December 24, 2005
A BETTER MIDDLE EAST....Joshua Muravchik of AEI writes today about a small but gratifying advance in global freedom this year (as quantified here by Freedom House). He is especially gratified that six of the nine counties that improved their freedom scores were majority Muslim, a significant change from the decline of the past:
Some of the credit for reversing this belongs to President Bush's strategy of promoting freedom and democracy, including by means of war in Iraq. Saad Edin Ibrahim, the dean of Egyptian dissidents and an opponent of the war in Iraq, said recently that it had "unfrozen the Middle East just as Napoleon's 1798 expedition did."
This, I think, is pretty much the only justification left for the Iraq war: the slim possibility that simply by kicking over the status quo in the Middle East we might make things better. It's a last gasp justification, to be sure, but at this point we'd all better hope there's something to it.
—Kevin Drum 2:12 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (46)
Uh, in the end Napoleon lost and France hasn't really been a Great Power since, right?
Posted by: Andrew J. Lazarus on December 24, 2005 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK
Haha!
Posted by: ihateemo on December 24, 2005 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK
What a joke.
We are like a marriage counsellor who maintains the right to screw the wife of every couple we claim to be helping.
The whole political dynamic over there will be tainted by external oil interests...always, or at least until we ween our fat asses off that drug.
Take about a tenth of our national defense budget and throw it into alternative energy development. Its likely to save more of our soldiers lives in the long run.
Posted by: Ten in Tenn on December 24, 2005 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin,
My first thought on reading this post is to roll my eyes. Lets take one example cited in the article you link to: Indonesia. They have been at work building democracy there for years. Several years ago, with the Carter Center monitoring, they held their first nationwide democratic election. It had nothing to do with the Bush Administration, nothing to do with Iraq.
Palestine. Give me a break. They also had elections, monitored by outsiders, years ago. Elections in which the Sharon government tried to interfere, by the way. Palestine is not yet an official country, but folks have been working for democracy there for many years. Biggest obstacle? People like Sharon and American supports like George Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al. When Bush first took office, he and most of the people he hired had a history denigrating the Palestinians. They certainly were not for the creation of a Palestinian state. Suddenly, after running up against folks in the adult world, he began advocating a Palestinian state, a reversal.
To now give them credit for spreading democracy is a huge stretch. This idea that kicking over an anthill and hoping something good happens is not convincing to me at all. Thats certainly no way to get rid of ants, is it?
The people working for democracy are doing it in spite of George Bush. He is giving democracy a very bad name in the region.
Posted by: little ole jim from red country on December 24, 2005 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK
After your post about indefensible retirement, please, no more thinking today, Kevin.
Posted by: busdrivermike on December 24, 2005 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK
I -pray- there's something to it. Seems to me that it's just -barely- possible that, after the freckled bully kicks over the anthill, the ants manage to build an even better hill. Will this embolden freckled bullies everywhere? Sure, though they're unbelievably bold alread (bullies are)--but still, for the sake of the ants, I pray.
Posted by: adam on December 24, 2005 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK
Dear Santa,
Im concerned that some of my fellow commenters will get nothing for Christmas, so I am posting this letter on the one blog that Im confident you read. These guys and gals are so caught up in their commenting that they no doubt forgot to even make a gift list.
Kevin Drum: hes been a good boy. Give him a pat on the back and a brand new Hello Kitty camera.
Pale Rider: already loaded up with jokes, sources, life experiences, smackdowns, and a body that can obviously handle enormous quantities of caffeine. So give him a room with 4 padded walls when crash-day comes. Nah, hes already thought of that. Just give him ice cream.
global citizen: already has a great handle. Give her the courage to live up to it. Nah, probably has that already; give her chocolate.
Stefan: so pessimistic, discouraged even, about Iraq. Give him a copy of Heisenbergs quantum theory. That will make it clear to him that, even under these circumstances, there is a small chance that the invasion of Iraq will be worth the cost. Of course, the number is quite small and has too many leading zeros to type out here (and Im no good with scientific notation), but, nonetheless, its greater that zero...in some alternate universe.
cassandro: she hates torture as much as I do. Give her a lot of ice cream.
tbrosz: I owe him a lot of links, but just give him a new pair of blue jeans... and the time to change into them. And throw in a copy of Bob Dylans With God On Our Side.
cragie: fastest commenter in the West. Give him a spare monitor to track Washingtonmonthly.com full time. Nah, hes already got that. Just give him a map of the United States, which denotes Iraq as the 51st state. Hell get it.
Samuel Knight: poor Sam, like me, thinks logical honest argument is the way to go. Give him plenty of time.
cmdicely: hey, give this guy free access to all the worlds law libraries; and free access to the internet, of course.
carolyn: give her good luck for at least 3 years. She wants the Democrats to do well in 2006 and 2008 almost as much as I do.
SecularAnimist: give him voting rights in Florida. He is as pissed about the Florida vote rip-off in 2000 and 2004 as I am. ( If he already has them, give him ice cream.)
Rad Racer: give him a years supply of ammo. He will use it in an appropriately blunt fashion, Im sure.
JohnFH: give him a weegee board. Its spooky the way he can read the minds of Iraqis. Nah, he must already have one. Just give him ice cream too.
Gosh, tired already. And there are so many more. Oh well, ice cream for everybody.
Posted by: little ole jim from red country on December 24, 2005 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK
little ole jim from red country, how come you didn't mention me?
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Al on December 24, 2005 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK
The United States is less free. Thanks.
Posted by: Gary Sugar on December 24, 2005 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK
Freedom's just another neocon-corrupted word for 'empire'. NSA love's you, Kevin!
Posted by: allen on December 24, 2005 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK
if that's what you think, you'd better read the view from there...
The Americans have no choice but to leave Iraq and this must happen in the next few months, Kayhan wrote. Todays Iraq shows the two sides of the Middle Eastern coin: the victory of Islamism, and the defeat and flight of the West.
Posted by: brkily on December 24, 2005 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK
And that tiny chance is worth any amount of money and any number of American lives.
Posted by: Gore / Obama on December 24, 2005 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK
You have now completely lost your mind if you think the Iraq war has had anything to do with these changes -- if they are in fact real -- which is itself debatable.
Some wingnut from the American Enterprise Institue (of all places!!!) pulls pustulance out of his cloaca and you decide to post it as something authoritative? The same institute that gives us people like Irving Kristol and Leon Kass and Michael Ledeen and many others of their ilk?
I ask again, have you lost your capacity for cogent critical thinking? Or are you the next Hitchens? Or did the beating you take on your early retirement post make you stupid?
Posted by: Ba'al on December 24, 2005 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK
From the AEI web site
Joshua Muravchik
Resident Scholar
Muravchik studies the United Nations, neoconservatism, the history of socialism and communism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and global democracy, terrorism, and the Bush Doctrine. He is the author of Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.
Posted by: Ba'al on December 24, 2005 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK
This, I think, is pretty much the only justification left for the Iraq war: the slim possibility that simply by kicking over the status quo in the Middle East we might make things better.
My God, Kevin, you go from bad to worse. This is the neocon theory of creative destruction - that things are so bad there that if we just blow it up it will improve the situation. We expect that stuff from AEI. It's their stock in trade. But why can't you think before you type.
In fact, Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in 1798 is a good analogy for our invasion of Iraq. He proclaimed it was to spread libertie, egalitie, fraternatie to the Middle East, but that was not why he went.
Changes in the Arab world towards greater freedom have been in the works for a long time. Polls show that our invasion of Iraq is not regarded by the Arab public, including Iraqis, as being either intended to spread democracy, or having that effect.
Posted by: No Preference on December 24, 2005 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK
maybe kevin's been abducted and his blog taken over by an O.C. neighbor?
Posted by: brkily on December 24, 2005 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK
Jim; Thanks for thinking of me. (I had a mouthful of chocolate when I read your wish for me. How appropriate!)
Posted by: Global Citizen on December 24, 2005 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK
edward said, were he alive today, would have demolished claims of a "frozen" middle east as blatantly orientalist -- that's right, even middle east-erners can have orientalist points of view.
the idea that a region of the world is homogeneous and static, and that it needs "the west" to invade to create change, is overtly racist as well as entirely un-nuanced. it mirrors the way people have been writing about "the orient" for hundreds of years, while erasing the agency of entire groups of people to resist, create, and destroy on their own.
Posted by: dan on December 24, 2005 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK
That status quo we're knocking over is one we spent a good deal of time and money to create and maintain. The only stable elements in the mix seem to be the nations that already gave us the boot- Indonesia, Iran, and the Phillipines. May be a lesson in there somewhere.
And that Napolean thing- he went to Egypt, lost his army and navy, and returned to France to take over the government and become a dictator. Not the most stirring example, from our point of view, or that of the Egyptians.
Posted by: serial catowner on December 24, 2005 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK
I thought you'd get flamed pretty good on this, Kevin. You should realize that any departure from the "Bush is SATAN!" theme will have them jumping all over you.
Whatever success occurs in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere, Bush will be written out of it as thoroughly as Reagan was written out of the end of the Cold War (while Gorbachev collected his Nobel Peace Prize). This probably won't bother Bush any more than it did Reagan.
In ten years, it will be accepted as common knowledge that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan were just about ready to throw off their tyrannical governments when Bush interfered.
Posted by: tbrosz on December 24, 2005 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK
jim:
Thanks for the thought, but I've got plenty of jeans.
Ever notice how Bob Dylan now looks exactly like Vincent Price?
Posted by: tbrosz on December 24, 2005 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK
This probably won't bother Bush any more than it did Reagan.
Speaks highly of the mental state of our clueless leader, dunnit?
Posted by: Global Citizen on December 24, 2005 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, Kevin, the Empire of Good Intentions.
The British Empire (at home and in the hearts of the reformer imperialists) was a liberal empire. It was an empire of good intentions. The British, unlike the Romans, would be givers and not takers. We would give the people in the dark corners of the world a society of enlightenment and prosperity and when the dark races were educated and self-sufficient we would pack up and go home. We would go in and remove all those despots and all that ugly tyranny and give the natives parliamentary government, commerce, modern medicine and science, education and Christianity. We would be the mother of the free.
Unfortunately, the people of the world did not seem to what to buy the British version of the life beautiful much to the surprise of the empire builders (the government was happy to let private companies with mercenary armies do the building with no cost to tax payers, East India Company, British South Africa Company and the Royal Niger Company were cheaper versions of Halliburton).
From the Indian mutiny of 1857 to the Boer War and right up to Indian National Congress the liberals were surprised at both the savagery of the natives and their rejection of the enlightenment project. The expansionists (like the neocons): Lord Curzon, Cecil Rhodes, Field Marshal Kitchner and Alfred Milner also mouthed the liberal truths and no doubt saw European civilization and commerce as demonstrably superior but they were more at home with the unsavory strong-arming medicine that liberal empire requires. Free markets, if you like them or not, being the mantra of the 19th century Victorians.
Cecil Rhodes who crossed the Limpopo and opened up Rhodesia says he had no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the English race the English-speaking man, whether British, American, Australian or South African- is a type of race which does now, and is likely to continue to do in the future, the most practical, effective work to establish justice, to promote liberty, and to ensure peace over the widest possible area of the planet.
Although we liberals are immune from racism how do you think the unenlightened peoples of Middle East feel about American assistance in getting off those burkhas and getting into Walmart? Differently, somehow, than did the unwashed in British Egypt or Mesopotamia?
Posted by: bellumregio on December 24, 2005 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK
Global Citizen:
I have noticed that Republicans who leave high office, or lose their final elections, generally retire and get on with their lives. Democrats have a tendency to hang on to Washington with an iron grip, or if they can't manage that, hanging around outside the halls of power steaming up the windows with their breath. Some, like Al Gore, just go nuts.
Has little to do with intelligence, and a lot to do with a view of life.
There are certainly exceptions to this, of course. Jimmy Carter started out retiring gracefully, until he decided building houses for the poor wasn't enough for him any more. Richard Nixon didn't exactly go home to his ranch, either.
Incidentally, I have yet to see one ounce of objective evidence that either Kerry or Gore are any smarter than Bush.
Posted by: tbrosz on December 24, 2005 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK
"This, I think, is pretty much the only justification left for the Iraq war: the slim possibility that simply by kicking over the status quo in the Middle East we might make things better. It's a last gasp justification, to be sure, but at this point we'd all better hope there's something to it."
kevin, justifications occur BEFORE the fact. After the fact is rationalization, as in trying to claim an unintended outcome as an original purpose.
so, to be clear:
a) Because bringing democracy to iraq was not posed as a reason to invade, it is NOT a justification for the bushcriminal's illegal, unnecessary invasion (all reasons given at the time rested on security threats to the US);
b) Because ALL of the reasons put forth prior to invasion have turned out to be false, there is no justification for invasion of Iraq - period;
c) Because the bushcriminal regime committed crimes against humnaity, first with an illegal, unnecessary invasion, and second, by violating numerous international and national laws, as well as simple human decency in its prosecution of the illegal invasion, it now seeks to rationalize its actions by claiming its intention to bring democracy to iraq.
d) This rationalition, like the justifications before, all built on false premisses and self-serving political motives of the bushcriminal regime is also in the process of failing.
Posted by: gak on December 24, 2005 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK
Although we liberals are immune from racism how do you think the unenlightened peoples of Middle East feel about American "assistance" in getting off those burkhas and getting into Walmart? Differently, somehow, than did the unwashed in British Egypt or Mesopotamia?
"Immune from racism?" Maybe. Unwarrented arrogance? Apparently not.
Ever bother to actually ask someone in India whether or not he'd rather be following an ox around a field, or writing software for a living?
BTW, as far as I know, there aren't any Wal-Marts or affiliates in the Middle East.
Posted by: tbrosz on December 24, 2005 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK
Sadaam is still gone, though he reappears occasionally on South Park episodes.
Posted by: Matt on December 24, 2005 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK
Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that Muravchik and his fellow travelers on the right are far, far more interested in the political legacy of George W. Bush than they are about the welfare of the people of Iraq (or Egypt, or Lebanon)? It seems as though everything else in life takes a back seat to the imperative of repeating over and over that Bush was "right" about intervening in Iraq.
Posted by: TT on December 25, 2005 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK
tbone,
In ten years, Iraq, if it still exists as a coherent nation, will be immersed in ethnic strife and under the rule of a repressive, theocratic regime (regardless of whether it was "democratically" elected or not). And fear not - Bush, I'm sure, will be given full credit for his causative role in this ongoing debacle. But you are right, he won't care one way or the other, because he has "God on His Side."
Posted by: athos on December 25, 2005 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK
Whatever success occurs in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere, Bush will be written out of it ...
I don't think that's true at all, but it's not even the point.
The point is that Bush wanted to knock over Saddam before he even got "elected". And 9/11, which, I am now more sure than not, he could have prevented if he were actually interested in the mechanics of governing, gave him the chance.
And it was good politics for the GOP.
No place in that calculation was anything about Middle Easterners yearning to breathe free. That was simply rationalization number 28. And what drives me around the fucking bend is that everyone - even the so-called liberal media - now acts as if that's why we invaded Iraq. So that Iraqis could vote.
Give me a fucking break.
Reagan commits actual treason, and he is Saint Ronny. Bush still has 3 years to go, and he's already the worst president this country has ever seen, and in 2010, it will be Saint W - I'd bet on it. Hell, you're busy rehabilitating Nixon and McCarthy. So back to your original point: here in the land alledgely ruled by liberal media and liberal academics, Republicans never do anything wrong. Ever.
After DeLay gets out of jail, he'll become Saint Tom. You watch. Rules of law - or of morality - just don't apply to Republicans, apparently.
Posted by: craigie on December 25, 2005 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK
Bush deserves more far credit than this stingy scroogish compliment. Boy George actively evaded the dreadful invasion of SE Asia. Look the many and manifest crimes of NIXON, REAGAN and DUBYA COMBINED still don't add up to a hill of beans next to those of the bloodthirsty DEMOCRAT tyrant, LYNDON BAINFULL JOHNSON. LBJ murdered and maimed for life MILLIONS!
Bush's ' Suez' crisis is letting the Nazi democratic USSA empire down easy with minimal collateral damage. You all ought to be pathetically grateful inmho. The entertainment value of his presidency alone more than makes up for more than 100 thousand odd men women and children murdered and maimed for life in SW Asia by it. Pass the eggnog and praise the president!
You get the leaders you deserve!
Posted by: professor-rat on December 25, 2005 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK
"Freedom House" = Bullshit House
Posted by: ahem on December 25, 2005 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK
craigie:
No place in that calculation was anything about Middle Easterners yearning to breathe free. That was simply rationalization number 28. And what drives me around the fucking bend is that everyone - even the so-called liberal media - now acts as if that's why we invaded Iraq. So that Iraqis could vote.
From Bush's speech on the day of the invasion of Iraq:
Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.
Next day (March 23):
I am pleased with the progress that we're making in the early stages of a -- of the war to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, and to free the Iraqi people from the clutches of a brutal dictatorship.
You can look up more Bush speeches yourself if you want. There are a number of them in which "free the Iraqi people" is right there next to "remove weapons of mass destruction" right up front.
Okay, it's not the top priority that the WMD was, it's usually number two or three on the list, but it's hardly the afterthought tacked on months or years later that the Left keeps implying.
Posted by: tbrosz on December 25, 2005 at 3:37 AM | PERMALINK
Sadaam is still gone, though he reappears occasionally on South Park episodes.
Just look at how well Russia did once the Tsar was deposed.
Posted by: Dustbin Of History on December 25, 2005 at 5:28 AM | PERMALINK
To bellumregio and Kevin,
The British Empire had Good Intentions only for British interests and not for their occupied nations. The test for their approach was how Britain benefits out from the situation at their colonies. Britain stood by the Indians and the Pakistanis according the political and strategic gains they have at hand. So it was with the Palestinian conflict. They once back the Jews and then the Arabs and back and force as long as Britain had some political and economic prosperity. It were considered that the British conquer of India and Palestine have the main roll in creating national crisis at that places. The British, as any other master of colonies, used it's colonies for supporting its own economy and global influence. If it was depended only on the British they were choose to stay and govern their historical colonies. In that case there is no difference between the Romans and the British.
Posted by: Allegro on December 25, 2005 at 7:37 AM | PERMALINK
Shorter Kevin: If we move the goalposts often enough, sooner or later we'll find a justification for >2000 dead, >15000 wounded, hundreds of millions of $$$ spent, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, and the shredding of America's reputation worldwide.
Posted by: 2.7182818 on December 25, 2005 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK
New Year's confession time. I think I inadvertently caused the whole Iraq intervention by praying for the Kurds. Have always felt a great deal of sympathy for the bad way they have been treated. I also prayed for "the fence" to work in Israel, which it seems to be doing. Last of my supernatural supplications concerns manned space exploration. NASA's plans not a huge step forward. In 2006 NASA needs to get bolder. They still have a good budget and the allure of some of the radical new concepts is that they would cost less.
Posted by: Michael L. Cook on December 25, 2005 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK
"Joshua Muravchik of AEI writes today about a small but gratifying advance in global freedom this year"
Gee, by my count, the world went from ONE nation under illegal military occupation before the Boy Emperor Clown Criminal was illegally installed, to THREE nations under illegal military occupation now.
Freedom is marching backwards.
.
Posted by: VJ on December 25, 2005 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK
"Boy Emperor Clwon Criminal"?
Posted by: Alexander Wolfe on December 26, 2005 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK
This is like when a kidnapper steals your baby and that night your house burns down, killing your whole family. The baby survives, 'cause it was kidnapped.
So we thank the kidnappers, right?
Bush's adventure might end up having bad effects or no effect (except for all the dead people, of course); it might also have good effects, but only, as with the kidnapped baby, by sheer accident.
Posted by: Nancy Irving on December 26, 2005 at 4:43 AM | PERMALINK
Allegro and Bellumreggio,
Good points - Does the term "opium trade" ring a bell and all of that "freedom" extended to China?
If my dull memory recalls correctly, methinks that there was also a buck or two made by the Clipper Ship magnates of New England.
Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 26, 2005 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK
Shorter Lefty Comments:
Don't lose hope! The US can still lose in Iraq!
*blech*
Posted by: Birkel on December 26, 2005 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK
How much of the credit for this goes to the policies of G.W. Bush? I honostly dont know. But the fact that its happening for the first time now, and only now, during the reign of Bush and after the war in Iraq should provide some clues.
Twenty years ago two big parts of the world were stuck with an antidemocratic system. It was under right-wing Republican presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. that the communist system crushed and burned. They presided over the first big democratic wave. And now it seems that a second big wave is coming up. And again its happening under a right-wing Republican idiot, er, president.
Why is it that freedom seems to have such good years under right-wing presidents? Food for thought for our left-wing friends.
Posted by: ivan on December 26, 2005 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK