If you've ever wondered why we continue to insist that the Saudi royal family is our "friend," you might want to read this Boston Globe article on how the Saudi and other Middle Eastern governments are aiding the United States.
We know a lot of these regimes are sitting on the fence, financing hateful propaganda and giving terrorist groups a wink and a nod, while giving us covert assistance at the exact same time. They're always looking out for #1, and still aren't sure which side will win in the long run.
Our most important move in the War on Terror is to show them, in no uncertain terms, that the West is serious, and not to be trifled with, and the horse to bet on in the long run. This is the #1 reason to go to Iraq, even though no one in the government can say it out loud.
The repercussions of not going to Iraq won't just be tragic for the Iraqi people. They'll virtually guarantee that Islamo-fascist terrorism will be a permanent part of life.
Dean,
I received a “Page Not Found” error message from you link.
You point to something interesting here. Arabs have always had difficulty dealing with the west since Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798. It even took western power, Great Britain to throw him out of Egypt. In short, Arabs have not adequately defended themselves for two hundred years. Bernard Lewis points this out in his most recent book “What Went Wrong?”
Arabs made the same ethnocentric mistake the Chinese did for centuries. They believed themselves to be superior in all manners to the west for millennia. This was true for a while. But this all changed with the industrial revolution. Western society surpassed the Moslem Arabic culture and never looked back.
Gutenberg printed the first Bible circa 1435-1450. The first printing press did not reach the Near East for another two hundred fifty years. Printing presses did not remain permanently in the Middle East until the first Arabic language newspaper appeared circa 1830.
Arabs also mistakenly compare their Middle Eastern culture to the west in religious terms. The west never makes this religious distinction. Therefore, losses suffered by Arabs are interpreted as insults on their nations AND their Islamic religion.
This complicates any relations between the western world and Arab nations accentuating the divide between the two worlds. Can Arab societies ever implement successful secular “democracies?” I do not know. Arabs are well educated enough to form successful working democratic governments. The question is will such a government last?
Thanks for the update on the link, Kevin. I fixed it, you can try again and it should work.
As for Arab democracies: Turkey is a democracy, and despite their problems remains one. Not that Turkey is entirely arabic, but it's a start.
There was a time when people believed that oriental cultures were incapable of democracy. Japan and Taiwan and other nations have proven that those beliefs were groundless. Some thought that Eastern European countries were not ready for democracy, too.
Dean,
You make a relevant point here. I do not doubt that Arabs are well educated enough to govern themselves. I wonder whether a “democracy” can actually last in any Arab state.
David Pryce-Jones points out in “The Closed Circle” that Arabs trend toward strongman rule. An Arabic leader usually achieves political primacy after conspiring against another Arabic leader. He then ruthlessly assassinates him. This makes the assassin, or his accomplices, the new “ruler” over other Arabs in any Arabic state. This how Saddam Hussein achieved his political ambitions. This is what happened to Anwar Sadat except that those conspirators did not assassinate Mubarak.
The tendency toward strongman rule can easily result in an assassinated Iraqi leader of a “democratic” state. If this happens, then it’s Millie bar the doors. The new dictator will probably call himself “President” even though he may never hold actual elections (as does Mubarak). Then what do we do?