Democracy is like a box of choc-o-lates;

You never know what you might get!

I can't see George W. Bush with his limited understanding of reality bringing any kind of "light" to Arab society, especially through the use of military power. Let's face it Bush dropping our troops in the middle of this complex situation is either the dumbest or close to the dumbest thing ever done by the USA. We need to follow Rep. Murtha's plan and redeploy our troops.

These cultures aren't going to cling to Islamic fundamentalism as democracy flourishes.

This is a great post, Larry.

The real problem with the 'idealists,' both on the neoconservative right and the Wilsonian left, is that they project their own goals and aspirations onto the people they want to help.  They ask what they would want if they were Iraqis or Egyptians, and then assume that is what Iraqis or Egyptians would want.

This tends to lead Americans to fetishize 'democrats,' who don't have much genuine popular support, like Ayman Nour of Egypt and his Tomorrow Party, or many Americans' willingness to believe in Ahmed Chalabi prior to the beginning of the Iraq war, because he said all the things that he knew we wanted to hear.

U.S. foreign policy needs to deal with the world which exists, not the world as we wish it could be.

I do not know any more than the "average American" about how spirtually religious the Shia in Iraq or Iran really are, or the Sunnis for that matter. But it would seem from the outside that there is a great deal of identity politics in the region that supercedes the cultivation of soul. Consider living in a country where all you had of value was your religous identity. How fundamentalist might you become? The answer can be found right here in our very own ever expanding Bible belt. My point is that identity politics might be something we know a little bit about and might find some ways to positively influence. The fact that part of the motivation of Muhammad Atta was his desire to get back to his concrete Islamic identity and customs and away from European modernity, shows that it's not all about religion but about how to accept and live with choice and freedom to be an individual.

Larry

My cousin who is a professor of Middle Eastern politics and fluent in Arabic and who has been spoken to many Islamicists is skeptical about your point about the Arab public.  She agrees that under current conditions Islamicists would win any semi-free election.  However, since secular opposition has almost uniformly been suppressed in the Arab world she argues that is hard to know what the Arab public really wants.  

Like the Communists who allowed the Polish Catholic Church some freedom while destroying the rest of civil society they found the Church their biggest enemy.  Arab leaders have suppressed their secular oppponents but have tried to use, and have been afraid, to eliminate opposition from the Mosques.

This does not mean things are simple or easy and certainly not that Bush has gotten anything right.  Only that we should not leap to conclusions about the Arab public.  It would seem that the West might want to reach out to and support every aspect of civic and secular society within the Arab world.

Here's an interesting view from somebody on the ground. Harith Sulayman al-Dari is secretary general of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq. He writes in the Guardian that the occupation itself delegitimizes the election.

The link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1667430,00.html

The conclusion of his article:

For the political process to succeed it must proceed in a healthy environment which will take shape only when occupation comes to an end. The solution to the Iraqi problem, in the view of the Association of Muslim Scholars, is simple and logical: it is one that fully complies with international legality and would serve to reinforce it; that would put an end to the daily haemorrhage of Iraqi blood; that would lay the foundations for a state of law that protects the rights of all its citizens and seeks to secure basic human dignity; that provides an alternative to occupation, as explained in the memorandum we submitted to the United Nations and the Arab League.

This solution must be based, first, on an announcement by the US and its allies of a timetable for withdrawing their troops. Second, it would entail replacing the occupation forces with a UN force whose main task would be to fill the security void. This would be followed, thirdly, by the formation of an interim Iraqi government for six months under the supervision of the UN in order to conduct genuine parliamentary elections in which all parts of the Iraqi population would take part. Finally, the duly elected Iraqi government would take charge of the task of rebuilding the country's civil and military institutions.

Nothing will work in Iraq unless the root of the problem is addressed: the occupation must end.

The pessimism of the Democratic Party never ceases to amaze me.  Indeed, on a day where Iraqi polling stations were kept open an extra hour because of the HIGH SUNNI TURNOUT, those on the left continue to live in their paradigm of failure.  If Democrats could transport themselves back in time to the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1774, they would likely declare Democracy to be an impossibility and leave before the Second Congress.  For the sake of unity, at least give the elections and the new Iraqi government a chance.  Everybody knows that the violent hatred of George W. Bush blinds all notions of reason within most members of the Democratic Party, but please, stop intentionally losing the war at home.  This is akin to pissing in the well from which you draw water.

I'm not at all convinced that it would be a bad thing to have predominatly Islamic parties come to power in the Middle East.  If they do so, it means 1) they have something to lose if they become too beligerant and 2) they will need to rule and be accountable to their own people.

Iran, for instance, has been a major pain since the Islamic revolution, but one with which we could interact with the normal foreign policy toolset.  And despite the severe restrictions on basic freedoms by the ruling mullahs, I think one could argue that of the countries in the gulf region, the one with the strongest civil society (not a high bar to clear, but important nonetheless).  It's worth noting additionally, that none of the 9-11 terrorists were Iranian.  Given that Iran is routinely referred to as the "leading exporter of terror," I think that's significant.

In contrast, groups like Hamas, the Islamic Brotherhood and Hezbollah, get to say just about anything they'd like, and the more extreme the better since their influence is measured in media attention, simply because they don't ever have to worry about delivering.  I tihnk if that changed, it would necessarily make these groups easier to deal with. 

Gettysburg, 

OK, I'll admit that it will be at least a little uncomfortable for the White House' dreams to be realized. I still ask why we had to be stampeded with exaggerated (being charitable) intelligence. For a foreign adventure based on fake threats to succeed rewards a dishonest, manipulative domestic policy. It is beyond argument that the White House either imagined they were seeing the true pattern or deliberately portrayed evidence as solid that was anything but. It's one thing to be a solitary voice of truth and be vindicated. It's another to be a dogged purveyor of fear only to discover there was no significant threat, and that any possible threat was hugely reduced compared to previous times.

Note that the Eastern Bloc democratized without invasion, ditto for South Africa. The events in Palestine and Lebanon show no causal link, unless we arranged the assassination of Hariri and the death of Arafat. Libya was negotiating with us well before the 2000 election. To be fair, Qadaffi probably decided the new President was a loose cannon and it was time to go all the way. I worry that any apparent justification for strongarm tactics in the Mideast will preclude necessary rapprochement between the West and the major power there, Iran.

The usual hawk answer about communism is Star Wars bankrupted Russia. Doesn't really explain Solidarity. Another faction, those involved with Afghanistan's jihadis, claim credit. Vietnam didn't bring down our government, so the implication is Soviet communism was by then very fragile, and would have fallen eventually.

Given also that Iran overthrew a monarchy without our help, there is reason to believe Saddam would not have lasted. Suggestions that his sons would have maintained rule are laughable. They'd have been dead in days after Saddam passed away.

The point is it's easy, not hard, to enforce an election procedure. What's hard is for it to have a lasting legitimacy. That is up to the Iraqis and we can't claim any credit if they succeed. If the White House does claim credit they should also accept responsibility for violating sovereignty under false pretenses, or for believing their theories too much. They should gracefully accept that they got lucky.

Read the entire piece in the Guardian by an Iraqi (linked above, post #16). 

Continued authoritarianism?  No, certainly not. 

I think what we're seeing in Iran is going to get replayed over and over again. A tyrant falls. The organized opposition is religious.  The place where rebels have gone has been to their religous leader's.  When the next government comes in, elected or not, the religious groups predominate.  Democracy is preferable because, as in Iran and Afghanistan, most people chafe under religious rule. 

But if the US hadn't installed the Shah, the current Iranian state would not be so religious.  If the US had not supported authoritarian states in Egypt, there would have been no need to form the Brotherhood.

By adopting short term geopolitical strategies, the US and the UK have created a path that, IMO, means a religious interregnum before a secular democratic state can arise.  Once that state arises, then the religious parties will be pulled to the center.

So I think Larry's right in the near term--but in a longer timeframe, I agree with DanielGree, and with his parallels to Poland.

twtunes:

 I've mentioned in several other posts on this site that the primary reason for the Iraq War likely has very little to do with terrorism and very much to do with China.  Indeed, when considering China occupies the minds of those in the Pentagon every bit as much as Iraq does, it is easy to consider where the "real" threat lies.  During the 8 years of the Clinton era, the GOP puppet masters (Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, et al) were busy putting together their own grand strategy for the day when a Republican would once again occupy the White House.  Being first and foremost business men, these conservatives most likely had oil atop their agenda.  This along with an already contentious relationship with Saddam Hussein makes it likely that regime change was on their minds well before the September 11th attacks.  What they lacked, however, was a justification for such a drastic action.  Enter 9/11.  The war in Afghanistan was most likely meant to condition the American public for the unavoidable future struggle which Cheney and Rove knew was on the horizon.

 The regime change in Iraq was meant to secure lucritive oil contracts for U.S. oil companies as well as those favorable to U.S. markets.  Why now?  With oil within a century of exhaustion, China's blitzkrieg (for lack of a better term) into the international market has created quite the conundrum for the United States who has enjoyed relative global dominance since the fall of the Soviet Union.  China not only already has an enormous trade surplus with the United States, its burgeoning industry and economy have a thurst for oil which can hardly be satiated.  So hungry is China that at current levels they are on pace to out-consume the United States within 10 years.  It also does not help that China's military has a standing army 10 times that of the United States (and growing).  Being the Cold War stalwarts that they were, Cheney, Rove, et al are constantly on the lookout for potential threats.

 The handling of the war was essentially left to the Pentagon.  This would explain the incredibly poor management of the conflict: Rumsfeld alone was expected to win the combat portion of the war.  But without the complete support of the entire administration and/or congress, this was an order which was slightly too tall.  But to Cheney and Rove, winning and losing is secondary.  As long as the new Iraqi government has enough pro-American legislators to secure oil contracts, the GOP will have succeeded in accomplishing their goals.  To the public, of course, the administration touts its fighting "the war on terror" and "spreading democracy to an oppressed people."  This is only partially true of course.  The China Problem, however, will come to dominate U.S. foreign policy for some time to come.

It is here, behind the Times Select's wall of doom and pit of lava.

It was blogged by Atrios and others.

irishkg

 It would be a lovely thought if oil companies really were completely private and no government (U.S. included) had any interest in their endeavors.  Unfortunately this is far from the truth.  Oil, as we all know, is the foundation by which all modern industry relies.  The Federal Government certainly has clandestine operations with these companies.  Also, do not forget that the Bush family is in the oil business and the president has countless contacts and associates who sympathize with his goals.

 As for China's economic impact on the U.S., that is far more touchy a subject.  The Bush Administration has been lobbying China since 2000 to allow its currency to "float" against the dollar and the Euro.  China has begrudgingly allowed this to happen in a limited fashion, but it will likely never put itself at a disadvantage.

 The real question lies with the priorities of the administration.  I have no idea how much Bush actually fears terrorism.  My guess is he doesn't fear it nearly as much as most people think.  In fact, it would not surprise me if the entire "Global War on Terror" is nothing but a PR campaign.  Indeed, the Pentagon, as has been seen lately, is worried about China and is likely finalizing its Asian policy as we speak.