So says a young man in Yemen, which is now moved and emboldened to massive protests.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority calls for “free and fair” elections and Algerians are engaging in large-scale protests against their government.
And tomorrow is the big day in Iran—the opposition movement says it will move forward with protests even though the government has told people to stay out of the streets.
The young Yemeni is right: Every head of state in north Africa and the Arabian peninsula is probably sweating right now. But here’s a question (and I’m not kidding): Can the neocons claim some credit for this?
Bush and his Straussian advisers (Wolfowitz and the boys) invaded Iraq claiming they wanted to democratize the entire Arab world. Leftists all over the globe called them imperialists, frauds, liars, oil-lusting adventurists, etc., etc.
But would this “revolution across the whole Arab world” be happening if Saddam Hussein were still in power? Will historians look back on the Iraq war as the beginning (a bloody, expensive, extraordinarily problematic beginning) of a democratization movement?
Were the Straussians right all along?
UPDATE
Judging by some of the comments (like: “in order for the neocon argument to hold up, you would have to witness some mention among the protesters of Iraq as a model”), I should probably elaborate.
The neocon argument for invading Iraq, as I understood it, was that:
a) the yearning for liberty and democracy is a human universal. (To which the cultural-studies professors, identity-politics fetishists, postmoderns, and other professional relativists say: “How could you be so Eurocentric, so racist, as to suggest that yearning for liberty and democracy, in the ancient Greek model, is a human universal?” But leave them to their lives of quiet ideological desperation. Those people have always produced way more words than ideas, and will always—like evangelical Christians—be lost in a thicket of principles that are based on aesthetics and wishes instead of solid ground.)
and b) if you show people a little bit of liberty and democracy, they will respond. The neocons’ whole fixation with Iraq was about democratizing the Arab world. The WMD stuff, favored by Republicans and the American right, was a convenient (and murderous and treacherous) political lie. The oil-lust argument, favored by the American left, is weak (given how the U.S. has dealt with Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other oil-rich nations).
What Wolfowitz and the boys wanted from an Iraqi invasion was democratization—the Domino Theory in reverse (instead of nations falling to communism, nations falling to democracy).
And were they right all along? The bravery and long, long sacrifice of opposition leaders and citizens is what’s moving this train of “revolution across the whole Arab world.” Obviously. If it weren’t for the blood and guts of people who are going out into the streets and saying there is some shit I will not eat, none of this would be happening.
But… this is what the neocons predicted. We clear out the most egregious dictator in the Arab world, give the Iraqi people some elections, which gives that region a taste of democracy, and the rest of the dictators will fall. Whatever their detractors say, the genuine Straussian neocons were always on a moral mission to help nations find their way towards liberty and democracy. (The left hates them because they stand for universal moral principles and a political theory that is anti-communist in the extreme: two concepts that drive the cultural studies professors, professional relativists, etc., etc. bananas.)
And were they right? Was the Great Satan (the Straussians who were whispering in GWB’s ear all along) correct?
That’s my question.
b) Correlation / causation error.
a) Academic caricature error. There are plenty of cultural studiers who believe in universal human rights, just as there are plenty of people who can and will reach for those rights without needing an assist from so-called Straussians.
@52: Palin is not a talking head; she’s a talking body. Republican heads are obsolete. However, she will be our next President.
And yes, Hamas was democratically elected. W was reported to be shocked that that happened. No one else was.
No, the invasion of Iraq did nothing to advance democracy in Tunisia, Egypt or anywhere else. Far, far more credit is due to communications systems that the local authoritarian governments failed to adequately control (Al Jazeera, mobile phones, the Internet, etc.)
BUT…
One argument the neocons got right is that Muslims of all ethnic stripes (North African, Arab, Persian, whatever), like anyone else, would rather live under a stable, free, minimally corrupt government with individual liberties and rule of law.
The big split has been on the right between the racist wing that just hates A-rabs because they’re muslin and are all collectively responsible for 9-11, and the neocons, whose strategy for exporting American values frankly sucks donkey balls, but whose general aims (liberal democracy for everyone) are pretty good.
So points for having their heart in the right place.
I suspect this “revolution across the whole Arab world” is far less inspired by America’s ability to topple a despised regime than by her inability, despite enormous expenditure, to prop one up.
Since when do Straussians believe in democracy?
All positive developments in Egypt are entirely coincidental to any Neocon endeavors in Iraq.
Of course, that won’t stop them from taking credit. Remember, in politics, the good stuff is because of you; the bad stuff is because of the villains you were elected to replace.
I think the only reasonable answer to the question Brendan poses is “maybe”. To unconditionally reject or support is ridiculous, since there are so many variables and no one (even the actual participants) can possibly know and understand every contributing factor. And we’ll never know, really, because there is no “control group” of a world without an Iraq war. But questions like these are good and smart to ask. It behooves us to examine every possible idea that could have contributed (even in a wrong-headed way) to a better world. Just as we should keep an open mind, as the Egypt situation develops, about whether what is occurring is necessarily “better”. Right now, “the military is in charge”. There are so many ways that this could still go wrong.
I don’t know if the neo-cons are that crafty and forward-thinking to have a plan of exporting inflation, raising commodities and food prices so high enough people can’t afford them and thereby revolt, as a way of “delivering freedom and liberty.”
They have been playing Political God with the Middle East for decades. If the unlawful war of aggression against Iraq triggered these revolutions, it was an accident. Viva la Revolution!
“The oil-lust argument, favored by the American left, is weak (given how the U.S. has dealt with Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other oil-rich nations).”
I disagree. We deal with the Saudis and other OPEC nations because we have to — it’s their oil and they can collude on supply and price targets. I believe our motive was to get our hand on the Iraqi spigot so that we could control the supply as a hedge against OPEC, thus stabilizing the price.
I think it’s unfair to give them credit for achieving what was merely a cover story of why we went to war in Iraq. I’d sooner give credit to the founders of Facebook and Twitter.
Iran is not Arab.
@64 Thank you.
But also, in general, we have a very short-sighted view of history. To think that Iraq created a shockwave that finally rippled through to other Arab nations (how many years later? Seven?) as though all these significantly more organized nations were looking to Iraq with hopeful eyes–and seeing what a FANTASTIC job we did over there–and realized they could finally have a chance at that same dream is shallow at best, and racist at worst. Egypt had been struggling against Mubarak for nearly 30 years. Imagine if today we still had Reagan for a president. 30 years of rigged elections and human rights violations. Do you think our inevitable overthrow of such a dictatorship should be credited to another country?
Thought patterns like this are deeply troubling for many reasons. One: it reveals how little Americans know about world history/current events–even or especially those who run our government. I was in North Africa a few years ago. There were protests happening nearly every day–swarming the streets, shouting in front of the Parliament building. And it wasn’t one of the countries that’s in massive upheaval right now. I can only imagine what Tunisia was like. Just because this happened some time after our invasion of Iraq hardly makes it a consequence of such an event. It’s a consequence of years of built-up dissatisfaction.
Two: it removes the victory from the hands of the people. Why can’t we just applaud them? Why do we have to take the credit? We didn’t lift a fucking finger. We sat back and waited to see if we should change our ambassador. Which is what we needed to do (and for once we did it). But we didn’t lose sons or daughters or friends, we weren’t the ones facing an uncertain future as tanks began to roll in, we didn’t suffer the beatings of thugs, we didn’t risk imprisonment or pain or death as we shouted and rioted for days and nights while our lives were placed on hold in favor of a greater cause. We watched it happen on our couches. We went to work. We checked the news when we got home. We knew our children were safe. We slept in our beds at night. Give them this victory. It’s their nation–they’ve earned it.
Three: it removes their humanity. Do we think we’re the only ones capable of figuring out that living under a dictatorship sucks? Do we think these people believed rigged elections and suppression of free speech were super-awesome-fun-time until we invaded Iraq? They’re not a bunch of mindless savages, grunting and cheering when the superior race rolls in to make their life easier. They’re humans–independent, thoughtful, powerful, dignified–capable of suffering, of joy, of taking action, of creating justice, of accepting responsibility, of being wrong, of being right. Why does this even need to be said?
Bunch of halfwits, let the middle easterners worry about their Allah loving desert piss stain countries. The Moslem world only flourished when western europe and east asia were going through dark ages. Fuck them and their backwards culture. We need to stop supporting the fascist prick dictators we prop up.