Arab Winter

New column from me:

"Just recently we have had the Lebanese revolution, the Egyptian announcement about electoral changes, the Iraqi elections, the Afghan elections," wrote Charles Krauthammer in the spring of 2005. "Kuwait has just extended suffrage to women, and Syria has announced, however disingenuously, that they are moving toward legalizing political parties, purging the ruling Baath Party, sponsoring free municipal elections in 2007, and formally endorsing a market economy." He concluded: "What we have seen in the last six months has been simply astonishing -- well, astonishing to the critics." . . .

"There is a pathology, a historical pathology," explained New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz, "that [Bush] has attacked with unprecedented vigor and with unprecedented success." That pathology was "the political culture of the Middle East, which the president may actually have changed."

And, indeed, things have changed. As Sabrina Tavernise reported in Monday's New York Times about the centerpiece of the U.S.-orchestrated Mid-East transformation, "after months of apparently random sectarian violence the pattern has become one of attack and counterattack, with Sunni militants staging what commanders call 'spectacular' strikes and Shiite militias retaliating with abductions and murders of Sunnis."

Welcome to the long, dark Arab winter.

So there.

Comments

You've written a remarkably good column here. Congrats.

Posted by BG | November 21, 2006 11:21 AM

Why do we think that in any way we can or should dicate the way in which 27 million Iraqis, let alone 70 million Iranians and more Syrians and Egyptians and Lebanese live?

Posted by Jennifer | November 21, 2006 11:22 AM

"Now, to be clear, Krauthammer is very possibly the worst journalist working in America today, a relentlessly pernicious force, never right about anything, who feels his commentary should not be shackled by the small-minded bonds of accuracy or logic."
Somebody needed to say it...

Posted by MattProgressiveMajority | November 21, 2006 11:27 AM

Dhimi-semite.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 21, 2006 11:53 AM

Very good column. I agree with almost everything you write, except this:

Palestinians were then informed that there would be no negotiations. Having been ordered to vote, you see, they voted for the wrong party.

Please remember it's a two-way street over there.

BBC, February 18, 2006: Hamas takes power vowing no talks.

If you run on a "no negotiations" (amongst other things like "no recognition," "continuation of armed resistance" to name but a few) platform, is it really fair to lament - for their sake - the fact that they took the exact stance they said they would, even if it's against your wishes for them?

I mean, Hamas informed everyone that there would be no negotiations as well. Two-way street.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 21, 2006 12:04 PM

Israel and India can't break the Non-Proliferation Treaty because they never signed on to it. I suggest in place of that sentence "violating the NPT is worth going to war over when Iran wants to do it but not when North Korea does."

Posted by neil | November 21, 2006 12:43 PM

Don't forget Poland -- I mean Libya!

Posted by Bill | November 21, 2006 1:28 PM

Boy Matt...
You have been on fire lately. Something is happening here. It seems like a new generation of pundits/analyst are coming on scene that speaks & writes clearly & plainly about issues based on facts as they exist without obfuscation. Opposite of what one see constantly among the MSM pundits who never seem to say what they mean & will go out of their way not to confront the facts in front of their face. TNR is one of the more eggregous practioners of the genre. So far this fresh insight is more prevalent on the left. I hope your rightwing collegues will join in this effort. In any event, please keep up the good work.

Posted by anonymous | November 21, 2006 2:12 PM

We need to operate through legitimate mechanisms, establish rules of the road that we and our allies will actually follow and, most of all, operate with a sensitivity to the actual desires and priorities of people who live in the region.

This is a path that whose destination is Israel surrounded by democratic regimes that have high legitimacy but do not prioritize Israel maintaining its Jewish character the way the US does.

To translate "prioritize Israel maintaining its Jewish character" into a real example, any of the neighbors, if it was a democracy, would be actively working to smuggle arms and resources to Hamas, and working to give Hamas the capability to repel Israeli invasions the way Hezbollah did in both Gaza and the West Bank.

That would be really, really bad for Israel. All of Israel would quickly come into range of Palestinian rockets which they could launch without worrying about Israeli intrusions. This would be really good for the Palestinians because they could negotiate the amount and method of repatriation of the refugees from a position of nearly towering strength.

It is at least arguable that Israel could not survive a generation as a Jewish state if the West becomes sensitive to the desires and priorities of people in the region.

Either you utterly disregard and actively fight against the desires and priorities of people who live in the region -- which the West is doing now to mediocre results at the moment -- or you are sensitive to those desires and priorities -- which results in substantial risk to Zionism as a political movement.

When you are far enough along the path to call for sensitivity to the regions priorities and desires, both opponents and supporters of Zionism begin to have a right to ask how far along that path are you.

If you were to say you believe in sensitivity only up to the point where the people of the region desire or prioritize what they consider justice for the Palestinians and refugees then you are not that far from Bush. But if you say that at least it will be clear exactly where you are.

Posted by arnold evans | November 21, 2006 3:02 PM

”We need to … operate with a sensitivity to the actual desires and priorities of people who live in the region.”

This is the crucial part. What, precisely, do you mean? It’s easy to say you’re against forced democratization and warfare in the region, that of course they had no chance of succeeding, but tell us: what, precisely, are you for? And why would it not founder on the savage hatred, paranoia and bigotry (the “desires and priorities”) of the people of the middle east?

As far as I’m concerned, the middle east is a giant rat hole, and will remain so for many decades to come. Every policy that has been tried in my lifetime has failed. So tell us, how would your “sensitivity” get the job done?

Posted by ostap | November 21, 2006 4:44 PM

To ostap:

Perhaps "[e]very policy that has been tried in [your] lifetime has failed" because the policies tried in your lifetime were policies predicated on defending the interests of outside, Western forces (e.g. cheap and easy access to oil; Israel right or wrong policies, etc.) instead of seeking to fulfill the interests of the people who live in the region.

Listening to what it is that people in the region want for themselves and for their futures and fostering those interests may yield different results.

One thing is clear, no people will respond positively to those that denigrate their home regions as "giant rat holes" and then write them off presumptively.

Posted by Anti-ostap | November 21, 2006 5:13 PM

Ostap's unwillingness to acknowledge the transformative powers of the share circle mark him as a warmonger...er.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 21, 2006 5:24 PM

We need to operate through legitimate mechanisms, establish rules of the road that we and our allies will actually follow and, most of all, operate with a sensitivity to the actual desires and priorities of people who live in the region. (Matt)

Agreed. But for any of that to happen, the DC elite has to stop conducting secret foreign policy. They hide everything they do, and all their reasons, because they know the voters won't support wars that benefit no one except oil CEOs and ultra-religious or ultra-nationalist zealots.

"It is far better if the deliberations of a free state are known to its enemies than if the plots of a tyranny are hidden from its citizens." - Spinoza

Posted by Gary Sugar | November 22, 2006 10:25 AM

Just want to say congrats. That article is fantastic.

Posted by Nordy | November 22, 2006 1:12 PM