'What have Americans ever done for us?'

ONE OF MY favourite cinematic moments is the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian when Reg, aka John Cleese, the leader of the People’s Front of Judea, is trying to whip up anti-Roman sentiment among his team of slightly hesitant commandos. “What have the Romans ever done for us?” he asks.

“Well, there’s the aqueduct,” somebody says, thoughtfully. “The sanitation,” says another. “Public order,” offers a third. Reg reluctantly acknowledges that there may have been a couple of benefits. But then steadily, and with increasing enthusiasm, his men reel off a litany of the good things the Romans have wrought with their occupation of the Holy Land.

By the time they’re finished they’re not so sure about the whole insurgency idea after all and an exasperated Reg tries to rally them: “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”

I can’t help but think of that scene as I watch the contortions of the anti-American hordes in Britain, Europe and even in the US itself in response to the remarkable events that are unfolding in the real Middle East today.

Little more than three years after US forces, backed by their faithful British allies, set foot in Afghanistan, the entire historical dynamic of this blighted region has already shifted.

Ignoring, fortunately, the assault from clever world opinion on America’s motives, its credibility and its ambitions, the Bush Administration set out not only to eliminate immediate threats but also to remake the Middle East. In the last month, the pace of progress has accelerated, and from Beirut to Kabul.

Confronted with this awkward turn of events, Reg’s angry successors are asking their cohorts: “What have the Americans ever done for us?” “Well, they did get rid of the Taleban in Afghanistan. ’Orrible bunch, they were.”

“Then there was Iraq. Knocked off one of the nastiest dictators who ever lived and gave the whole nation a chance to pick its own rulers.”

“And then there’s Syria. Thousands of people on the streets of Lebanon. Syrians look like they’re pulling out.”

“I just heard Egypt’s going to hold free presidential elections for the first time. And Saudi Arabia just held elections too.”

“The Palestinians and the Israelis are talking again and they say there’s a real chance of peace this time.”

“All right, all right. But apart from liberating 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining dictatorships throughout the Arab world, spreading freedom and self-determination in the broader Middle East and moving the Palestinians and the Israelis towards a real chance of ending their centuries-long war, what have the Americans ever done for us?” It’s too early, in fairness, to claim complete victory in the American-led struggle to bring peace through democratic transformation of the region. Despite the temptation to crow, we must remember that this is not Berlin 1989. There will surely be challenging times ahead in Iraq, Iran, in the West Bank and elsewhere. The enemies of democratic revolution — all the terrorists and Baathists, the sheikhs, the mullahs and the monarchs — are not going to give up without a fight.

But something very important is happening now, something that will be very hard to stop. And, although not all of it can be directly attributed to the US strategy in the region, can anyone seriously argue that it would have happened without it? Neither is it true, as some have tried to argue, that all of this is merely some unintended consequence of an immoral and misconceived war in Iraq.

It was always the express goal of the Bush Administration to change the regime in Baghdad, precisely because of the opportunities for democracy it would open up in the rest of the Arab world. George Bush understands the simple but historically demonstrable thesis that freedom is not only the most basic of human rights, but also the best way to ensure that nations do not go to war with each other.

In a speech one month before the start of the Iraq war in 2003, Mr Bush laid out the strategy: “The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.”

I doubt that anybody, even the most prescient in the Bush Administration or at 10 Downing Street, thought the progress we are now seeing would come as quickly as it has.

But what was clear to the bold foreign policy strategists in Washington was that the status quo that existed before September 11 could no longer be tolerated. Much of the Muslim world represented decay and stagnation, and bred anger and resentment. That was the root cause of the terrorism that had attacked America with increasing ferocity between 1969 and 2001.

America’s critics craved stability in the Middle East. Don’t rock the boat, they said. But to the US this stability was that of the mass grave; the calm was the eerie quiet that precedes the detonation of the suicide bomb. The boat was holed and listing viciously.

As a foreign policy thinker close to the Administration put it to me, in the weeks before the Iraq war two years ago: “Shake it and see. That’s what we are going to do.” The US couldn’t be certain of the outcome, but it could be sure that whatever happened would be better than the status quo.

And so America, the revolutionary power, plunged in and shook the region to its foundations. And it is already liking what it sees.

I don't think it's any coincidence, either, that after the November election, seeing that America has the resolve (even if only barely) to see the fight through, much of this starts happening.

I seriously doubt that if Kerry had won, that we'd be seeing any of this happen.

I was assigned to the US Mission Berlin (1983-87) and was present for Reagan's speech at the Wall. No one (Statre, CIA, DIA, etc.) at the US Mission even in 1987 ever predicted what happened just two years later. It was unthinkable.

The State Department wanted Reagan to delete the Tear Down this Wall statement because it was too confrontational and might damage US-Soviet relations even more. So much for listening to the experts

"On the point made about the dynamics occuring in the Middle East, I have already heard several Democrat pointy-heads on the sunday shows imply that our actions in the region have nothing whatsoever to do with what is happening there now. In fact, they imply that our actions in the last 3 years actually postponed this 'natural phenomena'. "

Lefties will never get it, because whether they admit it or not, they're all Marxists, and one of the fundamental tenets of Marxism is that history IS inevitable, basically that whatever happens had to happen, so no individual or group of individuals really affects any outcome. And, a true Marxist will never allow any of his study of history to contradict this belief. It's not open to contradictions, because it is a RELIGIOUS belief.

So much for listening to the experts

Yes. However, Reagan was his own "expert". I do believe, and history proves, that Reagan knew the dynamics of the Soviet Union better than anyone in State, Defense and CIA/NSA. I understand that Nathan Scheranski (sp?) would agree.

One thing to keep in mind about Europe; its easily as polarized (in more than 2 ways too) as the USA. Currently, politically, for the most part, the European countries are now as if Bill Clinton were still in power here.

Imagine thinking of America as nothing but Clintoon, Hollywood, Ted Kennedy, Monica Lewinsky, the Million Man March, Planned Parenthood, and Ward Churchill--of coures its absurd. So too when we think Europe is nothing but Chirac, protesting Italians, Labour party idiots in the UK, German Green party weenies or neo-Nazis, or Islamic immigrant honor killers.... MOST Europeans are NOT these things and are as appalled by them as any FReeper.

I have European friends that are as conservative and sensible as the most Conservative Republicans I know. Unfortunately they don't control things (for the most part) over there now. Show some conservative tendencies and BAM, the European press will brand you as a Fascist (since there are a few still around) -- its just the way it is there. Slowly as the truth of Islamism in immigration sinks in, as well as the LONG TERM intelligence of American democratic strategies, I think (and hope) sensible solutions will be found--and not the usual historic European cateclysms of violence.

I'm just bringing this up so that we don't slander the good and friendly Europeans with the bad (and stupid) anti-American ones.

However, Reagan was his own "expert". I do believe, and history proves, that Reagan knew the dynamics of the Soviet Union better than anyone in State, Defense and CIA/NSA. I understand that Nathan Scheranski (sp?) would agree.

I don't think Reagan knew the dynamics of the Soviet Union better than the so-called experts. He certainly did not have the same grasp of the details. What Reagan did have was the vison and a powerful idea that reasonated throughout Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. I was stationed in Poland during the Solidarnosc days and martial law. Reagan's evil empire appellation for the Soviet Union struck a very responsive chord among the Poles, who considered the Pope and Reagan their heroes.

Sometimes the experts get so emeshed in the details that they don't see the forest for the trees. One man with a vision can change history. I was in Berlin when Natan Sharansky was released. When he was released on Glienicker Bridge, Sharansky rode in Ambassador Burt's car to Templehof. He received a telephone call from Reagan while in the car. People lined the route cheering and waving to him. Sharansky asked Burt if he could wave back. Burt responded that he could anything he wanted. He was a free man now. I got to shake his hand at Templehof. It was hard to believe that this little man could cause the Soviets to tremble just because of his ideas.

I don't think Reagan knew the dynamics of the Soviet Union better than the so-called experts. He certainly did not have the same grasp of the details.

Respectfully, I beg to differ. As a Californian who was aware of Reagan from his first "Goldwater" speech and having the privilege of listening to his weekly radio broadcasts in his "out years" of the 70's, Reagan was no mental lightweight. He knew what the experts knew and thought, he just didn't agree with their conclusion and rightly so. From putting Pershing II missiles in Europe, to increasing the gold production of Canada (Brian Mulrooney) and of South Africa, and oil production of South American countries, Reagan began his systematic, economic, destruction of the Soviet Union. It was purposeful, it was deliberate, as was his rhetoric and it was effective. Historians will look back upon Reagan's policies as being as every bit as masterful as Alexander's sword being the solution to the Gordian Knot. I think Sharansky would agree.

Reagan was no mental lightweight

Nobody every said he was. My point was that the experts could run rings around him in terms of the details. Many were fluent Russian speakers, knew the intricate workings the Poliburo, names of the dissidents, history, etc. What Reagan brought to the table was an overall vision and the determination to carry it through. He believed in the power of his ideas.

No great leader needs to get down into the weeds and learn all the details. That was Carter's problem. He spent time scheduling the WH tennis court.

I have great admiration for Reagan. I served on four Presidential advance teams supporting his visits to Rome (twice), Bitburg, and Helsinki. I saw his management style up close. He was not afraid to delegate authority and had great confidence in his staff. He had some very good people working for him.

Incredible article, as are many this last two historic weeks.

FREEDOM!

Interesting analysis, esp. in regard to Pakistan. But...with other countries nearby achieving unheard of democratic freedoms, even baby steps, how long before Musharraf is forced to follow suit? You're dead on about Iran, too. Something will spark a revolution, some event, something to start Iranians thinking, 'Hey, why not us, too? What are we...Swiss cheese?' These certainly are amazing times.

It's quite amusing to see the dems on tv, twisting themselves into knots, trying to climb on GW's democracy/freedom bandwagon for the Middle East, at the same time not granting him one iota of praise. A little slimy double talk. No integrity, no ideas, no morals, no nothing.

As to the removal of American wardead from France, that land is part of America, not France. I don't quite see how France would be able to deed the land back to themselves, but if they do, we'd either have to shoot invading French graverobbers, or decide our heroes would rest more comfortably back home.

In the case of Iran there are people who think, 'why not us' but when they do try to stand up against the mullahs they are quickly crushed. This was mainly because all the fence-sitting Iranians never thought it would work. No one was willing to stick their neck out for something they thought was futile. But that was back during the status quo era. The Iraqi elections showed the Iranians that yes, there is hope. There is a chance for change and the mullahs are not infallible. The Iranian regime is walking on eggshells and they know it. Who knows, maybe that 'trigger event' is when the mullahs reveal they have a nuclear weapons program.

Only time will tell but I worry if we can afford to wait.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.