A well thought out article
In looking for more information to try to figure out my opinion on the Iraq War situation, I came across this excellent article which makes some pretty excellent points, the most compelling one being:
There is a compelling logic to the argument that the primary source of frustration among Arabs in the Middle East is a sense of powerlessness. Trapped in a region littered with authoritarian and corrupt regimes, they are encouraged by these regimes and their Islamic critics to blame their situation on Israel and the United States. This is an ideal environment for fomenting terrorism. Creating an open society in Iraq would put the lie to this kind of hate-mongering.
To be sure, democracy promotion is far from easy. Indeed, regime change in the Middle East looks like a lousy, rotten policy option for addressing the root causes of terrorism, until one considers the alternatives--appeasement or muddling through. The latter option was essentially the pre-9/11 position of the United States and its allies, and has been found wanting. Appeasement or isolation has the same benefits and costs that the strategy had in the 1930s: It buys short-term solace but raises the long-term costs of facing a stronger and potentially undeterrable adversary.
For all their criticism of Bush's grand strategy, Europeans and left-wingers have offered very little in the way of alternatives to his vision. Some say that American soft power could bring about change in the Middle East. But decades of alternately coddling, cajoling, and ostracizing Arab despots has not led to liberalization or democratization. We have showered Egypt with aid, but have succeeded only in propping up an authoritarian monster in Hosni Mubarak. We have tried to isolate Syria, but have only strengthened that country's anti-American credentials. Maybe U.S. soft power is part of the solution to the Middle East's woes, but soft power alone cannot accomplish our desired ends.

4 Comments:
I think we need to change it from "the Look Machine - living the dream" to "the Look Machine - living the politics"
Jason,
that is a great point..
I think that too often people don't learn from history. At the very least many people suffer from a severe short term memory loss.
All the people who are opposed to what we are doing (right or wrong) keep wanting to do the same that hasn't worked in years. I hear things like we should all get together and talk, while they forget about the broken treaties between Israel and Palestine.
They say we shouldn't do things to make them hate us under the assumption that what we are doing now will really make them mad, while forgetting that these people hated us when we did nothing.
Lastly and not least, the whole thing was waged under the auspices of a war on terror and we havn't had an attack on us (thank the Lord) despite their numerous threats and desires to do us in.
I still don't know how I feel morally about what has went on over the past year and a half, but logically I'm totally behind it.
It's sort of an odd thing to say that you feel one way morally and another logically. Logic only processes information, it is empty in itself. So there must be some moral assumptions that you're putting into it to come to the conclusions you do? Perhaps you mean you fell you've put your moral assumptions one step further back and they're not as obvious so you're not sure they're right? For the record, basically I do support Bush on this morally, logically and what have you. And I'm not sure it's totally obviously morally right either. Although I'm pretty sure. It's ironic, when you look to some of the things that really matter in the situation it makes it look more and more like a "Holy War." But this is probably a false distinction. All wars are fought because of clashing religious philosophies, even those presumably about physical protection or material goods.
"All wars are fought because of clashing religious philosophies, even those presumably about physical protection or material goods"
Not the Cola Wars of the 80s.
Post a Comment
<< Home