I believe it is Bush’s (and the neocons) position that we can no longer safely leave the Arab Middle East sunk in its medieval stupor. Of course, they are smart enough to know that this is not fertile ground for Madisonian constitutional democracy, to say the least. Al Qaeda hoped to drive all Western influence from the region and take over governments, some of which have huge oil wealth. They had already taken over the Afghan government. Our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was to preclude that possibility, and in the case of Iraq, show local governments that they could not dabble in surreptitious terrorism or support of terrorism without risk of being removed from power. All this needed to be accomplished under cover of high idealism, hence the idiotic Wilsonian rhetoric. In fact, I believe this administration will be glad to put something in place and gradually withdraw without accomplishing the conversion of local savages into Jeffersons, Washingtons, Hamiltons, etc. Even if what is put in isn’t too impressive by our standards, the coming of modernism to the Middle East will ultimately devastate Islam, though it may take decades. The question is whether Bush is right that “leaving well enough alone” is in the aftermath of 9/11 no longer responsible. He may be right, even though the consequences of his present course of action are incalculable.

If one looks here :http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040428/D827I1N80.html at various Iraqis at the funerals of their terrorist relatives, one can see how childlike is their reaction and their personality. For how can one urge on family members to rise up against the U.S., the most powerful country in the world, and not expect the expected, viz. death. So here is another reason why democracy in Iraq is a non-starter: the incredible immaturity of the people.

I just see photos of people mourning at a funeral. I don’t see the incredible immaturity that Gracian sees.

Yes, Arabs weep at funerals, señor Gracián. So do Spaniards. Not everyone belongs to the Anglican Communion.

Mr. Auster plucks another gem from the past (Eric Vogelin’s writing in 1952) that I was not aware of. It really makes one think about just how “smart” our present course (“democratization of the Middle East”) is. However, I do not see it as “democratization” as much as a coming together of adversaries, something I thought I would never see.

So much is happening on the worldwide political scene, with bombings here and heads of state dashing around there (mostly to Washington), that I have to wonder if we and the world are not in a kind of “no man’s land”, a period of history between “the past” (which the Middle East seems to have been mired in), and “the future”, which may be brighter than anyone ever expected.

What Vogelin wrote in ‘52 and what Mr. Auster writes now may “seem” like what is happening. But very possibly, something ELSE is happening on the world stage. I call it, for lack of a better term, “monumental change”, but not democratization. This “historic” change began, I believe, when Al Qaida began bombing its supportive states, Saudi Arabia and now, Syria. It may even have begun further back, with the apparently unprecendented cooperation between intelligence services of so many countries—France, Germany, Spain, The Phillipines, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Italy, Portugal, Britain—in thwarting Al Qaida plots in their countries and in other countries. I still can’t believe there was so much “sharing” of info and cooperation between some very unfriendly countries.

More incredible was Khaddafy’s offer to offer to “trash” his nuclear and chemical and biological weapons program and open up his country to the West (I predict Gen. Khaddafy will be one day soon giving a speech on the House floor!). As incredible as that is, so is Al Qaida’s bombing in Syria, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, its home (I haven’t heard from Yemen lately, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they too were cooperating secretly with the U.S. and Coalition). With Syria now pledging to fight alongside the U.S. against terror (I’ll believe that when I see it), and with the Saudis evidently providing our jets their airfields and other support, I see this “monumental change” spreading to the point where only N. Korea will be left as a renegade state. Unfortunately, two major problems facing the world and Middle East do not directly involve Al Qaida—Iran’s nuclear program (which Israel is now threatening to attack) and N. Korea’s nuke program (which no one can seem to do much about). I wonder if this “monumental change” I see is really just a pipe dream.

Perhaps I am ignorant about G.W. Bush, but it’s hard to believe that he is engaging in a Wilsonian strategy to bring democracy to the Middle East. If he were concerned with democracy, why isn’t he pressuring the House of Saud to give up control of Arabia?

It remains a possibility that he is engaging in a pragmatic strategy to build up a U.S. military presence in the Middle East, which would keep the Chinese and Pakistanis away from the world’s largest oil supply. China is growing fast and they are getting thirsty for oil. It makes one wonder if this campaign is about democracy or about keeping our friendly Kleptocrats in place (read: Saudi Arabia) to keep selling us cheap fuel. Our biggest “friends” over there seem to be dictators, not democrats. (Just my 2 cents)

>With Syria now pledging to fight alongside the U.S. against terror (I’ll believe that when I see it),

Assad’s got a funny way of showing it.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/433BA912-50E1-4995-A232-C5146F90D623.htm

The headline of this piece is “Al-Asad: Iraqis are right to resist”. The subhead is “Syrian President Bashar al-Asad has backed armed resistance operations against the US occupation forces in Iraq”. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me that he’s doing it. What comes as a surprise is that he feels confident enough to talk about it on television.

I believe it was on another thread here that Lawrence Auster pointed out the mistake of treating the Iraq war like a local conflict instead of a regional conflict.

If Israel blows up the Iranian nuclear reactor, that would be extremely fortuitous.
It would save us a whole lot of trouble.
Of course, publicly Bush would probably have to express shock and dismay at Israel’s “unprovoked aggression,” but in private we could pat Sharon on the back.
In any case, it would be a win-win situation.