[lit-ideas] In The Middle East, A New World
- From: Brian <cabrian@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 19:23:26 -0500
Karl Zinsmeister (editor of The American Enterprise magazine and
author of the brilliant BOOTS ON THE GROUND and DAWN OVER BAGHDAD)
has written often of his first-hand accounts as a twice embedded
journalist. Here are his recent thoughts.
-------------------
By Karl Zinsmeister
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has
started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about
Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting, 8 million of them, it
was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian
people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has
fallen. We can see it."
-Lebanese politician Walid Jumblatt, in the Washington Post
"A long-frozen political order seems to be cracking all over the
Middle East.... This has so far been a year of heartening surprises--
each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing."
-New York Times editorial
"More-aggressive U.S. policies in the Middle East--from the invasion
of Iraq to President Bush's rhetoric about fostering democracy--are
mingling with local politics to jostle once-unquestioned realities in
the region."
-Wall Street Journal news story
"As thousands of Arabs demonstrated for freedom and democracy...it
was hard not to wonder whether the regional transformation that the
Bush administration hoped would be touched off by its invasion of
Iraq is beginning to happen.... Those who have declared the war an
irretrievable catastrophe have been gloating for at least a year over
the supposed puncturing of what they portray as President Bush's
fanciful illusion that democracy would take root in Iraq and spread
through the region.... Clearly the Arab autocrats don't regard the
Bush dream of democratic dominoes as fanciful.... Less than two years
after Saddam Hussein was deposed...Arabs are marching for freedom and
shouting slogans against tyrants in the streets of Beirut and Cairo--
and regimes that have endured for decades are visibly tottering.
Those who claimed that U.S. intervention could never produce such
events have reason to reconsider."
-Washington Post column by Jackson Diehl
*****
The bandwagon is starting to fill--and thank goodness for that.
Those of us who spent much of 2003 and 2004 urging Americans not to
give up on Iraq can attest that those two years were stained with
many harsh attacks, much niggling criticism, and abundant disdain for
America's aggressive efforts to reshape the dysfunctional governments
of the Middle East into more humane and peaceful forms. From the very
beginning, of course, the Bush administration's left-wing enemies in
the U.S. and Europe were hysterically opposed to the push for Middle
Eastern democracy. A significant number of right-wing pundits also
proved themselves to be sunshine patriots of the worst sort--bailing
out of the hard, dirty work of war and cultural transformation as
soon as the predictable resistance arose.
But that's politics. In Washington, if you're looking for a brave and
steadfast ally, you need to buy a dog. Fortunately our warriors
battling away in Najaf and Samarra and Anbar province didn't
surrender to the Beltway gloom that defeated most of our media and
political elites.
Everyday Americans also proved sturdier than our chattering class.
They stayed with the fight long enough for some hard facts to emerge.
Now some very good news is obvious to all who have eyes: We are not
facing a popular revolt in Iraq. Average Arabs are not on the side of
terrorists and Islamic radicals. America's venture to defang the
Middle East is neither the cynical and selfish oil grab that the
lunatic Left have claimed, nor a dreamy and doomed Don Quixote
crusade as some conservative grumps insisted.
So here, at last, come the soldiers of the "me too" brigade. Even the
French have joined in. They're sending one man (yes, one) to help
train Iraqi security forces. And he's welcome. Victory is magnanimous.
I do not (as those of you who have read my books about the war know)
claim that happy days are here again, that the future will bring
nothing but a cheery whirl of American marshmallow roasts with the
lovely people of the Middle East. For my entire lifetime, this has
been the worst-governed part of the planet. Its economic policies are
in a photo finish with Africa's as the globe's most
counterproductive. Ignorance and illiteracy are widespread, and
Middle Easterners nurse more superstitions, blood feuds, and ugly
prejudices than any people I have ever traveled and worked among.
But that's exactly why America finally plunged in to help drain this
swamp and plant seeds for a healthier future. The paralyzing error of
"don't rock the boat" types like Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, Pat Buchanan, Richard Clarke, and others who attacked the
Iraq war as overambitious is the assumption that political and
economic freedom can be brought to the Middle East only after it is
already full of Rotary clubs and Wal-Marts. Note to so-called
"realists": You've got your causation all backwards. It is liberty
that creates peace, stability, and decency in a nation--not the
reverse. If you wait until a country is serene and prosperous before
introducing political and economic freedom, you will wait forever.
Many daunting obstacles still lay ahead in the Middle East. Notice
that the lead article in this issue, by Steven Vincent, warns how
important it is that moderates in the Muslim world wrest control of
their religion from the extremists who presently have far too much
influence. In a chapter called "The Character Test" and elsewhere in
Dawn Over Baghdad, I discuss some of the cultural baggage that Middle
Easterners need to discard as they become self-ruling: pervasive
dishonesty and graft, a shortage of altruism, destructive paranoia,
widespread passivity and sloth, a weak ethic of personal
responsibility, an attraction to strongmen.
Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese politican I quote welcoming democracy at
the top of this essay, has periodically made nasty cracks about the
U.S., Jews, and Western mores. When an Iraqi hotel was rocketed a
year and a half ago while U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz was sleeping in it, Jumblatt remarked that it was too bad
Wolfowitz escaped. This is not a man most Americans would want their
daughter to marry. But that's not the right test. A new generation of
elected Middle Eastern leaders doesn't have to love us. We can be
thrilled that they will simply leave us alone, and (by treating their
own people better than today's despots) stop turning out young men so
homicidally frustrated with their lot in life as to become killers.
America's struggle with incivility from the Middle East will continue
in the years ahead, and we will have to hold our noses at times as
the various countries in the region make their way from fascistic to
freely elected governance. In Lebanon, for instance, even after the
Syrian thugocracy is ejected, the country will have to figure out how
to assimilate into a peaceful national politics the substantial
minority of Lebanese who support the atrocious locally based
terrorist group Hezbollah.
Nearly every Muslim country has a potentially troublesome extremist
minority; in some of them it is big enough to influence the
government. Even Turkey, traditionally one of the most moderate
Islamic nations, is currently run by a party that throws around
ludicrous allegations that the U.S. harvests Iraqi organs for sale
back home, is secretly injecting Christianity and Judaism into Muslim
countries, and so forth. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan tried to
paint the January balloting in Iraq as illegitimate, until the Iraqis
themselves put the lie to that.
But these sorts of shrieks and shouts are how democracies blow off
steam and gradually fold discontented factions into national
compromises. Demagogic politicians, newspaper lies, and popular
conspiracy theories are part and parcel of life in every nation with
free politics. Ever heard of Al Sharpton? Over the long run, I'll say
again, participatory government works as an antidote to political
extremism, not an enabler.
I'll never forget the day I received the results of Iraq's first
scientific national opinion poll, which we at The American Enterprise
wrote and conducted in August 2003. Beneath the noise and bluster
typical of Middle Eastern politics, I could see in the data the
outlines of a large silent majority in Iraq that is much more
sensible than one would guess from media portrayals. In a September
news conference where we released the findings, we pointed out that
two thirds of Iraqis did not want an Islamic theocracy, that three
quarters of the public wanted Saddam's Baathist cronies punished,
that Iraqi opinion of Osama bin Laden was far more negative than
positive, that Iraqis' favorite model for a new government was the
U.S. (All information subsequently published in our December 2003
issue.)
In a chapter of Dawn Over Baghdad titled "What Ordinary Iraqis Want,"
including subsections "No Need for Nightmares," "The Un-Fanatics,"
and "Unpopular Insurgents," I reiterated many of these points, and
added observations (drawn from my time spent in Iraq's Shiite
southern half) on the relative moderation of Iraq's majority Shias.
Over the past year, AEI Islamic expert Reuel Gerecht has made many
similar points. On page 40 of this issue, he contributes an
encouraging analysis of Shiite intentions (the "$64,000 Question" of
Iraqi politics). Alas, non-dire views like these were mostly ignored
or discounted during the feeding frenzy of media negativity and
defeatism that took hold shortly after the liberation of Baghdad and
dominated Iraq reporting right up until the January election.
Thankfully, the election finally exposed the falsity of claims that
Iraqis were unwilling participants in America's liberation of their
country. It can no longer be denied that the vast majority of Iraqis
oppose the terrorists. Our Eeyores have now shifted their worries,
however, to the idea that Iraqis are likely to repeat the Iranian
nightmare and veer into mullah-ridden theocracy.
Not likely. It isn't just that Iraqis have the benefit of knowing
what a mess the clerics produced in Iran. It isn't just that Iraq's
Kurds would put the brakes on any such attempt. It isn't just the
repeated assurances by leading Shiites that they have no intention of
imposing Islamic law on the country, and want to encompass all of
Iraq's many peoples in the government they will lead. What is perhaps
most soothing is seeing who exactly the Shiites are pushing forth as
their representatives. The parliamentarians backed by Ayatollah
Sistani include many Western-educated professionals,
scientists,representatives of all ethnic and religious groups, and
diverse points of view, even former communists and ex-monarchists.
Most strikingly, one out of every three nominees is female--an
utterly un-Khomeini-ish statement.
The man asked by Sistani to recruit election candidates, Hussein
Shahrestani, is a nuclear physicist--hardly someone at cross purposes
with modernity. After being tortured by Saddam, he escaped to Iran,
where he was sufficiently put off by the ruling clergy that he fled
again to Britain. He may not exactly be a NASCAR dad, but this is the
kind of Iraqi Americans can work with, and live next to.
The forbearance that Iraq's Shiites have demonstrated over the last
year strikes me as heroically impressive. Despite scores of horrible
provocations--terrorists blasting weddings, shrines, beloved leaders,
all in the hope of inciting a backlash that might spark an Iraqi
civil war--the Shia have refused to retaliate or match tit for tat
(as the longstanding Arab tradition of vengeance calls for). Clearly,
a critical mass of Iraqis are ready to experiment with political
tolerance and pluralism for the first time ever.
While a replay of the Khomeini nightmare seems dubious, we should
keep our expectations modest when it comes to the newly emerging
politics of the Arab world. In particular, we need to give Iraq's
Shiites room to be Shiites. Many of the people the Iraqis choose as
their leaders will not look or sound like Western politicians. The
constitution they will draft this year is not likely to be one that
Americans would want to live under. Some new Iraqi laws will make us
squeamish. All this we must accept.
Introducing democracy does not mean that other people must remake
themselves in our image. Beyond respecting basic human dignities,
Iraqis should have the right to shape their society as they see best--
including basing it on traditional Islamic precepts if they choose.
We in the West must not anathematize Islamic law; our goal should
instead be to housebreak Islamic fundamentalism, to link it to
democratic due process so that the potential for tyrannizing and
bellicosity is tamed out of it.
The first Islamic democracies are not likely to be places where we
would be tempted to take our kids for vacation. Even the friendliest
ones will sometimes be rhetorically quite anti-American. Then again,
so is France. We don't need affection from Middle Easterners; we need
only peace.
Besides, there are plenty of social questions where modern Western
solutions may not necessarily be the best ones. If Islamic nations
choose to ban pornography, if they want a different balance between
work and leisure, if they prefer their own patterns of family life,
Americans should be perfectly satisfied to let them follow an
alternate path. There are some forms of "enlightenment" that other
nations could be better off without, as this amusing anecdote from
Deepak Lal's new book In Praise of Empires indicates:
In 1995 I was staying in Beijing with the Indian ambassador to China.
Beijing was hosting a U.N. Conference on Women, and the large number
of female delegates were housed in a large tent city. One night the
ambassador was woken by an agitated Chinese official asking him to
rush to the tent city, as the Indian delegates were rioting. On
getting there he found that the trouble began when some American
delegates went into the tents of their Third World sisters and tried
to initiate them into the joys of gay sex. With the Indians in the
lead, the Third World women chased the American women out of their
tents, beating them with their slippers.
In general, however, the U.S. can be very proud of the "cultural
imperialism" it has practiced in the Middle East over the last three
years. We have brought political freedom to places that had never
tasted such in 10,000 years of local history. "It is outrageous and
amazing that the first free and general elections in the history of
the Arab nation are to take place in Iraq, under the auspices of the
American occupation, and in Palestine, under the auspices of the
Israeli occupation," commented Salameh Nematt in the Arabic daily Dar
Al-Hayat.
Of course the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, and all that has
followed in Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere,
didn't just happen. They required enormous acts of American will.
Anyone who thinks these breakthroughs would have occurred under a
Commander in Chief less bold and stubborn than George W. Bush is mad.
The fresh hope now pulsing through the Middle East is not the result
of diplomacy, or U.N. programs, or foreign aid, or expanded trade, or
carrots offered by Europeans, or multilateral negotiations, or visits
from Sean Penn. It is the fruit of fierce U.S. military strength,
real toughness on the part of the middle American public, and a
tremendous hardness in the person of our President and his staff.
As I write this, amidst a beautiful March blizzard, I am gulping tea
from a mug emblazoned with the shield of one of the U.S. military
units I spent time with in Iraq, the 1st Battalion of the 5th
Marines. Their motto reads: "MAKE PEACE, OR DIE." Since 9/11, that is
exactly the offer we've extended to thousands of terrorists and a
handful of governments. And it has worked. Sometimes America's
message needs to be just that simple.
Luckily, our country had a leader willing to communicate this
clearly, and the steeliness to shoulder the losses that come with any
righteous war, exactly when we needed him. There were a thousand
points where the democracy train now pulling into the Middle East
could have gone off the tracks. The only reason we made it through
the handwringing of 2003 and 2004 was because the engineer had nerve.
This is finally being acknowledged even by George Bush's enemies:
"The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the
credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of
Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had
any realistic chance," conceded the New York Times on March 1, 2005,
with the concluding understatement that "there could have been no
democratic elections in Iraq this January if Saddam Hussein had still
been in power."
That same week, Der Spiegel, the German weekly that two years ago was
part of the European crusade against the U.S. liberation of Iraq,
offered a similar rethinking, with some historical comparison to an
earlier U.S.-Europe schism:
President Ronald Reagan's visit to Berlin in 1987 was, in many
respects, very similar to President George W. Bush's visit to Mainz
on Wednesday.... The Germany Reagan was traveling in, much like
today's Germany, was very skeptical of the American President and his
foreign policy. When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate...and
demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this Wall," he was lampooned the
next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote
commentators.... Most experts agreed that his demand for the removal
of the Wall was inopportune, utopian, and crazy. Yet three years
later, East Germany had disappeared from the map.... Just a thought
for Old Europe to chew on: Bush might be right, just like Reagan was
then.
While we're distributing credit, the next bouquet needs to go to the
everyday people of the Mideast. They have demonstrated, at times
bravely, that even in long-suffering hell-holes like Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Palestine, there are many reasonable citizens willing to
stand up for goodness. In missing this human reality, the timid,
faithless, and sometimes craven "realists" who spent the last few
years scorning the idea of democracy in the Middle East made a
fundamental misjudgment. Their deepest error--something this magazine
warns against in nearly every issue--is to place undeserved
confidence in the opinions of elites, while doubting the political
wisdom of the common man. My colleague Leon Aron, an authority on the
former Soviet Union, recently wrote sagely on this topic:
The strength of the democratic impulse should never be
underestimated. Again and again, liberty's appeal has proved powerful
enough to overcome great obstacles. Elites, professing to know how
the masses really feel, have time and again predicted disillusionment
with democracy and its abandonment by the citizens of poor nations.
Yet, in the past decade, nearly all fledgling democracies have
resisted slipping back into authoritarianism. As always in matters of
liberty, ordinary people have proved far wiser, and infinitely more
patient, than intellectuals. Today's emerging democracies have shown
remarkable resilience under harsh conditions. The voters in these
poor and incomplete democracies seem to have grasped--as have few
journalists or experts--the essence of Isaiah Berlin's adage:
"Liberty is liberty, not equality, or justice, or culture, or human
happiness or a quiet conscience." Democracy itself, even amidst
hardship, is cherished by consistent and solid majorities.
Today's snobs are just the latest in a long train of doubters of
ordinary citizens. Almost 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln battled such
men while campaigning for the Senate. In a speech that has been
wonderfully preserved in handwritten form, with Lincoln's spoken
emphases underlined by him in ink (and replicated in the extract
below) the first Republican President said this:
Most governments have been based, practically, on the denial of the
equal rights of men...Ours began by affirming those rights.
They said some men are too ignorant and vicious to share in
government. Possibly so, said we; and by your system, you would
always keep them ignorant and vicious.
We proposed to give all a chance; and we expected the weak to grow
stronger, the ignorant wiser, and all better, and happier together.
That's a pointed endorsement of the power of democratic self-
responsibility to elevate both individuals and societies. And it's as
relevant to today's Middle East as it was to slaveholding America.
Of course, good everyday citizens will only raise their hands if
someone first suppresses the bullies in their midst. The reason
reformers in the Middle East are finally coming out of the woodwork
is because, as a Washington Post column recently acknowledged, "the
new U.S. democratization policy, far from being an unwanted
imposition, has given them a voice, an audience, and at least a
partial shield against repression--three things they didn't have a
year ago." Which brings us to our third set of heroes: U.S. fighting
forces.
In the Middle East, as in most places where democracy has taken root,
the ballot inspectors, television commentators, cajoling politicians,
and buzzing new parliaments were all preceded by a vital
prerequisite: some good men with rifles. In this case, good men from
places like Mohrsville, Pennsylvania; Stockton, California; Round
Rock, Texas; and Saranac Lake, New York. All the lilting speeches and
learned counsel, the grand plans and inspiring coalitions are just
will-o'-the-wisps until someone brave does the difficult duty of
establishing the ground rules of liberty. Let us never forget that
peace and freedom start with superior firepower.
There is little grandeur in that work. No one gets wealthy doing it.
Some of the servicemen have only a hazy notion of the deeper stakes
they are fighting for.
But those who reported for duty, including many who suffered and
died, are now being paid in the transcendent coin of having created
one of history's turning points. Look again at the cover of this
magazine. That simple flat map depicts tens of millions of human
lives in the process of radical transformation. Those black voids
represent dark breeding grounds of terror and economic destruction
and mass homicide--and nearly every one of them is now in the process
of brightening. This we owe to our GIs.
Many others are in their debt as well. Though his words got little
attention from the U.S. media, who are more interested in morbidity
and failure, new Afghan President Hamid Karzai spoke for millions of
people around the globe when he said this at his inauguration on
December 7, 2004:
Whatever we have achieved in Afghanistan--the peace, the election,
the reconstruction, the life that the Afghans are living today in
peace, the children going to school, the businesses, the fact that
Afghanistan is again a respected member of the international
community--is from the help that the United States of America gave
us. Without that help, Afghanistan would be in the hands of
terrorists--destroyed, poverty-stricken, and without its children
going to school or getting an education. We are very, very grateful,
to put it in the simple words that we know, to the people of the
United States of America for bringing us this day.
Karl Zinsmeister is TAE editor in chief.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
