Suddenly the Middle East is in flux. Iraq is creating an elected government. The Palestinians had an election for the first time in years. People in Iran and Egypt are demanding free elections. Syria agreed to withdraw from Lebanon. Israel is pulling out of the Gaza Strip.
A bit further out, Libya gave up its nuclear program and Afghanistan also had elections and is forming an elected government.
A root cause of 9-11 was supposed to be Arab anger at US support for corrupt governments. Right now it looks like we have been pushing just the opposite. Even the New York Time editorial board agrees.
Does anyone think that all of this just happened? Or that it would have happened under a Clinton-style hands-off policy?
Ok, a few people do. Eric Alterman is still highly critical of everything. But then liberals have been dismissive of democracy for some time. Doonesbury is still running strips insisting that Iraq is Viet Nam.
These are the same people who thought that the cold war was a waste of time and resources and were surprised when communism suddenly collapsed.
Last week Bush announced that all cards were on the table in negotiations with Iran. Democrat-run blogs went ballistic, insisting that Bush has already signed an order for a military strike. Yesterday Bush clarified. He is threatening Iran with membership in the WTO (World Trade Organization). The horror. The humanity.
Wait - that's a good thing!
It's also kind of sneaky. Bush has been trying to normalize relations with Iran. Welcoming them into the world economy would help. It would also put even more pressure on the ruling theocracy to reform.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment