The turn of events in the Middle East only demonstrates one more time how difficult it is to predict history before it happens.
There was overwhelming conventional wisdom in the West, and in the Middle East Arab establishment as well, that the “Arab Street” was reliably anti-American and anti-Israel, and not the least inclined (nor able) to overthrow various totalitarian regimes that had been put in place decades ago. Particularly “safe” were the affluent Emirates, Morocco (where the king was respected), and the one-man rule of Libya,, Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. If any dictatorships were in danger, they were the kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, both friendly to the U.S.
While there is unrest in Jordan, and potential insurrection in Saudi Arabia, these are not the current flashpoints of upheaval in the Middle East today.
It is uncertain what the timetable will be for Mr. Kaddafi’s departure, but there can be little doubt that his cruel regime will end soon.
Only the police state of Syria remains to fit the conventional wisdom of the recent past.
A new conventional wisdom emerged quickly after the fall of the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes. That was that the revolts sparked by the Arab youth in the’ region would soon be replaced by extremist Islamicist leaders and groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. So far this is not happening, as the Arab masses seem to be insisting on the creation of democratic structures, and the introduction of new civil rights, particularly for women, in those states where dictatorships have been replaced. Of course, it is very early, and the transformation of the Middle East, almost certainly, will be a long and painful process. Totalitarian forces, anywhere in the world, do not ever play “fair,” nor are they ever transparent in their goals and intentions. Historically, they have, since the Hitler regime in Nazi Germany, been willing to use democratic elections to gain power before employing violent police power to crush democracy.
This could happen now, but several observers have made a salient point in discussing how the current situation came to pass, i.e., the impetus for the uprisings came from the youth, a youth aware through internet and social technology of how the rest of the world, particularly in the West and the democratic East, were living, enjoying the fruits of democratic capitalism. Even in non-democratic but newly-quasi capitalist China, affluence was breaking out. Apparently, this Arab youth was also not buying the shell-game that the tiny state of Israel was the cause of their problems and justified suffocating police states across the Arab world.
I am not saying that the Arab youth are necessarily less anti-Israel than before, nor are they less sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but removing the current pathological preoccupation with Israel may, in time, provide some room for true negotiation between Israel and the new democratic Arab states. Maybe.
I suspect that history will show that the creation of a democratic state in Iraq had more impact on the current revolt of the Arab masses than most observers are willing to concede now. This is because the rabid “George W. Bush hatred” of most of the Western media and establishment still persists, and to credit the “change of political chemistry” in Iraq with contributing to a region-wide democratic outbreak would mean that these critics might have to admit they were wrong about Mr. Bush.(Remember how long it took for Ronald Reagan to overcome his “cowboy movie star image” and be rightly credited for his giant role in the Cold War?)
Such a realization might even be more traumatic than the concession by these same critics that their conventional wisdoms about the Middle East were wrong.
History, as does Nature, has a persistent way of making all of us realize how complicated the world and its planet really are.
________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.
March 8th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Unfortunately, Unless Obama and the EU interevene soon, the democratic revolutions will likely end with Libya, rather than spreading, as we might hope – to other tyrant nations…including those outside the Middle East.
Our President is asleep at the switch, and he is allowing thousands of Libyans to be slaughtered while pushing some “the best revolutions are entirely domestic” BS – I guess that doesn’t include our own.
March 8th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Is Reagan really gonna be the last President who talked tough cuz we needed it, did little that was flashly (aside from Grenada and Libya), and waged the hottest sustained covert actions in American history???? Go through the list of places we were pushing our agenda
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Panama
Angola
Pakistan
Philippines
Singapore
East Berlin
Norway
Korea
China
God, cant Obama do anything besides chew gum? Is anyone asking that we re-instate the draft or debate resolutions on use of force in North Africa? Hell no. Even Clinton was more imaginative when bringing the Kosovo Air War to fruition.
March 8th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
I forgot all of East Europe, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, South Africa
March 8th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Our current President is taking the “let’s not piss off anyone” approach to foreign policy. It’s a shameful 21st century version of appeasement.
March 8th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
New Egypt foreign minister likely to be tougher on Israel
March 8th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
2.
So far, I’ve only heard one potential candidate talking tough ‘like Reagan.’
I guess Pawlenty tried the other day, but it was embarrassingly weak.
If anyone caught Rush this afternoon you might have a clue.
He said, “The only ones with cajones in our party right now are wearing skirts.’
Sad, but true.
March 8th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
5) I didnt mean just Reagan talked tough. He ran a sophisticated foreign policy that depended on challenging antagonists at every front without going to war. I thought it was pretty imaginative. The leaders always dismissed the rhetoric, their minions always felt the pressure on the ground, the people always knew Reagan spoke directly to them, and the media fretted the entire years from his “bombast and naivite”. Then communism collapses and its this big shock and we “Didnt have a lot to do with it”
yeah sure you betcha. god bless those that did. quietly carefully relentlessly
March 8th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Welcome back Aron. You’ve been missed.
March 8th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
“will not be willing to accept Israeli excesses in the occupied territories”
…as long as he isn’t willing to accept Jordanian or Palestinian excuses either, I’m ok with that.
====
“suggesting that the new Egypt may not be as reliable an ally of the United States as Mubarak’s Egypt was.”
It is in the interests of any non-fundamentalist Egyptian govenrment to do three things:
1) Not start war with Israel
2) Not allow jihadists to become too powerful
3) Keep the nation and the Suez open to foreign commerce.
That is really all we need from any Egyptian govenrment.
March 8th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Hope we’ll see you around these parts more frequently Aron. Hope to see you commenting more, as well.
March 8th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
The Libyans must be allowed to overthrow Gadhafi on their own, and Western aid only given insofar as it is requested.
In the end, though, since Obama is too cowardly to take one side or another decisively, wanting to be the softer, gentler, George W. Bush, there is one nation above all that will benefit from the uprising against our empire in the Middle East, and that is the chief enemy of our empire, Iran.
The nation who will lose the most, will of course be Israel, around whom our empire’s entire Mideast policy is designed.
That we will also lose is only because we have tied ourselves unwisely to one nation and made ourselves the enemy of all the rest and encouraged bad behavior by that nation. We have ignored the prudent advice of Washington as to these things, led astray by malevolent lobbies and media interests that do not hold the interests of the nation at heart. Unlike Russia which is governed for the benefit of Russia, or China for China, or Brazil for Brazil, or even Iran for Iran, we are governed not for the benefit of America and therefore we are finding our long dominance hated, decayed, and going downwards in every possible category. As per Washington, who sounds a lot more like Ron Paul than George W. Bush:
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
We are stupid slaves to our Israel alliance and it will make us the hated losers of any unrest that happens in the Middle East.
—
I am reminded of something I read in a very insightful Pat Buchanan column:
“Yet this raises anew the question: Why do they hate us?
In the 19th century, European monarchs disliked our republic, but their people loved us. Through World War II and much of the Cold War, the peoples of the Middle East saw America as the champion of liberation from imperial rule. We were first to throw the British out.
Perhaps we have lost the people of the Middle East, while winning the allegiance of their autocratic rulers, because we, too, have become an empire — and no longer see ourselves as others see us.”
—-
I hope this revolution forever discredits and trashes the bankrupt ideology of neoconservatism that the Republican Party has embraced and the Democrat Party has accepted since the Reagan years. It is fiscally bankrupt, morally bankrupt, and intellectually bankrupt. And if we do not detach ourselves it will land American power right with the Soviet Union into the “ash heap of history”. Conservatism must return to its roots – a vigorous pro-American ideology centered around tradition, defense of society (rather than subsidization of all the evils that destroy it today such as abortion, broken families, and the decline of community institutions like the church and civic structures), a balanced foreign policy that does not entangle America but befriends all, and an economic platform favoring the moral social order (which would stick up for and advance national industry which is conducive to healthy society, not the traitorous and immoral investment banks).
March 8th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
You guys are advocating essentially that Egypt’s new government should be tolerated only if it toes the line in slaving to our core “interests” (if promotion of Israel can indeed be said to be in our interest).
This is directly in opposition to support for the will of the people of Egypt, which we apparently respect, as long as it does whatever we want.
This is hypocrisy.
Imagine if the Chinese demanded that they would only tolerate our government and support our indebtedness if we gave them absurd trade concessions. We would rightfully tell them to shove it.
March 8th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
I find it most sad that we have become such enemies of the people of the world that we fear them so, that we are so fearful of them we must needs keep them in chains, that we must demonize them as dangerous revolutionaries, the very things we were once made out to be.
We are becoming the evil we once fought to defeat.
March 8th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
“The Libyans must be allowed to overthrow Gadhafi on their own”
You believe they would object to intervention that would simply take out Ghaddafi?
Why?
March 8th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
They already have according to reports.
For the same reason that no one wants a foreign army in their lands to remove a domestic threat.
March 8th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
“if promotion of Israel can indeed be said to be in our interest”
It is. at least, our moral interests.
===
I think there is an opportunity to create serious doctrine here: we promote stability, until it is clear that a large percentage of the population is seeking a responsible, democratic government. Then we support their goals. It doesn’t mean we have to try to push out the Saudi Royals and let the jihadists take over (though whether the jihadists would ever really be able to run Saudi Arabia is a different issue)…but when we no longer have reason to support Governments like Mubarak – remaining loyal to dictators isn’t high on my list.
March 8th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
“They already have according to reports.”
Really? Because what I read on CNN seems to indicate that they want weapons, supplies, a no-fly zone – even attacks on the green forces.
“Bring Bush”, as they have said.
That isn’t exactly “Death to America”
I’m not saying we invade, but kill Ghaddafi and his sons, let the national transitional council finish the job, and things fall into line rather quickly.
March 8th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
…and when you say “they already have” – are you talking about the Brits?
March 8th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Nice article
March 8th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
oh brother, any body remember the ”Rent is to damn high ” candidate he was just on hannitty says he’s running in 2012? this ariicle might refresh your memory he spoke at this years CPAC
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/02/12/2011-02-12_rent_is_too_damn_high_jimmy_mcmillan_shows_up_at_cpac_says_hell_run_for_presiden.html?r=news/politics
March 8th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
i found this too on internet maybe he is running in 2012 http://mcmillan2012.com/index.htm
March 8th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
maybe he is running in 2012 http://mcmillan2012.com/index.htm
March 8th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
If you don’t want to DIRECTLY involve US forces, that is fine: the supply the rebels. Guns. Bullets. Rockets. Bombs. AA guns.
March 8th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Matthew Kilburn is right. We can supply the Opposition with equipment with no danger to the United States. Great Britain and Prime Minister Cameron seem to be particularly hawkish about Qaddahfi (probably revenge for the Lockerbie Bomber fiasco). If the British want to impose no-fly zones with the RAF, then we should support them.
Hopefully by the time this is all over Qaddahfi will be shot, dragged through the streets of Tripoli and hung up by his ankles in the city’s central square. The Libyan people deserve that measure of revenge against this tyrant.
March 9th, 2011 at 4:14 am
If the rebels will take our supplies, I agree with you, we should happily give them just about anything they desire. But let them free their country. Our forces capping Gadhafi and his sons robs them of the nation-building experiences only them evicting their repressors gives them. This is Libya’s day, not ours.
As to Israel:
“It is. at least, our moral interests.”
Disagreed. We have no moral interest to support Israel whatsoever. Not only are they demonstratively very harmful to our national interests (and the source of our present predicament), Israel, who has a military budget greater than Iran, its most significant rival, is not being oppressed. On the contrary, Israel is encouraged by our hand in its favor in its repression and displacement of Palestinians. Because we back them without question, it feels like it can treat them any way it pleases, routinely seizing Palestinian territory with settlements. This are easily verified facts. In its attempts to gradually erase the Palestinian state from existence, Israel is performing what in any other nation would be recognized to all as “genocide”.
If Israel’s concerns were primarily self-defense, as stated, it would not be continually expanding its borders in strategic attempts to bit by bit seize the Holy Land in a strategy akin to the lebensraum policy of Nazi Germany to displace Poles and Czechs and replace them with settled Germans.
It is not only not moral to support and cover Israel, as per any moral standard it is very immoral to actively support and protect Israeli policies that are persecuting and destroying the Muslim and Christian Palestinians.
We’ve been duped into doing with Israel what we would not think of doing in any other nation.
March 9th, 2011 at 4:40 am
There are ultimately only two moral standards used to justify supporting Israel no matter what it does:
1. Israel is favored by God and therefore should therefore kill all the Arabs and take control of the Holy Land. This is the Christian Zionist position. They usually forget that a lot of innocent Arabs are Christian. Christian Zionists are the very definition of people who “call evil good, and good evil”.
2. Jews were killed in the Holocaust, therefore they should be able to kill all the Arabs they want to. This is the secular Western position. I guess when it’s a crime to deny the Holocaust but not a crime to deny God, that about shows us where our priorities are.
These are obvious to anyone who wants to see the truth. Anyone who cares about what is happening to America today should stop and think seriously about what we are doing.
March 9th, 2011 at 5:12 am
There is so, so much to be gained by reclaiming our foreign policy thinking from a reflexive “whatever Israel says goes” deference. America’s spirit is being choked as we do something unprecedented in the history of our nation, and unconditionally support an aggressive foreign power in its actions.
And there is so very little to lose. Someone please tell me what Israel’s done for us again?
March 9th, 2011 at 9:05 am
“But let them free their country. Our forces capping Gadhafi and his sons robs them of the nation-building experiences only them evicting their repressors gives them. ”
Yes, how lucky are they, who get to stand in the streets and get blown apart by tanks and helicopters…its a learning experience, right?
geez.