism. At the moment it’s trying to enter the European Union, which has been offering carrots and sticks to Turkey to improve its behavior. The US needs to do the same to other undemocratic allies, even though it has less leverage than the EU has over Turkey. But Turkey has been been pretty good lately, trading with Iran, brokering talks with Israel and Syria.
Although it was good to see Musharraf go quietly in Pakistan, although one wonders how much Bush had to do with that. (the US should deal with the “people” not the dictators.) And coincidently good news on the subcontinent:
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
Published: October 21, 2008
NEW DELHI — After more than 60 years, trade opened Tuesday across the de facto border dividing the Indian and Pakistani parts of the disputed region of Kashmir.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/asia/22kashmir.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
Maybe I’m a naive idealist, but at one time the West was illiberal and made up of only monarchies and dictatorships.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Don Williams wrote:
Where is our moral authority to do that?
The US itself is a deeply corrupt oligarchy that’s not all that different from Saudi Arabia.
It doesn’t matter whether the US has the moral authority to promote democracy; and it doesn’t matter whether the US is a corrupt oligarchy or any other kind of corrupt archy.
You have all the authority you need as an individual, Don, to promote democracy, or promote monarchy, or promote communism, or promote political Taoism, or promote Croatian nationalism, or promote whatever the hell other way of life appeals to you as representing progress for humanity. And you have all the authority you need to band together with like-minded friends in Sweden, Nigeria, Thailand, New Zealand, Ecuador or Kamchatka to form a club for the promotion of your preferred ism.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
We ought not to be falling into the trap of vote-fetishizing in the first place and promoting freedom, not democracy. Whether a nation has a free press, or adequate protections for religious, gender, and sexual-preference minorities ought to be orders of magnitude more important that now they decide who’s top banana.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Re Dan Kervick’s comment “You have all the authority you need as an individual, Don, to promote democracy ”
———
Oh, but my Congress uses my tax dollars to do it for me. It funds NGOs like the hilariously-named “National Endowment for Democracy” to subvert and undermine foreign governments.
And I don’t think it does it so we can all sit around and sing Kumbaya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution#Involvement_of_outside_forces
CIA officers used to be trained in this job — see Frank Snepps book.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
(…) America’s view is that democracy is good, and we would be happy to deal with democratically elected governments no matter who won which elections.
Sounds nice, but is incredibly naive. A lot of people in this world don’t value democracy all that highly and are more interested in what any government does to better their socio-economic circumstances. They also tend to define themselves more along tribal and religious lines, rather than as citizens. This is not an excuse for scumbags like Mubarak, but until all these people have internalized their Montesquieu, Locke and Paine, we have to deal with the world as it is.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
The next president should decline to invite Saudi princes to his vacation house. Instead of selling these regimes advanced weaponry and then offsetting that with special extra goodies for Israel, we could just not sell the advanced weaponry and eschew the extra goodies for Israel.
I agree on this part, though. That said, it would take a major sea change in US politics to achieve it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Re Anne F
No more goodies for Israel until they stop building settlements and agree to the Arab peace initiative which is totally reasonable.
The Saudi peace initiative would require the Government of Israel to agree to resettle Palestinians living in refugee camps in Israel. The position of the Arab League is that the initiative is a take it or leave it proposition. Since no Israeli Government will agree to any such demand, which is equivalent to agreeing to go out of business, there is no possibility of the Government of Israel accepting this proposal and they will therefore leave it. There is no pressure that the US can apply, short of invading and occupying Israel that will force it to accept this proposition.
Re Arnold Evans
As usual, antisemitic Israel basher Mr. Evans proposes dumping US support for the State of Israel as the answer to all problems in the Middle East. Does he think that the government of that state will just sit around and wait to be annihilated by its enemies? With some 200 – 600 nuclear devices, the position of the Government of Israel will be, if we have to go, we’ll take the rest of the world with us.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
No, SLC. The Arab peace initiative requires a “just solution” to the refugee problem. Like letting older people freely visit their old hometowns and villages (the ones that haven’t razed) and throwing a ton of money and a sincere apology to the rest of them. The rest of the Arab Peace Initiative is totally reasonable and doable. No occupation by US forces to enforce it needed. Just less unconditional support for Israel, a discontinuation of Bush’s policy of saying “no” to settlement building in public and encouraging it in private, and no fancy weapons unless sacrifices are made. Hamas agreed 2 years ago to a sort of “cold war” under these terms– not loving Israel but accepting it. I think the analogy that Hamas’ chief made was Taiwan-mainland China’s relationship.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
President Palin would see it done. Unlike you, SLC, she is bountifully optimistic; surely that includes getting the Israeli government to agree to do something they haven’t ever been willing to consider. Just buy every Palestinian refugee a $150,000 wardrobe and be done with it. Ramallah couture.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Re “The next president should decline to invite Saudi princes to his vacation house. Instead of selling these regimes advanced weaponry ”
————
The US Government does a hell of a lot more than just sell the Saudis advanced weaponry. It takes sophisticated surveillance to maintain a monarchy. Guess where the Saudi “National Guard” gets it?
Look into a US company called Vinnell — now a subsidiary of defense monolith Northrup Grumman. Their offices in Saudi Arabia were the ones bombed by Al Qaeda a few years back.
See e.g.,http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0513-06.htm
and http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0514-06.htm
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
No doubt Bill Clinton sold the Saudis all those electroshock batons because the Saudis needed them to herd cattle across the Empty Quarter.
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm#political
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Re SLC’s comment “With some 200 – 600 nuclear devices, the position of the Government of Israel will be, if we have to go, we’ll take the rest of the world with us. ”
——–
The guys at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls , Montana say: “No you won’t”
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Burritoboy,
Amen. I may not have made it clear above, but I would much rather the Middle East be ruled by socialists like Nasser* than capitalist strongmen like Mubarak, or heaven forbid the Islamists. Sadly, there don’t appear to be many Nassers on the horizon right now.
*Ideally, of course, without Nasser’s aggression against Israel.
Peter K.,
I can’t believe you actually endorse the removal of Musharraf. Pakistan needs to be ruled by the military, as only the army can effectively keep the Islamists from power. America stabbed Musharraf in the back in an act of horrid treachery, and the day will come when we suffer for it.
Novakant,
Very true, “democracy” as we understand it is simply not valued by much of the world, probably with good reason.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
democracy needs to start at the bottom in these countries. We need to push these countries to nurture a real civil society in terms of local neighborhood mayors, counsels, trade unions, professional organizations, a protected press core, and free and open access to the internet.
Also, we need to promote a ‘dual track’ policy where we maintain our right and commitment to human rights, criticizing human rights abuses, and promoting international action against violators, while at the same time, maintaining trade relations. and yes, this will be difficult to do- theres a word for that- it’s called “integrity”
and of course we cant really do this if we are a notable human rights offender.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
America will rely on a stable Middle East so long as we need their oil – or, to be more precise, so long as the world needs their oil (oil is fungible, yada yada yada) and our economy relies on the free flow of that oil as well as our ability to influence our friends the Saudis to increase or decrease the flow of oil.
That means that no president – not Obama, not McCain – is going to seriously disrupt the current paradigm, even if it does spawn terrorism and forces us to support Arab strongmen.
President Monkeyboy was foolish to pursue his democracy agenda in the ME absent any effort to wean the US economy from its addiction to cheap oil. Even a layman like myself with no formal training in foreign affairs could see that. What’s worse, he tarnished the name of democracy for a generation or longer with his all-talk, no-action on democracy-spreading. Add to that the failure of the Iraq war and the refusal of the US to deal with the democratically-elected Hamas, and you’ve got yet another in a long line of things that Bush has touched and turned into shit.
Because petroleum cuts to the heart of the health of the US economy – and along with it the political fortunes of any US administration – any solutions to the Middle East problems must absolutely be rooted in realpolitik.
I propose that we must adopt both a long-term and nearer-term (not necessarily short-term) strategy.
Long-term, we must move to a far less petroleum-based economy. This could take 20 to 30 years (Obama is dreaming if he thinks we can do it in 10 years, but it’s a worthy goal to set even if we don’t meet it). We must encourage Detroit to move even more aggressively towards higher fleet fuel economy, hybrids and electric cars. This would also make the American automakers more competitive in a world market. A large part of the reason they are in such lousy shape is that they foolishly bet on cheap gasoline extending indefinitely. It would also go a long way towards slowing and even reversing global climate change. Powering automobiles with electricity is also far more economical than gasoline or diesel. There is a huge amount of unused electrical generating capacity which is available off-peak; we’d be wise to take advantage of this resource.
Once we begin to relieve the pressure to maintain a stable Middle East at all costs including alliances with unsavory Arab dictators, all sorts of options become possible. We can afford to risk more in encouraging the evolution of regimes which are more democratic. Note that I did not write, ‘democratic regimes’; the problem with the Middle East is that the radicalism creates a strong possibility of one-vote, one-time elections. Also, in post-WW2 Europe we were able to strongly influence the outcome of the democratic elections which shaped post-war Europe. We won’t be able to do that anywhere near as much in the ME given the lack of a shared culture and religious heritage like we have with Europe. We must move cautiously and above all, patiently allow any democratization to grow organically and evolve over time, giving it gentle nudges here and there and avoiding overt, obvious meddling as much as possible.
Nearer term, the next administration must (and if Obama wins, probably will) pursue a more even-handed policy on Israel/Palestine and seriously pursue peace negotiations. I laughed and laughed when Bush decided to do this in the last year of his presidency. Talk about a massive example of too little, too late. It’s true that many Arab regimes pay lip service to the Palestinian issue; it’s also true that it will perpetually be a stumbling block to a better relationship with the ME and fighting terrorism unless we can at least prove to the Arab street that progress is being made.
As for ceasing the sale of weapons to the Saudis and Israelis, good luck with that so long as the military-industrial complex retains its power and influence. If you think that the Pentagon’s shiny new toys cost a lot now, just wait til you see how much they cost when you deprive Boeing and Northrop of these important secondary markets which keep the assembly lines humming after the US has bought all the tanks or fighter planes it needs. A lot of Congress critters are going to be in open rebellion against any president – regardless of shared party affiliation – who takes actions which deprive their constituents of good paying jobs in defense contracting.
Pardon my overly long comment, but I think you can see that the solutions to the Middle East issues are VERY complex and they must be approached in a hard-headed realistic way. One of my favorite movies is Syriana because it ably communicates how interconnected everything is there. I am greatly optimistic that a President Obama understands these things. I watch his campaign and, as many others have said, the man is playing chess while his opponents play checkers. Hopefully he will bring to the Middle East the combination of an optimistic view for how things can eventually be, along with a hard-headed, practical approach for how to get there. We cannot continue with the childish, dreamy ‘democracy!’ sloganeering of Bush, devoid of any practical steps for getting us there, nor can we afford to continue to coddle dictators in order to perpetuate a dying economic paradigm.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:30 am
Re Anne F
1. The naivete of well meaning people like Ms. Anne F is touching, if somewhat annoying. Just for her information, the phrase “a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem” is Arab speak for resettling them in Israel. In addition, the notion that Hamas is somehow going to grow to accept the State of israel is piffle. Unlike her, I think that the Hamas folks are serious people. They have stated over and over again that they will never reconcile themselves to the existence of the State of Israel and that any truce they might negotiate is only interim until they have to wherewithal to carry out their goal of eliminating that state.
2. As for Sarah Palin, Ms. Anne F should read the comment by Mr. Trevor on a previous thread where he states that Governor Palin will be putty in the hands of her neocon handlers like Bill Kristol.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 am
SLC,
I’m curious. What is your solution to the refugee problem, if resettling Palestinitans is absurd and unworkable? Note: ‘genocide’ is not a correct answer.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Ah, SLC,
I am naive, but you are cynical and uninformed, and perhaps even a bigot– which is why it is easy for you to support any settlement that would put the Israeli state, in its current form, “out of business.” That probably is synonymous with the Jews being pushed into the sea in your opinion,isn’t it? Going out of business– why this specific analogy?
“Arab speak?”
Oh and if you did read Arabic instead of mouthing off about Arab speak, you might know what every halfwit who isn’t totally brainwashed by Israeli propaganda on the Hamas question knows: that Hamas has accepted an Israeli state within its 1967 borders.
Excerpts from an interview with Hamas leader, Khalid Meshaal (KM):
RR: Have I understood you correctly that you would be prepared to negotiate with Israel and accept it within its borders of 1967, before it started its wars of aggression, stealing Palestinian land?
KM: Good, that has been made clear.
RR: In the West, Hamas is generally depicted as being absolutely against talks with Israel and [it's believed] that Hamas only wants to drive the Israeli Jews into the sea.
KM: This is not correct. Killing Jews is not our aim. For centuries we have lived in Palestine peacefully with Jews and Christians of all kinds. We are fighting Israel because it occupies our land and oppresses our people. We are fighting Israel to finish this occupation. We want to live freely on our land just as other nations. We want to have our own country just like other people. But the Zionist movement came from all over the world to occupy our land. And the real owner of the land has been kicked out. This is the root of the problem.
Because of many factors, we now accept to build a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967. But that doesn’t mean that we recognize Israel. But we are prepared to make a long-term truce with Israel. Accepting the status of Israel without recognizing it.
RR: But no recognition? Doesn’t that mean continued tensions and war?
KM: No. There are plenty of examples where no recognition does not mean war. China and Taiwan, for example, have not recognized each other, but they trade and cooperate with each other. By withholding a formal recognition, we just don’t want to give Israel the legitimacy for having taken our land in the first place.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rupp.php?articleid=10195
PS. “Going out of business” does not warrant denying people their basic rights. Nor will it suffice demographically for very long either way, so every halfway honest player knows that something needs to be done NOW. Israel has never even suggested an alternative for these refugees, except “it ain’t our problem and we’re not sorry cause that would mean admitting that our state was founded via violent means at the Palestinians’ expense.”
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Hector, I am absolutely DYING to know what your position was on the removal or Saddam Hussein.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Where are the Pakistani Islamists coming from? The parties led by Bhutto’s widower and the former prime minister, which did best in elections there don’t seem to be particularily Islamist.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I don’t know why anyone would expect a US administration to be interested in improving relationships in the Middle East. At the very least it would be a departure from US policy as established in Southeast Asia and Latin America.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Witless Chum,
Sharif is an Islamist- just because he’s more moderate than the Talban doesn’t make him not an Islamist. He took steps to establish Quranic law in Pakistan. The late Begum Benzair Bhutto was a corrupt thief, for her part, and her party is a nest of thieves.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Nawaz Sharif is not an Islamist. He is a center-right conservative. If you cannot see politics outside of the US beyond the possibility of two variables, then please just don’t speak or write on it at all.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:29 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:45 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra