Now the torrents of Arabia cascade on, from Baghdad to Beirut, Cairo, Riyadh and beyond. Those of us who argued three years ago that Iraq was the place to start the dominoes falling and that the Middle East was ripe for liberty, for democracy, for one man, one gloat whoops, sorry, vote
Anyway, those of us who told you so way back when long ago gave up trying to figure out why the media, the Dems, the Europeans and Canadians were so wedded to stability uber alles. But we had a feeling that their enthusiasm was unlikely to be shared by the actual subjects of Assad and co. And we were right: it turns out Americas Zionists know the Arab people better than Europes Arabists do better than all those ex-ambassadors to the Middle East now shilling for Saudi-funded think-tanks who pop up on TV discussions to recycle Arab League talking points.
Thats not to say were in the final reel with happy endings all round. The nations of Eastern Europe werent all liberated on the same template. Syria could be the Middle Easts Romania where the opportunist second rank decides to whack a dictator whos outlived his usefulness and pass themselves off as the forces of freedom. Or Syria could be the Czech Republic where the head thugs heart is no longer in it and he negotiates a graceful retreat. But, either way, I doubt if Boy Assads presidency will be with us for much longer.
Whats happened in the last couple of weeks is that Bush has persuaded the French and the Saudis that Assad is a loser, and theres no downside to putting the skids under him. And the way things are going most Middle East regimes would rather pile on Damascus lest Bush turn his attention elsewhere. Last weeks Arabic News reported that Colonel Gaddafy has underscored the need to launch full freedom in Libya. And to show hes serious hes introduced yet another spelling of his name: as the headline put it, Qathafi Wants Freedom To Prosper In Libya. Qathafi: thats a new one on me. Ive seen him spelled Khadafi, Qaddafi, Gadhafi, Qudhafi, Kadafi, Gheddafi, Kaddafi, Qadhdhafi and a couple dozen others, but clearly this latest one is an indication that, like Mubarak in Egypt, hes under pressure to move to a multi-candidate electoral system and is planning to run as all of them: Gadafi (Sclerotic Dictatorship Party), Qadafi (Sword Of The Infidel Slayer-Liberal Democratic Alliance), Gaddhafi (New Sclerotic Dictatorship Party), Khaddaffy (Khonservative Phartty)
Whether Qathafi really wants freedom to prosper in Libya is doubtful. But the fact that in the month since the Iraqi election he and President Mubarak and Prince Saud, the Saudi Foreign Minister, and King Abdullah of Jordan all feel obliged to sign on rhetorically is a big step. It may even ensure the survival of at least a few of them. For three decades, radical Islamism prospered because there was no other big idea to counter it. And the more the EU and UN and Arab League fetishized stability the stability of the Assads and Arafats - the less chance there was that any alternative concept would ever arise. Bush and the Iraqi people changed all that.
In January I wrote that 2005 would be the most important year in the region since Churchill drew the map of the modern Middle East in 1922. The melancholy fact is that many of the changes underway today could have been with us a lot earlier if the Great Wars peacemakers hadnt botched the job 80 years ago. The stagnant Middle East of Assad, Arafat and the House of Saud is the malign legacy of the prototype progressive transnationalism the League of Nations mandates that helped deliver the peoples of the region into the hands of a uniquely disastrous bunch of unreliable western client rulers.
The new political settlements that emerge in the Middle East will be messy and flawed and problematic, but they will still be an improvement. Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader who says that in Iraq the Arabs Berlin Wall has fallen, is also the guy who not so long ago was saying We are all happy when an American soldier is killed. He will never be an ideological soulmate of Dick Cheney.
But so what? The Swedes and Irish arent soulmates of Cheney either, but a free society with a representative government is in Americas long-term interest, just as a nominally pro-American dictator holding his people back is not in Americas long-term interest. To firm up Daniel Schorrs tentative endorsement, Bush got that right, and one day, if hes not already, Walid Jumblatt will be grateful he did.
>> Anyway, those of us who told you so way back when long ago gave up trying to figure out why the media, the Dems, the Europeans and Canadians were so wedded to stability uber alles. <<
I think it's a combination of laziness and fear of change. If they (e.g., the State Dept and other govt bureaucracies) can keep the same people in power, they don't have to learn anything new or deal with unfamiliar situations. Classic government bureaucratic mindset.
Another good one from Steyn!
Thanks, Goldwater.