Author Topic: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?  (Read 15031 times)

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« on: February 19, 2011, 01:28:04 AM »
They told us that trying to foster democracy in the Middle East was a hopeless cause. But now many of "them" are calling the Egyptian unrest "democracy." And it's spreading.

What do you think?
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2011, 01:44:47 AM »
I've been thinking ever since the protests in Iran that the creation of a representative government in Iraq might be having an effect on people--especially young people--in nearby countries. I suspect that the same may be true in Egypt.

Obviously the risk is that the turnover in Egypt will take the 1979 Iran route, and matters will only be worse. As long as our leaders in Washington insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular group, the risk of that country going Khomeini is greater.

I don't think these are isolated incidents. If all goes well, history may be kinder to George Bush.

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2011, 02:29:47 AM »
...

Obviously the risk is that the turnover in Egypt will take the 1979 Iran route, and matters will only be worse. As long as our leaders in Washington insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular group, the risk of that country going Khomeini is greater.

...

While it is a possibility, I'm not sure it has a significant chance of occurrence. The impression that I've received regarding Egypt is that the populace has extraordinarily strong tie to the military and vice versa, that military service is key to political career's and power there (or at least was until Junior started appointed civilians to political posts, and is reverting back to that status now) and that neither the military nor the majority of the population really favor the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus without the joint support of the populace/military I don't see them really achieving a 1979 Iran scenario.

Anyone with a bit better view of the region have a differing assessment? MB?

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2011, 02:39:08 AM »
1. Re: "The Muslim Brotherhood", I don't think Clapper is far off the mark when he says ""They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera." Effectively, the group does not have a single leader, but many of them have 'mellowed out' a lot over the last several years, focusing on issues like government accountability, transparency, etc. It seems the statement that they are a 'secular group' has been a misstatement rather than a misunderstanding of what the group is about.

2. I think three potential scenarios exist for Egypt:  a) The military will run the country under the guise of allowing democracy, or preparing for democracy, as long as they can. The regime will be vaguely moderate in terms of relations with the West, and we  will tolerate this. b) THe country will become a democracy - not a full Westernized one, but one where regular elections will occur and a degree of free speech will exist. It's likely this will not be as pro-Western as the above dictatorship, but then there is c) The country becoming Iran, Take 2. I think this is not remotely as likely as people think.

3. That said, I think if there is something that was interesting it is is the inability of 'experts' - even professional analysts, middle east historians, and intellectuals of the first order - to predict events on this scale. I do not mean that one expert has failed, and another one had it right - everybody, including the governments of the nations it happened it, had gotten it wrong. This should properly be a cause for some serious scepticism about the role of experts and their ability to predict events.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2011, 09:41:55 AM »
There isn't "Democracy" in Egypt yet.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

Tallpine

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,172
  • Grumpy Old Grandpa
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2011, 11:49:37 AM »
Turmoil in the Mid East - what a surprise!  :O
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveller may never reach the end of it.  - Ursula Le Guin

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,514
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2011, 11:52:02 AM »
When it comes to geo-politics, geo-weather, geo-economics inter alia, the "experts" don't have much of a good track record at all.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2011, 08:53:44 PM »
When it comes to geo-politics, geo-weather, geo-economics inter alia, the "experts" don't have much of a good track record at all.
QFT!
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,859
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2011, 08:38:28 AM »
The Iraq war did not lead to these uprisings by providing an example of democracy - indeed, its role in this has been to help ensure the stability of both Syria and Iran.  Both of their governments frequently argue to their subjects that if they don't cooperate with the Ayatollahs and the Baathists, they will end up like Iraq, and no one in Syria or Iran wants to be like that.  The Syrians in particular have millions of Iraqi refugees to ask about how great "democracy" of that kind is.

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2011, 12:24:19 PM »
That, of course, is why the Green Movement in Iran took off, and the Iranian government had to kill many protestors...because the Iranian people feared an Iraqi-style government.

I presume this is also why Ghadafi is now on the verge of being deposed after decades of tyrannical rule.


MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2011, 03:09:46 PM »
The Syrians claim [ha] they have 700,000 refugees. Hardly millions.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2011, 06:20:16 PM »
And do they still have them or was that the peak during the height of the violence over there?  Thousands of Muslim "freedom fighters" coming into your country to fight the US and bury IED's can't be good for the local economy. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,859
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2011, 07:15:05 PM »
That, of course, is why the Green Movement in Iran took off, and the Iranian government had to kill many protestors...because the Iranian people feared an Iraqi-style government.

I presume this is also why Ghadafi is now on the verge of being deposed after decades of tyrannical rule.



No, this is the reason why protestors have not turned on Syria and Iran with the same numbers and guy as they have in other places.  The threat of becoming like Iraq is featured prominently in Syrian and Iranian propaganda. 

Iraqis, again, are protesting too. 
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2011, 07:22:59 PM »
And I'm sure Iranian and Syrian propaganda truthfully portrays the state of Iraq  too.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2011, 07:41:05 PM »
Quote
No, this is the reason why protestors have not turned on Syria and Iran with the same numbers and guy as they have in other places.  The threat of becoming like Iraq is featured prominently in Syrian and Iranian propaganda. 

Citations, please?


roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2011, 09:29:51 PM »
1. Re: "The Muslim Brotherhood", I don't think Clapper is far off the mark when he says ""They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera." Effectively, the group does not have a single leader, but many of them have 'mellowed out' a lot over the last several years, focusing on issues like government accountability, transparency, etc. It seems the statement that they are a 'secular group' has been a misstatement rather than a misunderstanding of what the group is about.

2. I think three potential scenarios exist for Egypt:  a) The military will run the country under the guise of allowing democracy, or preparing for democracy, as long as they can. The regime will be vaguely moderate in terms of relations with the West, and we  will tolerate this. b) THe country will become a democracy - not a full Westernized one, but one where regular elections will occur and a degree of free speech will exist. It's likely this will not be as pro-Western as the above dictatorship, but then there is c) The country becoming Iran, Take 2. I think this is not remotely as likely as people think.

3. That said, I think if there is something that was interesting it is is the inability of 'experts' - even professional analysts, middle east historians, and intellectuals of the first order - to predict events on this scale. I do not mean that one expert has failed, and another one had it right - everybody, including the governments of the nations it happened it, had gotten it wrong. This should properly be a cause for some serious scepticism about the role of experts and their ability to predict events.

I'd say the likelihood of an ugly outcome 75%, a really ugly outcome 15%, and a relatively decent gov't 10%.

Your point #3 is spot-on.  "Man proposes and God disposes."
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

RocketMan

  • Mad Rocket Scientist
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,980
  • Semper Fidelis
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2011, 10:54:18 PM »
And I wonder how many of these millions 700,000 or so Iraqi refugees in Syria are...Baathists?
If there really was intelligent life on other planets, we'd be sending them foreign aid.

Conservatives see George Orwell's "1984" as a cautionary tale.  Progressives view it as a "how to" manual.

My wife often says to me, "You are evil and must be destroyed." She may be right.

Liberals believe one should never let reason, logic and facts get in the way of a good emotional argument.

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2011, 11:12:27 PM »
Quote
And I wonder how many of these millions 700,000 or so Iraqi refugees in Syria are...Baathists?

De Selby, what's your last count on the number of Baathist refugees in Syria?

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,859
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2011, 03:07:38 AM »
De Selby, what's your last count on the number of Baathist refugees in Syria?

Yeah, there are about 3 million refugees, including internally displaced ones, in Iraq:  http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e486426  About a million in Syria.

The relevance to Syria is that many (if not most) are the victims of sectarian violence, something that because of Syria's diversity is a real risk there...as it was in Iraq.  

Not being allied with the United States against Iraq has certainly bolstered the credibility of Iran and Syria as well.  That helps to explain why Iran and Syria are in no realistic danger of collapse, yet an entire swath of US-allied Arab states are going or gone.




« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 03:20:06 AM by De Selby »
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2011, 08:20:13 AM »
Willing to be more ruthless than Mubarak That helps to explain why Iran and Syria are in no realistic danger of collapse, yet an entire swath of US-allied Arab states are going or gone, generally because they are not as willing to slaughter folks wholesale as Syria & Iran are.

Some helpful edits to get past the propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/09/the_1988_iran_massacre_crimes.html
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,859
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2011, 08:37:30 AM »
Some helpful edits to get past the propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/09/the_1988_iran_massacre_crimes.html

We haven't canvassed 20 years of Egypt, but in any case, those items are hardly relevant to the Iranian and Syrian staying power today as compared to Egypt.  They are not at this point in a situation where we'd have to find out how ruthless they are, because they're that much more stable than Egypt was.  They stayed in power without shooting hundreds of people; Mubarak shot hundreds of people and still didn't last a month against protests.  That's because he had no popular support.  The Iranian and Syrian regimes do.

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2011, 10:16:39 AM »
Quote
They are not at this point in a situation where we'd have to find out how ruthless they are, because they're that much more stable than Egypt was.  They stayed in power without shooting hundreds of people...

I guess all of those Green Movement protestors in Iran we saw being attacked (and shot) were really blow-up dolls.

Also, apparently building nukes to wipe Israel off the map doesn't meet your definition of "ruthless".

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2011, 10:50:57 AM »
We haven't canvassed 20 years of Egypt, but in any case, those items are hardly relevant to the Iranian and Syrian staying power today as compared to Egypt.  They are not at this point in a situation where we'd have to find out how ruthless they are, because they're that much more stable than Egypt was.  They stayed in power without shooting hundreds of people; Mubarak shot hundreds of people and still didn't last a month against protests.  That's because he had no popular support.  The Iranian and Syrian regimes do.

You don't think murdering political foes in the tens of thousands doesn't put a damper on future potential demonstrations & unrest?  It is the tool used by all successful despots.  It is only when the despot's morale weakens and he is no longer willing to kill on the scale necessary (or he can't call on enough armed supporters) to inspire fear and stifle dissent that mass protests like those in Tunisia and Egypt can succeed.

If Mubarak had the will & means to take out 10,000 of those protesters, he'd still be in Egypt.  At 82, he likley has lost the will.

Syria and Iran still can or make it appear they still can murder & torture on that scale.  All they have to do is point at past examples and show a certain number of armed supporters willing to murder and torture.  That's their "popular" support.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

tyme

  • expat
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,056
  • Did you know that dolphins are just gay sharks?
    • TFL Library
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2011, 11:46:44 AM »
They told us that trying to foster democracy in the Middle East was a hopeless cause. But now many of "them" are calling the Egyptian unrest "democracy." And it's spreading.

What do you think?

It is democracy, or at least democracy in the sense that a significant percentage of the people participated -- maybe not a majority, but neither was the movement that formed the U.S.A.

What's missing I think is the realization that democracy is not necessarily good.  Our founders did a good job but not a perfect job, and even some of them recognized that the country would probably need a revolution periodically.

Now it's: "Democracy's good.  Democracy's stable.  Establish a democracy and your country's set for a good long while."  Democracy, even a Republic alone is not something to cheer for.  The attitudes of the people matter heavily.

If you want an example of the kind of catastrophe that can happen when a country that's not really progressive in its social attitudes forms a democracy, you have to look no further than our Civil War.  This country managed to survive that, but it could have ended differently, and we're still dealing with the social consequences of our pre-Civil War policies.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 01:38:34 PM by tyme »
Support Range Voting.
End Software Patents

"Four people are dead.  There isn't time to talk to the police."  --Sherlock (BBC)

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Does Mid-East turmoil prove Bush was right?
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2011, 12:03:00 PM »
I am not sure I agree with the statement above.

A democracy - understanding the term in its narrow sense as a setup where people power is limited by certain concern for civil rights, if not by a full-grade American Republic - if it holds and is not immediately overthrown by a new tyrant, is an improvement. The American Republic - suffering as it did from horrible injustices like slavery - was, at its founding, superior to the tyrannous systems of France, Spain, and the other continental monarchies, where slavery (or rather, serfdom, which was not much better) was practiced up until the mid-19th century and in some cases as late as the 1860's, where political absolutism was still king and the opposition brutally crushed.

It is best to imagine it like the U.S. South in its darkest hour. Where its 'attitudes' 'progressive'? Hell no. Were elections faked, minorities and whites lynched, and so forth? Sure. But as compared to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany - or hell, to Belgium  at the turn of the century, which was responsible for a genocide of ten million people in its own right - Alabama was a paradise. It would be far better to be a black man in Alabama in 1900 than it would be in Belgian-ruled Congo.

Today's Indonesia, India, or Mali are not as democratic, as shiny, and as wealthy as modern-day Europe or the United States. But - even with the (increasingly rare) religiously-based attacks in these nations, they are miles better that their neighbors without such a tentative, fail-infested democracy. If Egypt turns out to have a democracy on the Indonesian level, that would be beautiful.

Is a democracy the best thing since sliced bread? Possibly no. But if I were an Egyptian of the appropriate  age, or a Lybian of the appropriate age, I would be in the streets right now, fighting for democracy.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner