Monday, March 07, 2005

Middle East democracy? NOT IN (the liberals) NAME!

cross posted from mah bloggie... get along li'l bloggies get along get along... get along li'l bloggies get along...

The post of the day (hat tip to pike speak)is by the wonderful Mark Steyn, and it is here. A pair of excerpts:
1.
By the way, when's the next Not In Our Name rally? How about this Saturday? Millions of NIONists can flood into the centers of San Francisco, New York, Brussels and Paris to proclaim to folks in Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt and Syria and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority that all the changes under way in the region are most certainly Not In Their Name.
2.
With hindsight, the fellow travelers were let off far too easily when the Iron Curtain fell like a discarded burqa. Little more than a decade later, they barely hesitated a moment before jumping in on the wrong side of history yet again. Not in your name? Don't worry, it's not.

I can't help but wonder whether or not Mark Steyn has always been as fantastic as he has been since 9/11. I mean it is easy, or easier, to write well when you are right. Bush's response to 9/11 is the result of probably 3 or 4 individual beliefs.

1. That the Middle East produces terrorists not because of religion, nor ethnicity, nor justifiable grievances, but because it is run by assholes.
2. That appeasing terrorists leads to more, not less terrorism.
3. That we COULD liberate Iraq. This breaks down into two parts:
a) that the American public would support N-1 casualties before losing the will to wage war
b) that the American military would liberate Iraq before N-1 happened
4. Whichever reason I'm missing.

This is a wonderful time to be a conservative. I mean there's a warm glow in every conservative breast right now, probably akin to what liberals felt when Nixon was impeached. We were/are right and the world is a better place because we're in charge!!! (Of course I'm not in charge of anything... neither are 99.99999% of the conservatives on-line, but still) Whoo-hoo!

The thing is, we were only right about 3 or 4 ideas, and they didn't necessarily stem from conservative philosophy. Hubris is a bad thing- humility is not. Let's hope the conservatives in charge remember that.

2 comments:

Cernig said...

Hi Harky,

I've been pondering an escape from this one all day - it's a good one. You are right that there are "3 or 4 ideas, and they didn't necessarily stem from conservative philosophy" and thanks for easing the mental turmoil there. It was kind of you :-)

OK...deep breath...lets see.

1)That the Middle East produces terrorists not because of religion, nor ethnicity, nor justifiable grievances, but because it is run by assholes.Dificult to argue with, especially in the case of Saudi Arabia where all the really nasty ones come from. However, a brief look at history says at least some of the greivances are justifiable. A lot of the responsibility there lands on the heads of the Brits for setting up the region so that everyone would fight with each other, and the US for making a bad situation worse by helping establish repressive regimes in exchange for oil. (Saudi, The Shah, Saddam)

2)That appeasing terrorists leads to more, not less terrorism.Agreed - right up until they renounce terrorism and become politicians. Almost every major figure ever in Israeli politics used to blow up Brits on patrol (as bad as in Baghdad nowadays)but now we happily deal with them.

3)That we COULD liberate Iraq. I would contend that it isn't liberated yet, neither is Afghanistan. I hope the effort succeeds but it is many years from being over and N-1 may still be reached first.

4)Whichever reason I'm missing Which is that upheaval is always a catalyst for change, whether begun for good principles or bad. The changes being seen in neighbouring states are because of pressure exerted by armed upheaval, and are being exploited by politicians who aren't necessarily democraticly minded themselves but are making hay while the sun of world and local attention shines upon them.

What do you think?

Warmest regards, Cernig

Harkonnendog said...

C,
1. justifiable grievance or not, the grievance didn't create the terror. that's the idea, anyway. otherwise there would be many more terrorists.

2. that's an excellent point, and I agree. BUT!!! and this is huge- turning Arafat into a politician CREATED more terrorists in Palestine. it rewards terrorism, thus it creates more terrorists. so u convert one old one and create three young ones

3. they are functioning democracies... not edens or anything, but they are certainly not dictatorships or oligarchies. so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

4. I did miss that one, and I think you're right. Maybe that's part of the reason we went in there- because the neo-cons didn't think things could get worse, so any change would be an improvement?

Cheers!
Hark