Toronto Escorts

What Bush Got Right

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
A new Newsweek article:

Freedom's march: The president has been right on some big questions. Now, if he can get the little stuff right, he'll change the world

By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek

March 14 issue - Events in the Middle East over the past few weeks have confirmed the theories of that great scholar of the region, Thomas (Tip) O'Neill. The late speaker of the House's most memorable aphorism was "All politics is local." It's true even of the politics of rage. As long-repressed societies in the Middle East open up, we are discovering that their core concerns are not global but local. Most ordinary Arabs, it turns out, are not consumed by grand theories about the clash between Islam and the West, or the imperialism of American culture, or even the Palestinian cause. When you let the Lebanese speak, they want to talk about Syria's occupation of their country. When Iraqis got a chance to congregate, they voted for a government, not an insurgency. When a majority of Palestinians were heard from, they endorsed not holy terror to throw Israel into the sea, but practical diplomacy to get a state.

Tomorrow, were the Egyptian Street to voice its views—I mean the real Egyptian Street, not President Mubarak's state-controlled media—we would probably discover that its deepest discontent is directed not at the president of the United States, but at the president of Egypt. Perhaps Arabs and Muslims are not some strange species after all. It is their rulers who are strange.

The other noted political scientist who has been vindicated in recent weeks is George W. Bush. Across New York, Los Angeles and Chicago—and probably Europe and Asia as well—people are nervously asking themselves a question: "Could he possibly have been right?" The short answer is yes. Whether or not Bush deserves credit for everything that is happening in the Middle East, he has been fundamentally right about some big things

Bush never accepted the view that Islamic terrorism had its roots in religion or culture or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead he veered toward the analysis that the region was breeding terror because it had developed deep dysfunctions caused by decades of repression and an almost total lack of political, economic and social modernization. The Arab world, in this analysis, was almost unique in that over the past three decades it had become increasingly unfree, even as the rest of the world was opening up. His solution, therefore, was to push for reform in these lands.

The theory did not originate with Bush's administration. Others had made this case: scholars like Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, the Arab intellectuals who wrote the United Nations' now famous "Arab Human Development Report" and even this writer. (Three weeks after 9/11 I wrote an essay titled "Why Do They Hate Us?" that made this case.) These ideas were gaining some ground in the Arab world, especially after 9/11. But Bush's adoption of them was absolutely crucial because he had the power to pressure the region's regimes. Efforts to change the dynamics of the Middle East had always collapsed in the past as its wily rulers would delay, obstruct and obfuscate. Bush has pushed them with persistence and, increasingly, he is trying to build a broader international effort. The results might surprise.

Repressive regimes are often extremely fragile. Syria is the perfect example. Bashar al-Assad's rule rests on the narrowest base of fear and coercion. His ruling clique, mostly coming from the country's small Alawite sect, is well aware that it lacks support in their society. That's why it is so easily rattled and why the events in Lebanon could snowball into something much, much bigger. The other Arab regimes are less fragile. Mubarak, while unpopular, is not despised. The Saudi royal family is more stable than many think. It uses money, marriage and connections—and yet more money—to create an elaborate patronage network that sustains it. But everywhere, there is pressure to change.

cont....

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Cont.....

The Middle East would do well with incremental but persistent reform, as is taking place in Jordan, Qatar and Dubai. But in too many places, small, gradual reforms have been a smoke screen for doing nothing. Economic reforms are the most crucial because they modernize the whole society. But they are also the most difficult because they threaten the power and wealth of the oligarchies that run these countries. So far there has been more talk than action on this front.

People have often wished that the president had traveled more over the years. But Bush's capacity to imagine a different Middle East may actually be related to his relative ignorance of the region. Had he traveled to the Middle East and seen its many dysfunctions, he might have been disheartened. Freed from looking at the day-to-day realities, Bush maintained a vision of what the region could look like.

But therein lies the danger. It is easier to imagine liberal democracy than to achieve it. Ronald Reagan imagined a Soviet Union that was politically and economically free. Twenty years later, except for the Baltic states, not one country of the former Soviet Union has achieved that. There have been more than 50 elections in Africa in the past 15 years—some as moving as those in Iraq, had we bothered to notice them—but only a few of those countries can be described as free. Haiti has had elections and American intervention, and still has foreign troops stationed there. Yet only a few of these elections have led to successful and free societies.

Every country, culture and people yearns for freedom. But building real, sustainable democracy with rights and protections is complex. In Lebanon, for example, the absence of Syria will not mean the presence of a stable democracy. It was the collapse of Lebanon's internal political order that triggered the Syrian intervention in 1976. That problem will have to be solved, even after Syrian forces go home. In Iraq, the end of the old order has produced growing tendencies toward separatism and intolerance. Building democracy takes patience, deep and specific knowledge and, most important, the ability to partner with the locals.

If Bush is to be credited for the benefits of his policies, he must also take responsibility for their costs. Over the past three years, his administration has racked up enormous costs, many of which could easily have been lowered or avoided altogether. The pointless snubbing of allies, the brusque manner in which it went to war in Iraq, the undermanned occupation and the stubborn insistence (until last summer) on pursuing policies that were fueling both an insurgency and anti-Americanism in Iraq—all have taken their toll in thousands of American and Iraqi lives and almost $300 billion.

Perhaps an even more lasting cost is the broad and deep shifts in public opinion against America around the world. Look at countries as disparate as Britain, Poland, Turkey and Japan, all allies of the United States. In every one of them, public views have changed significantly in the past few years, and being pro-American is now a political liability. Tony Blair, once the most popular British leader in decades, has fallen far in public esteem, largely because of his unflinching support for the Bush administration.

For most countries, the debate over Iraq was not really about Iraq. It was about how America would wield its enormous global power. And to many countries, it seemed that the Bush administration was doing it irresponsibly. On this front, the signs from Bush's second term are heartening. In the Middle East, however, everything will depend on success on the ground. If, five years from now, Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps an independent Palestine and a democratic Lebanon are thriving countries with modern political and economic systems, America will be honored and respected—and the talk of anti-American terror will have dissipated considerably. If, on the other hand, these countries are chaotic and troubled—more like Central Asia than Central Europe—people there will blame America. Remember, all politics is local.

OTB
 

islandboy

New member
Nov 14, 2004
227
0
0
VEry sharp analysis. I have heard him talk before to the effect that attacking the US is permitted so frustrations with ones one governement get directed to the easy and permitted target. The problem even if the analysis it correct is that there are so many who have now been taught to hate for religious/cultural (non economic or democratic) reasons that freedom for them may not undo the anti US sentiment for many for decades - even generations.
 

Hard Idle

Active member
Jan 15, 2005
4,959
23
38
North York
Grasping at straws

At most, Bush might have guessed right about the weakness of the next generation Assad. The article's interpretation of events on the ground is very optimistic. Any well organized movement can get a few thousand people on the street. I recall alot of big street protests against the Americans in Iraq - oh, wait, that's not people power, that's "dead-enders" and terrorists. Only difference I see is that today the Syrians don't seem willing to teach disenters a lesson with bombs & tanks. Or they think a relapse into civil war by Lebanon will help make them more relevant again.

Opposition movements figure that using terms like democracy & freedom might get them cash and a push from the US. But be careful: in many of the Old Countries, when people say democracy or freedom, what the mean is power for their own political, religious or ethnic block. Rule of the people means people who agree with them, the others dont count.

Iraq's elections and inspiration? Why? Elections under such conditions could have been held 2 years ago just as easily. Compromised elections which create shaky coalition governments amid dissorder have a potential to creat very bad governments. For example, the Nazis.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Drunken Master said:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/08/hezbollah-lebanon050308.html

So the people of Lebanon are united in their opposition to Syria, eh? Groups like Hezbollah have no influence or support, hmm?

I've asked it before, I'll ask it again - what is it with this inane desire to declare victory before victory is even close to being achieved?
I don't know that anyone is really declaring victory but most of us see a positive trend. You have to give credit where credit is due and the left is eating a serious amount of crow at the moment.

OTB
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
onthebottom said:
I don't know that anyone is really declaring victory but most of us see a positive trend. You have to give credit where credit is due and the left is eating a serious amount of crow at the moment.

OTB
oh good
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Come on guys, that was a bit weak.

OTB
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
harleycharley said:
"People have often wished that the president had traveled more over the years. But Bush's capacity to imagine a different Middle East may actually be related to his relative ignorance of the region. Had he traveled to the Middle East and seen its many dysfunctions, he might have been disheartened. Freed from looking at the day-to-day realities, Bush maintained a vision of what the region could look like."

thats hilarious!! i can only imagine that this "journalist" is one of those on the bush pay-roll.....
Yep - apparently for Bush, Ignorance really is Strength....
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
From The Nation:

Is Bush Ready for Real Democracy?
03/09/2005 @ 11:55am

George Bush seems to want to be the president not of the United States but of the world.

Indeed, since his reelection in November, Bush has made foreign policy – a subject about which he displayed scant interest prior to September 11, 2001 – his primary focus. But, as with anyone who is new to complex subject matter, he has not always been graceful in his embrace of it.

This can lead to embarrassing contradictions, as we saw this week.

The president, appearing at the National Defense University, declared that, "Today I have a message for the people of Lebanon: All the world is witnessing your great movement of conscience. Lebanon's future belongs in your hands."

Unfortunately for the president, on the "today" when he was speaking, one of the largest crowds ever to gather in the history of Lebanon was protesting against the approach that Bush has counseled for that country. This does not necessarily mean that Bush is wrong. But it does mean that he looked like something of a fool when he suggested that "all the world is witnessing your great movement of conscience" at the same time that the streets of Beirut were filled with 500,000 people chanting anti-US slogans and expressing sympathy with Syria.

Make no mistake, I'm on the side of the Lebanese people who want Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon, just as I am on the side of the Palestinian and Israeli people who want Israel to end its occupation of Palestine and of the Iraqi people who want the United States to end its occupation of their country.

But these are not issues that should be decided by American policy makers. They should be decided by the citizens of the countries themselves, and the way to do that is with a popular referendum.

There is a very good model for such voting: the 1999 referendum in which the voters of East Timor rejected occupation of their territory by Indonesia. That referendum, which was organized by the United Nations Mission in East Timor (Unamet), saw 78.5% of East Timorese vote for independence. Indonesia grudgingly accepted the new reality – under the watchful eyes of United Nations peacekeeping forces – and with 450 years of foreign occupation finally ended, East Timor emerged as a free and democratic nation.

Why not follow the same course in those Middle Eastern countries where the climate seems most ripe for democratic experimentation?

Let the people of Lebanon vote--under the watchful eye of election monitors from the UN, the Carter Center and other international agencies--on whether they want the Syrians to leave on the more-or-less immediate timetable that Bush is promoting. My bet is that the majority of Lebanese voters would tell the occupiers to exit. But as someone who has spent a good deal of time in the region, I suspect that the vote would be closer than many observers from afar imagine. That's because after the horrific instability and violence of the 1980s, there is a portion of the Lebanese population that sees the Syrian military presence as a stabilizing force in a country that is deeply divided along lines of religion, ethnicity and class. The fact is that pro-Syrian parties have won a lot of votes in Lebanese elections, and it is not unreasonable to think that they will continue to do so in the future.

If President Bush really believes, as he told the Lebanese people on Tuesday, that "Lebanon's future belongs in your hands," then he should support a popular referendum that could settle the question of what future the Lebanese people want.

The president should not stop there. He should also support similar referendums regarding the occupations of Palestine and Iraq -- where polls suggest there is widespread opposition to the presence of foreign military forces.

If the president wants to lend credibility to the stirring statement he made in his speech at the National Defense University--"(Authoritarian) rule is not the wave of the future. It is the last gasp of a discredited past"--then he should begin by backing popular referendums and then making it the policy of the United States to abide by the will of the people of Lebanon, Palestine AND Iraq.


***

While I can't fully agree about the referendum in Iraq - the US occupation is a necessary evil at the moment, and will be for the forseeable future, and yet the various disasters of that occupation will almost ensure any referendum would vote to toss the Americans out - the point about Palestine is completely valid.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
DM,

I wasn't aware that the US had a large number of forces in Palestine? I'm not tracking your point on this.

As for Iraq, I think we'll stay there as long as we're needed and as long as the government elected by the Iraqi people want us there.

OTB
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
onthebottom said:
DM,

I wasn't aware that the US had a large number of forces in Palestine? I'm not tracking your point on this.

As for Iraq, I think we'll stay there as long as we're needed and as long as the government elected by the Iraqi people want us there.

OTB
Oh, please. Don't start playing the "willful ignorance" card. (At least, I assume it's willful ;) ) The article says the US should support a referendum concerning the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land - a perfectly valid idea. We all know the majority of Israelis support a pullout from the West Bank.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Drunken Master said:
Oh, please. Don't start playing the "willful ignorance" card. (At least, I assume it's willful ;) ) The article says the US should support a referendum concerning the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land - a perfectly valid idea. We all know the majority of Israelis support a pullout from the West Bank.
Insults aside, what does that have to do with the US? Israel could do that anytime they wanted, they don't need US permission.

OTB
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
onthebottom said:
Insults aside, what does that have to do with the US? Israel could do that anytime they wanted, they don't need US permission.

OTB
I think the point is, this is something Israel should have done years ago, and some US pressure to do so would have been helpful.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
Drunken Master said:
I think the point is, this is something Israel should have done years ago, and some US pressure to do so would have been helpful.
The USA has for years trying to broker a deal. Your boy Clinton has tried and had failed. To say that the USA should have done more is just rhetoric.

Why didn't Canada step in?
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Drunken Master said:
I think the point is, this is something Israel should have done years ago, and some US pressure to do so would have been helpful.
It has been US policy for a while that there should be no new settlements in the West Bank - Sharon has to some extent ignored this for political gain. It has also been policy that the two parties would have to negotiate the boarder and settlement issue between themselves. We can't cut this deal for them, if we could it would already be done, all we can do is push them both to the table - which we've been trying to do for years.

OTB
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
langeweile said:
The USA has for years trying to broker a deal. Your boy Clinton has tried and had failed. To say that the USA should have done more is just rhetoric.

Why didn't Canada step in?
Canada hasn't been supplying Israeli with arms and blocking every UN resolution the least bit critical of Israel. The US is involved up to its waist in the Occupation.

Oh, and I don't have a boy. Except maybe Goober.
 

antaeus

Active member
Sep 3, 2004
1,693
7
38
Overall this is a pretty good article, but...

This is the most important:
As long-repressed societies in the Middle East open up, we are discovering that their core concerns are not global but local. Most ordinary Arabs, it turns out, are not consumed by grand theories about the clash between Islam and the West, or the imperialism of American culture, or even the Palestinian cause. When you let the Lebanese speak, they want to talk about Syria's occupation of their country. When Iraqis got a chance to congregate, they voted for a government, not an insurgency. When a majority of Palestinians were heard from, they endorsed not holy terror to throw Israel into the sea, but practical diplomacy to get a state.
Anyone who's spent time in ME will know this but this aspect of story represents the reasoned middle road which does not appeal to western media craving camoflaged gun wielders and 'death to America' signs. Maybe we are seeing effect of time; the middle road now has appeal to help explain a new story angle.


But on this the author is dead wrong, contradictory and to me the root of America's or any 3rd parties' eminent failure:
If, five years from now, Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps an independent Palestine and a democratic Lebanon are thriving countries with modern political and economic systems, America will be honored and respected—and the talk of anti-American terror will have dissipated considerably. If, on the other hand, these countries are chaotic and troubled—more like Central Asia than Central Europe—people there will blame America. Remember, all politics is local.
... because modern political and economic systems have become tremendous machines of no regard for the local. The ME does not need these "modern political systems", they need their own - local - political systems. Unfortunately, on the surface we are being told that America is "winning the war for democracy", to bring what: big American style democracy. Hardly local. This, this is why America will not succeed in the ME with what is being said they are doing. It is at cross-purposes.

And last but not least, my mild Bush bash, but not really as I apply this to any sitting ruler:

Only demagogues and CEO's of failing companies claim success during events' transpiration. History determines success, not the sitting leader nor his sycophants. And the history of the Middle East shows that everybody is always wrong and everybody loses, including the land itself. For Bush and/or sycophants to claim otherwise is, in holy land terms, false prophecy. Ha!

Otherwise, a good article.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
antaeus said:
This is the most important:
Anyone who's spent time in ME will know this but this aspect of story represents the reasoned middle road which does not appeal to western media craving camoflaged gun wielders and 'death to America' signs. Maybe we are seeing effect of time; the middle road now has appeal to help explain a new story angle.


But on this the author is dead wrong, contradictory and to me the root of America's or any 3rd parties' eminent failure:
... because modern political and economic systems have become tremendous machines of no regard for the local. The ME does not need these "modern political systems", they need their own - local - political systems. Unfortunately, on the surface we are being told that America is "winning the war for democracy", to bring what: big American style democracy. Hardly local. This, this is why America will not succeed in the ME with what is being said they are doing. It is at cross-purposes.

.........
I'm with Top O'Neil that all politics is local. It is here and it is there, it is everywhere (channeling Dr. Seuss)

OTB
 
Toronto Escorts