I will go and check some links later, but the bottom line is this: Can we claim that after all this treasure and casualties, that what has been happening across the Middle East over the last six months or so is a coincidence? Yes, a correlation does not a causality make. However, those in the Middle East, watching what has been happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, cannot help but draw the following insight: Though messy and not very efficient, the stumble towards democracy in Iraq is a sign of a different paradigm in operation, that people in the Middle East, can at least compare with what they currently have in political terms. The US got rid of Saddam Hussein. What is in its place is arguably better. In saying this, I do not want to minimize the role of higher food prices and internal issues particular to each state in the current flux of Middle East politics. But, this also does not mean that our presence in the region is perceived as entirely negative, nor that it has had nothing but negative effects. No matter how inept we have been, I think that the way we have been trying to act shows that there are very real differences in comparison with other "imperializers," in substance and style. And this "semi-positive" (or perhaps ambiguous?) take on the US and its mission in the Middle East has had one positive outcome. It has helped fuel calls and actions for getting rid of oppressive regimes.
President Bush will be reminded more kindly by history than many liberals suspect, I believe. Now, if Saudi Arabia goes kabluey, then it might be a different story...
No comments:
Post a Comment