The New Middle East...Again.

National Review Online ^ | July 2, 2002 | Michael Ledeen

[xsysmgr]

I n the final days of the Gulf War several farsighted people began to see that the stunning humiliation of Saddam Hussein had made possible a real transformation of the entire Middle East. The PLO had predictably taken the wrong side, and had been cut off from its longstanding subsidies from the Arab oil countries (most notably Saudi Arabia). Iraq was in shambles, its oppressed peoples openly speaking of bringing down Saddam's evil regime. American military might was so awesome that nobody could even imagine defeating it, and hence the American ideology of freedom was running rampant through the region.

I have no doubt that resolute and clear-eyed American leaders could have led a democratic revolution in the Middle East at that time, but our leaders, from daddy Bush to Baker and Scowcroft (who even today pooh-poohs the Iraqi threat), were not interested. In his worst hour, Bush mused on how wonderful it would be if the Iraqis rid us all of Saddam, only to abandon them when they took him seriously. With the slaughter of the Iraqi Shiites and the Kurds, Saddam reestablished his tyranny, the image of America changed overnight, and the revolutionary moment was gone. For the remainder of the Bush administration and throughout the eight years of Clinton, we did nothing to disabuse the peoples of the Middle East of the very dangerous notion that the United States had no stomach for a fight to the finish, and we would ultimately abandon them to their local thugs and tyrants. Indeed, Clinton abandoned the Kurds and Shiites one more time, just in case anyone thought we were serious.

The wheel having rolled through an entire cycle, here we are again, with Afghanistan this decade's moral equivalent of the Gulf War, Saddam still in place, in some ways more menacing than before, and everyone in the region wondering if we have somehow gotten serious after all. Those who believe that the pen is mightier than the sword may convince themselves that the president's brave speech on the Israel/Palestinian thing has transformed the world all by itself, but they are few in number and mostly confined to university offices, op-ed pages, and other places for the reality-challenged. The rest of mankind is still waiting for the other shoe to drop after Afghanistan and the "axis of evil." The peoples of the Middle East are quite rightly skeptical about our words — they've heard brave American words before, and paid in blood for mistakenly believing that the words promised brave actions. They will not join with us until and unless they see real action.

Why should they take the president's most recent words any more seriously than those of a month ago, when he was treating Prince Abdullah like the deepest thinker in the Middle East? So far, they are only words, no more. If the president really means to support democratic revolution throughout the region he will have to support the freedom fighters against the tyrants, and he will have to do it visibly, dramatically, and forcefully.

His speech on the Palestinian question is a good start, and is almost certainly more than that. It probably signifies that the president has worked his way out of the trap set by the Saudis and the Europeans, and has returned to his initial instinct that such problems can only be confronted after winning the war against the terror masters. Those who said he couldn't wage war until the Palestinian matter had been "solved" had it backwards: The war must come first, then we'll see. When the president said that it's impossible to deal with the Palestinian Authority until and unless democratic institutions had been created, he surely knew that there cannot be a Palestinian democracy so long as the Iranian mullahs, Saddam Hussein, and the Assad family dictatorship remain in place. They are committed to the destruction of the Middle East's only democracy — Israel — and dread the expansion of freedom, because they know their own people would prefer freedom to their wretched tyrannies. A democratic Palestinian state would threaten them all.

I believe President Bush knows this, and is determined to wage the war against the Middle East tyrants as soon as his military people can get ready. I believe he doesn't want to say it prematurely, preferring to keep his powder dry until he's ready to open fire. All well and good, except that he does not need military force to support the increasingly desperate people of Iran — he needs radio and television, and regular, relentless statements from his top people damning the Iranian tyrants and embracing the just cause of the Iranian people. And he needs to get some material support to the people, many of whom are facing a Zimbabwe-like future of penury and undernourishment. Delay on the Iranian front is not only unnecessary, it is a mistake, because it heartens the rulers and dismays the oppressed.

If he can change Iran with words and money, that will give heart to the Iraqis and Syrians we will soon rally to our cause. It will show them our power and the seriousness of our intent. It will shorten the war and strengthen our cause throughout the region.

Faster, please.

[polemikos]

When the president said that it's impossible to deal with the Palestinian Authority until and unless democratic institutions had been created...

...and democratic institutions are impossible in the Middle East until and unless the Islamists are destroyed.

[polemikos]

and democratic institutions are impossible in the Middle East until and unless the Islamists are destroyed

...and the Islamists can't be destroyed until and unless the nature of Islam itself is changed.