The Arabs already call it "the democratic show", and don't quite know how to deal with it. Some hope it will just go away while others are suspending judgement until they see more. Still others hope to bury it under an avalanche of cynical jokes. We are, of course, talking about President George W. Bush's plan for the democratisation of the Middle East and North Africa. Bush first launched the idea in a speech in Washington in 2002. Last June he presented a more structured plan at the G-8 summit in Sea Island, Georgia. Next month the plan will be discussed at a joint meeting of G-8 foreign and finance ministers with their Arab counterparts at a conference in Rabat, the Moroccan capital.
This has been an interesting process. When it was first brought up, Bush — and usually Blair — were the only ones taking it seriously. It's been Bush's "stubborness" that hasn't let the idea evaporate...
Cowboy up, baby.
According to the meeting's agenda, the aim is to examine ways of "consolidating the commitment of Middle East and North Africa to fruitful co-development and the harmonious strengthening of the process of political, economic ad social reform." Ooops! This is, of course, diplomatic code language. What the president means is more straightforward: the Middle East and North Africa region is virtually the only part of the world still out of the mainstream of democratisation we have witnessed since the end of the Cold War.
I think of it as a stagnant swamp of backwardness...
Posted by: Fred ||
11/18/2004 10:38:35 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Again, it is the only part of the world where international terrorism still enjoys not only a popular base, but also quite a bit of sympathy and support from the ruling elites. Bush thinks those two facts are inter-connected and that democratisation should be regarded as an integral part of his "war on terror". It's the only logical solution.
Actually, there is another "logical" solution, but it involves nukes.
Some of these countries do have internal mechanisms for reform and change mechanisms that could be strengthened through diplomatic, political, cultural and economic aid from the United States and its genuine allies.
#2
"It would be a damned sight easier if we had a Europe united with us in this vision. Alas, the elites of Europe are no more committed to democracy than some of the mullahs and imams in Iran"
Blair is with us, and if we can show that we're serious about this, he can bring much of the Labour party along. Chirac is hostile, though Sarkozy might be a tad less hostile. The rest of Europe is up for grabs.
EFL
The recapture of Fallujah has not broken the insurgents' will to fight and may not pay the big dividend U.S. planners had hoped — to improve security enough to hold national elections in Sunni Muslim areas of central Iraq, according to U.S. and Iraqi assessments. Instead, the battle for control of the Sunni city 40 miles west of Baghdad has sharpened divisions among Iraq's major ethnic and religious groups, fueled anti-American sentiment and stoked the 18-month-old Sunni insurgency. OK, I get it. The "insurgency" was less energetic while Fallujah remained a sanctuary, anti-American sentiment was on the wane, and Iraq's ethnic and religious groups were happy, trusted each other, and were working together seamlessly. The conquest of Fallujah also failed to cure cancer or end poverty in Haiti, according to reports.
Those grim assessments, expressed privately by some U.S. military officials and by some private experts on Iraq, raise doubts as to whether the January election will produce a government with sufficient legitimacy, especially in the eyes of the country's powerful Sunni Muslim minority. (jaw drops) Hmmm, "sufficient legitimacy". Would that be the sort of "sufficient legitimacy" to garner UN recognition -- say, like the regimes in North Korea and Cuba have? Oh, that's right, "sufficient legitimacy" in the eyes of "the country's powerful Sunni Muslim minority." Wait -- I believe there was an invasion, and the "powerful Sunni Muslim minority" had its ass removed from power, which it had used to commit genocide, perform medieval acts of repression and depravity, and steal the country blind. But these folks have a point -- I mean, if the elections lack "sufficient legitimacy" among Sunnis, there's no telling what they might do. They might even engage in armed rebellion or -- oh, wait ...
Even before the battle for Fallujah began Nov. 8, U.S. planners understood that capturing the city, where U.S. troops are still fighting pockets of resistance, was only the first step in building enough security to allow the election to take place in the volatile Sunni areas north and west of Baghdad. So the premise of the article is false? Thanks for self-fisking, you idiots. Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Verlaine ||
11/18/2004 10:15:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Article: "You need at least 70 percent of the voters to take place to accord legitimacy to the next government. If not, it will fuel the insurgency and give it a new political dimension," said Khalil, who served for nearly a year with the U.S.-led occupation authorities in Iraq.
You have to realize that this guy works for the Brookings Institution, which is the liberal think tank typically identified as "moderate" by the media. These guys think there is no such thing as victory, except when it is attained by America's enemies.
#2
Note also that elections during the Civil War were not held in the Confederate States, and it was three years before the Confederate States were re-admitted into the Union. If the Sunni provinces don't want to vote, a vote can be held without them.
That's why I don't pay any attention to "analysis" of this kind. It only serves to paint any kind of advance or success as defeat of some kind, or having resulted in setting the stage for defeat somewhere down the line.
#4
.Note also that elections during the Civil War were not held in the Confederate States, and it was three years before the Confederate States were re-admitted into the Union
yeah, but ISTR that we used a helluva lot more than 140,000 troops at the time.
#5
On the brighter side the investment of Fallujah resulted in 1,000+ terrorists dead, another 1,000+ captured, and a population that is probably unwilling to allow terrorists back into their city because of all of the destruction.
#6
I don't have a journalism degree, but I have a hard time getting my head around the idea that wiping out a sizable portion of the enemy force actually helps the enemy.
"The US Navy has sunk four Japanese carriers at Midway, in one of the most crushing sea battles of all time, but the US has little to show for its victory, which is sure to drive many Asians into the arms of the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."
Posted by: Matt ||
11/18/2004 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Good fisking . Verlaine. But such an easy target.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/18/2004 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Article By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer
This is what you get when enemy propagandists become our journalists. Why wouldn't Sunni Arabs try to defeat us in the press when we hand them such golden opportunities. Can you imagine what would have been homefront reaction if the Germans wrote much of the newspaper copy in WW2? One of the problems of Vietnam was that the local staff of the American newspaper, magazine, and TV offices were infiltrated with NVA agents. For instance, the senior Vietnamese employee of Time's Saigon office was a colonel in the NVA secret police and continuously fed Time false stories and propaganda. Now the Arabs don't even need to infiltrate. They can write the copy themselves and pass it off as God's honest truth. America needs to distinguish who are friends and enemies and take action, one of which is don't let the enemy feed us the news.
PS. Just where the American journalists? Is Coward-101 taught in J-school? Even a lot of the embedded reporting is done by English and Aussie journos and most of the released photos and videos were taken by military combat photographers.
Posted by: ed ||
11/18/2004 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#9
IF we had killed thousands of civilians in Fallujah, that MIGHT have helped the insurgency. The material in the above article, and in a Marine assesment leaked to the NYT, seems to reflect uncertainties from before the assault. As it turns out we've killed few civilians, against 1200 insurgents, and maybe 1000 detained, lots of arms destroyed, and according to Sattler some valuable records found. Looks like a win to me.
#10
Matt, excellent point. I often use similar WWII analogies, as do writers like Victor Hanson and others.
Mrs. D, thanks, and yes I realize fisking the average journalistic product on Iraq is "girls' gym," to use a vintage un-PC expression. But about once every few weeks the anger and annoyance at this crap drive me to desperation, and I have to do something like this.
#12
Matt--Great analogy! You could also do the same with Doolittle's raid, which accomplished practically nil militarily, but was a huge propaganda victory and morale boost for our battered troops.
Posted by: Dar ||
11/18/2004 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Note also that elections during the Civil War were not held in the Confederate States, and it was three years before the Confederate States were re-admitted into the Union. If the Sunni provinces don't want to vote, a vote can be held without them.
No better signal to the sunni fence-sitters in the bad regions than to hold the elections on schedule regardless of the security situation. Message: you bomb, you lose.
If you don't help fix the security situation in your district, you don't get a stake in the government. And the Shi'a and the Kurds will dominate the government.
#14
Old MSM Memes: Fallujah = Stalingrad. Oops, battle's over and US won. OK, let's try Fallujah = My Lai? Don't think so; try again. OK, would you believe... Iraqi Elections Won't Happen On Time? Actually, I do believe they will happen on time.
Next Big MSM Meme: Iraqi elections Are Illegitimate.
Which will have about as much success as that other discredited MSM Meme: Afghan Elections Are Illegitimate (Ink Rubbed Off! Ain't no Ink, Elections Stink!)
#16
Our friend and countryman Edward Wong gives us the following article in today's NYT: "Showing Their Resolve, Rebels Mount Attacks in Northern and Central Iraq." The rest of the article is "the Marines did this BUT..."
The article ends with the statement that a Marine spokesman "did not return an e-mail request seeking comment." Gee, Ed, maybe the Marine hasn't had time to check his emails, what with him being in the middle of a war and all; or maybe the Marine would prefer to deliver his response to you in person. Whatever you do, don't play possum.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/18/2004 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I miss the good ole days of "legitimate" elections in Iraq. 95%+ of the population voted...and after studying the issues and robust slate of candidates chose: SADDAM! By over 99%. The U.N. fucking LOVED those elections!!
#18
Beautiful Fisking, Verlaine. This meme will surely be picked up on Rose, Nightline, and Sunday morning shows. I agree that those who don't want to participate in elections don't have to. Life will go on without you. so of course the Sunni Triangle will eventually become part of the solution, but at their pace. No problem. Just don't complain as terrorists are rolled up.
A general observation since the elction. I thought MSM might go on vacation for at least a month and seek counseling. But the "next crisis" never ceases. I've got news. The election is over and Bush is going to do what he needs to do. In spite of EJ Dionne, MoDo, and Peter Jennings, whom, BTW, I heard on the radio defending Clinton's position that he was unfairly targeted by the Right during Oralgate.
A new day has dawned. We don't bitch and moan. We have perspective. Just like in the case of the Marine in mosque. God help him and his colleagues. Left/MSM screaming over Margaret Hassan? You can hear a pin drop.
Posted by: chicago mike ||
11/18/2004 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
#19
the Brookings Institution, which is the liberal think tank typically identified as "moderate" by the media.
Coincidentally, it's the only thinktank reporters have in their collective Rolodex(TM). It may not be ideologically based... it could just be plain laziness.
#20
LH: yeah, but ISTR that we used a helluva lot more than 140,000 troops at the time.
Actually, the total occupation force was about the same, in a territory a few dozen times the size of Iraq. By war's end, Union troops had killed a few hundred thousand Confederate troops, or almost 5% of the Confederate population, something that hasn't been done in Iraq*. The other advantage back then was that Sherman had already burnt Atlanta, with the promise of more scorched earth tactics if that lesson did not take. These are things we're not doing in Iraq.
* An equivalent number for Iraq would be 1m Iraqi dead (males of fighting age).
#21
ah, we didnt beat them bad enough. Maybe we should have spotted them a Bobby Lee, eh? By the way, if the ex-Confeds were afarid of more Shermanesque tactics, why DID they carry on an insurgency(the KKK), which ended only with a POLITICAL settlement in 1876. Dont worry Ayatollah Sistani, Shiites WILL get majority rule in Iraq, you'll just have to wait 90 years is all.
Its not that im as pessimistic as the above, its just that the American Civil War hardly provides a basis for optimism.
#22
LH: By the way, if the ex-Confeds were afarid of more Shermanesque tactics, why DID they carry on an insurgency(the KKK), which ended only with a POLITICAL settlement in 1876.
The insurgency got killed off. It took a bit longer then, because Union troops did not have night vision sensors, precision bombs or UAV's, the territory covered was huge compared to Iraq, and most of all, Confederates were actually not afraid to die for their beliefs, unlike the vast majority of Muslims.
#23
The twits in the MSM that are prattling about the potential "illegitimacy" of the upcoming Iraqi elections are the same pricks that that have spent the last four years saying that the Bush presidency is illegitimate and the Gore really won. They are the same ones that are seeking counseling for their Post Election Selection Trauma because W won going away in 2004. Why should anyone pay any attention to anything these partisan anti-American LOSERS have to say.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/18/2004 10:00:26 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Looking more likely that Hassan's body was the mutilated female western corpse found in Fallujah.. I hope the Marines shoot every one of thos f*ckers - injured, captured whatever..
Posted by: Howard UK ||
11/18/2004 6:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The BBC is saying it's the fault of the US. Go read the have your say topic.
I think Zackawacky offed her issued, a call for her release and then, sent the video on it's way. It's his method of video right down to the orange jump suit.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
