| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| ARABS' LAST CHANCE |
| 2006-08-24 |
| WITH the best intentions, President Bush recently declared that it's racist to say that Arabs can't build democracies. Is it? I made the same claim in the run-up to the first Iraqi elections, when Western leftists desperate for Iraq to fail tried to block the vote by claiming that the population wasn't ready. Iraqis deserved their chance. They got it. They voted. Three times. Each time along confessional or ethnic lines. They elected ward bosses, not national leaders. We could have skipped the balloting and apportioned legislative seats by population shares. Iraq doesn't have a democracy in any meaningful sense. It isn't even a nation. Iraqis didn't vote for freedom. They voted for revenge against each other. In the immediate aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I argued that the only realistic solution was to break Iraq into three pieces. What we lacked the guts to do, elections have done. The pretense that an Iraqi national identity exists or ever will exist can be sustained no longer. Iraq doesn't have a government. It has a collection of warlords, demagogues and thieves with official titles. It's time to put our own politics aside and face reality: If Iraq's elected leaders won't stop looting their country long enough to pull together and defeat the foreign terrorists, internal insurgents and militias killing Iraqis, we should not ask our troops to defend them. Iraqi democracy hasn't yet failed entirely. But it looks as if it might. President Bush needs to face that possibility. Managing the regional and global consequences will be his responsibility. We will have to fight on elsewhere - with more realism and, regrettably, less idealism. The fools who hope Iraq will fail will face more wars, not fewer. Meanwhile, the test for Iraq's elected government is straightforward: Can it excite Iraqis to a spirit of mortal sacrifice in defense of a constitutional system? The terrorists, insurgents and militiamen will die for their beliefs. If other Iraqis will not risk their lives - in decisive numbers - to seize their unique chance at freedom, there is no hope. And Iraq is the entire Arab world's last hope. As for the charge of racism leveled at skeptics of the Arab propensity for democracy, it would be true if the discussion were about individuals. Arabs in the United States are as capable of functioning within a democratic system as anyone else. They're just as American as any other citizens - because their families escaped the Middle East. Arab states are another story: Their social, political, economic and cultural structures leave them catastrophically uncompetitive with the developed world. Societies divided down the middle by religion, inhibited by tribal loyalties and conditioned to accept corruption can't build healthy democracies. Above all, societies and cultures that refuse to accept responsibility for their own failures can't build democracies. As difficult as it can be to discern in the hype-and-gripe Internet age, our own system works because we shoulder the burden of our errors, seek to understand what went wrong - and fix the problem (the same may be said of Israel, the only successful democracy in the Middle East). A culture of blame prevents moral, social and political progress. This is a self-help universe. The nonsensical Arab insistence that all Arab problems are the fault of America and Israel (or the Crusades) ignores the fact that Arab civilization has been in decline for 700 years - and has been in utter disarray for the last 200. This is a homemade failure. Through their own choices, cherished beliefs, values and norms, Arabs have condemned themselves to strategic incompetence. No society that oppresses women, denies advancement on merit even to men, indulges in fantastic hypocrisy, wallows in corruption, undervalues secular learning, reduces its god to a nasty disciplinarian and comforts itself with conspiracy theories will ever compete with us. The question has been asked before: Despite the massive influx of petrodollars over a half-century, where are the great Arab universities, the research institutes, the cutting-edge industries, the efficient, humane governments, the enlightened societies? The Arab world has behaved as irresponsibly as a drunk who won the lottery, squandering vast wealth and creating nothing beyond a few urban theme parks. Even the seeming bright spots, such as Lebanon, aren't true democracies. The Lebanese voted for clans, tribes and faiths, not for policies and programs. The Gulf emirates are mere playgrounds for Saudi debauchees and face the rise of a nuclear Iran. In Saudi Arabia, religious hatred has long surpassed oil as the number one export. Surely, if Arab societies were capable of producing and sustaining democracies, we would see at least one. Where are the massive rallies in favor of tolerance, that indispensable lubricant of democracy? Where are the militias fighting for constitutional government? Where are the insurgencies demanding female enfranchisement? It would be racist to claim that Arabs are genetically inferior. It is simply the truth to admit that Arab societies are volatile disasters. Arab terrorism isn't about redressing wrongs. It's about revenge on a successful civilization that left the dungeon-cultures of the Middle East in the dust. We've done what we could in Iraq, and we've done it nobly. We should not withdraw our troops precipitously, but the clock is ticking. It's now up to the Iraqis to succeed - or become yet another pathetic Arab failure. If Iraqis are unwilling to grasp the opportunity our soldiers and Marines bought them with American blood, it's their tragedy, not ours. We did the right thing by deposing Saddam Hussein. The Arab Middle East needed one last chance. Iraq is it. If Iraqi democracy fails, there will be no hope, whatsoever, for the Arab world. Ralph Peters' latest book is "Never Quit the Fight." |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #23 tw, I tip my hat and give yet another vote of confidence to you. Your tea parties are to die for. Maybe, just maybe, we could send you to Iraq to "settle" things? I forsee great tea parties there (at least, after all the dust settles). I, myself, keep bouncing back and forth between Iraq as a nation and the proposal to split it in 3. I don't think Americans can take much more of this war, and like Dave D., it should (if they thought about it, but that's the whole cause/effect thingy) signal to the Arabs that next time, we're just breakin' stuff and leavin'. I personally don't want to see any more suffering for the "average Iraqi" (who's probably just trying to make do...remember the so-called insurgents are all either ex-Saddamites or Furriners), but this has gotta stop and I now think, if we do leave soon, we need to split it in 3. Everyone here knows how quickly the Kurds moved on w/ life, why can't the Sunnis/Shias? |
| Posted by: BA 2006-08-24 23:16 |
| #22 Y'all are darlings -- and truly I couldn't synthesize if you hadn't given me such good and useful information to synthesize from. rjschwarz, I would ever so much rather you were right than I, and your argument makes sense. I'll just think of the, what? ten million Hindus and Muslims who died on the road trading India for Pakistan in both directions, and try to remember to be glad that only some of each died, and not all of one or the other. john has mentioned the number several times, and posted pictures the other day that tore my heart at the vicious stupidity the Muslims there/then insisted on setting in motion, just as too many Muslims here/now are doing, but the actual numbers escape me, I'm afraid. remoteman, I'm sure you'll look just right. Congratulations to the groom and best wishes to the bride -- may their joy in one another grow with their years together! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-08-24 21:57 |
| #21 tw: you may be petite - but you can cut anyone down to size! all good comments here. Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. It is theirs to lose or win. I wish them well. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-08-24 21:27 |
| #20 that's just the opinion of a little Midwestern housewife #snort# A VERY SMART little Midwestern housewife, you mean. Make this a third vote of confidence. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-08-24 20:49 |
| #19 Guess Peters had enough of cultural relativism. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-08-24 20:41 |
| #18 Trailing Wife, I disagree with the 50% fewer ethnic groups. The Croats and the Serbs fought tooth and nail until they managed to move so that they no longer shared ethnically mixed neighborhoods and had some defensible borders to guard. A similar thing will happen. Sunni and Kurds will flee Baghdad for example and head to their own areas. It might look like the Indian partitian at times, but when the dust settles things will be quieter as the world deals far better with nation on nation violencce than it does with internal slaughter. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-08-24 20:05 |
| #17 Another vote of confidence here for trailing wife. The grace with which she dispenses the ocassional troll is something to be admired. Now on to the money quotes: A culture of blame prevents moral, social and political progress. This is a self-help universe. The nonsensical Arab insistence that all Arab problems are the fault of America and Israel (or the Crusades) ignores the fact that Arab civilization has been in decline for 700 years - and has been in utter disarray for the last 200. This is a homemade failure. Through their own choices, cherished beliefs, values and norms, Arabs have condemned themselves to strategic incompetence. No society that oppresses women, denies advancement on merit even to men, indulges in fantastic hypocrisy, wallows in corruption, undervalues secular learning, reduces its god to a nasty disciplinarian and comforts itself with conspiracy theories will ever compete with us. The question has been asked before: Despite the massive influx of petrodollars over a half-century, where are the great Arab universities, the research institutes, the cutting-edge industries, the efficient, humane governments, the enlightened societies? The Arab world has behaved as irresponsibly as a drunk who won the lottery, squandering vast wealth and creating nothing beyond a few urban theme parks. Considering that, petroleum exports excluded, America imports more manufactured goods from HongKong than all of the Arab Middle East combined, what further indicator is needed of just how irresponsibly the Arab governments handled their massive wealth? As noted by Dave D.: I doubt any future American President, after seeing the grief George Bush has taken, is going to undertake another "nation building" exercise like this one in response to any future terrorist attack on American soil. I, too, agree that the era of nation building is over. Iraq epitomizes the near-impossibility of laminating the democratic process onto an essentially tribal society. America owes it to itself to adopt a new military doctrine of simply "breaking things". Whenever any bad boys pop up on radar, we go in and break their toys. No rebuilding, no Marshall plan, no foreign aid, just the stark guarantee that if another hostile regime arises, it's time to rinse and repeat. This policy needs to be unveiled with Iran. They are the pluperfect example of why such a revision is necessary. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-24 19:32 |
| #16 don't listen to her lies - she's a trained killer (all wives are) :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-24 19:14 |
| #15 TW, you left something out; in addition to housewifery and tea parties, you've taken on a public service. Your secondary retirement occupation of systematically, almost surgically dismembering trolls here at RB has been a great benefit to the readership. It's truly been a joy to behold and is very much appreciated (except, I'm sure, by the trolls). Your work on NAH, by the way, was absolutely classic; I suspect he now shudders every time he even sees a keyboard. Thanks! |
| Posted by: mac 2006-08-24 18:49 |
| #14 TW, I think you are one of the most eloquent posters here at RBU. I, for one, look for your comments. I would guess that I am not alone. BTW, I am coming to your fair city tomorrow for a weekend wedding. It should be a lovely affair. All the right clubs, addresses, etc. My mom grew up there. After living overseas for my early years we moved to Indianapolis, a city that was at the time far less urbane than Cincinnati. We would have to travel the 2 hours to Cincinatti to get a proper young man's suit. No Brooks Brothers in Indianoplace at that point. If you're out on the town Friday night, I'll be the one weaving in pink pants and blazer. Pardon in advance if I offend. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2006-08-24 18:29 |
| #13 Peters links the less-than-stellar performance of the Iraqis so far, and the notion that this is the Arab world's (I prefer "Muslim world's", but whatever) "last hope." I don't think the two are linked any more. Whether Iraq turns out well or not-- or just kind of half-assed, as I expect-- I doubt any future American President, after seeing the grief George Bush has taken, is going to undertake another "nation building" exercise like this one in response to any future terrorist attack on American soil. What he would do is anybody's guess; but he's not going to do this again. And in that sense, Iraq most certainly is the Muslim world's last hope. No more training wheels or water wings. Next time, it's going to be sink or swim-- at best. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-08-24 18:18 |
| #12 rjschwarz, after the dust settles there will be approximately 50% fewer ethnic groups, however. 2b, I am almost -- almost! -- 5' tall (that's 152cm for those outside our borders), I live in the outer suburbs of Cincinnati, Ohio, and I retired seventeen years ago (y'know, this is the first time I calculated how long it'd been -- I'm shocked!) to the joys of housewifery, mothering and tea/dinner parties. Before that I held a variety of jobs while trying to figure out what I was meant to do, the highest paid of which was as a research lab technician. I think I've described myself honestly -- I haven't anything like the credentials of a good many posters here, not to mention our illustrious lurkers (*waves to the silently serious men and women in their exceedlingly serious suits who check on our progress from time to time*). That I can synthesize from what y'all have been saying is a credit to those from whom I've learnt. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-08-24 17:47 |
| #11 The problem isn't Arabs but Islam. Islam CANNOT accomodate democracy: it tells that women are inferior to men, dhimmis to free men and that slavery is legitimate. And this is not the teachings of a Church but in the Koran itself, taht taht Koran who was NOT created but existed along God himself of all eternity and CANNOT be changed. A;lso while neither Christ or the apostles held positions of power Muhammad ruled and he didn't rule as a democratic ruler but as your basic dictator. There aare also questions like free speech (not tolerated by Muhammad) or freedom of religion including apostasy. So Islam and democracy cannot mix (even if some non-practicing Muslims can be pro-democracy). Compounded to that is that unlike say, Turks, Arabs have remained tribal so they vote for what the leader of the tribe says while democracy implies that you vote as individuals and also that you care about the ideas of the candidate not about where it comes from. So Irak has elections and perhaps freedom but it is still faaaar from democracy. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-08-24 17:39 |
| #10 Is Peters suggesting that failure will lead to total destruction of the Arab world as in a modern-day irradiated version of Carthage? Actually I think he is suggesting that if Iraq splits apart into ethnic parts other nations might follow suit (possibly in Africa as well). Since the third world is filled with borders cutting through ethnic groups it could get messy. On the other hand I think the world would be far more peaceful when the dust settled. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-08-24 17:09 |
| #9 well said, TW. I have repesct for Ralph - but he should be very embarrassed that "a little Midwestern housewife" (oh - we know better ;-)should be able to see and express it so more clearly than he. But that's what the internet is really all about, isn't it? Ralph would be wise to acknowledge your point and move forward. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-08-24 16:35 |
| #8 Your second paragraph nails it TW. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2006-08-24 16:29 |
| #7 Sorry, I've no idea how the meaninless phrase at the bottom of that last post got there. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-08-24 16:05 |
| #6 Is Peters suggesting that failure will lead to total destruction of the Arab world as in a modern-day irradiated version of Carthage? Suggesting? No. Implying, for those with eyes to see? Absolutely. I think Mr. Peters was on some talk show or other a few days ago (Charles whatsisname on PBS, perhaps, or on NPR?). As I flipped past I caught him (or some other name I'm familiar with as being reasonably knowledgeable on the subject-- I'm sorry to be so vague, but I really wasn't paying attention, and my memory has been a bit porous) saying that we are forced to the conclusion that Iraq is a total failure and we should simply present the Iraqis with a shape up or we ship out ultimatum, and see which they choose. While this feels written in white heat, and while I respect much of what he says, he misses a key point as he talks about the invasion of Iraq: we did not invade just to set up the first Arab democracy. We went in there to depose Saddam Hussein, thus ending what was the most vicious of the Muslim despotisms, the strongest supporter of Arab terror groups warring against Israel and the West (remember the US$10,000 - 25,000 checks to the families of successful Palestinian suicide bombers, the terrorist training center at Salman Pak and elsewhere, the free housing for Palestinian and other terrorists seeking sanctuary [was it Abu Nidal who committed suicide just before the invasion by double tapping himself in the back of the head?], the research and development of WMD technologies, and the meetings with Al Qaeda representatives requesting portable WMDs for their group's use?), the wannabe hegemonist who warred for a decade against Iran, then turned around and conquered Kuwait as prelude to Saudi Arabia and a stranglehold on the world's oil production. And of course to obtain bases for our military in the center of the Arab world to facilitate the active phase of our definitive response to the Muslim World's attack on the U.S. on 9/11/01. And, of course, to end the eleven-year drain on our resources, and well of corruption of the corruptible around the world, that was the UN Oil for Food program. Setting up a test to see if Arabs can create a functioning, stable democracy is only the frosting on a very large cake. Or course, that's just the opinion of a little Midwestern housewife, so the reader will know best how to weight what I've just written. Testing the ability of an Arab |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-08-24 16:04 |
| #5 Nobody said Arabs can't build democracies. WE said Muslims cannot build democracies. Get it right, will ya ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-08-24 15:24 |
| #4 I once argued that it was stupid not to break them into three countries. Now I think that the fact that they have competing interests and power structures provides their best chance for becoming a funtioning Republic. Peters makes some valid points here - but he's falling into that trap of declaring that somehow - despite all historical precident to the contrary - that Iraq should just magically turn itself into a democracy overnight. Poof! Democracy, children playing, kites and ponies for all. The best example of showing why George Bush's plan for democracy is the best plan we've had to date is, IMHO, the Palestinians. They voted for Hezbollah - they got what they asked for - a chance to wipe Israel off the map. It's really not working out so well for them. Better luck in the next election. Maybe they will be wiser then. Unless Ralph is brilliant and has a better way - we really don't have a better idea than representative government. They are 700 years behind - it might take them awhile. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-08-24 14:06 |
| #3 Hey even the USA had civil war, let them have thiers and pick up what is left after they are tired of it. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-08-24 13:49 |
| #2 And which Republic are the French on now? Democracy is not easy. Recall Germany's first attempt. I don't personally believe that any Arabic country is prepared for democratic elections of stable governments, but that's not to say they never will be. They've got to start somewhere. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2006-08-24 13:38 |
| #1 "We did the right thing by deposing Saddam Hussein. The Arab Middle East needed one last chance. Iraq is it. If Iraqi democracy fails, there will be no hope, whatsoever, for the Arab world." Is Peters suggesting that failure will lead to total destruction of the Arab world as in a modern-day irradiated version of Carthage? With nuclear ambitions spreading in Pakistan and Iran - two non-Arabic Muslim countries, it is only a matter of time before the Saudis purchase a nuke or two. What then? Sunni versus Shiite? |
| Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-08-24 13:20 |