Dorrk Dot Com

I’m not in favor of Bush’s politically-correct (or perhaps genuine) attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East. Democracy is too complicated and we can’t afford to build up every failed state.

However, Andrew Sullivan (who is in favor of it) is right when he says that Bush has been the catalyst for all the enormous shifts in the Middle East in the past couple of years.

The challenge of the Syrians by the Lebanese, the Iraqi elections (far more succesful than the doubters suggested), and Egypt’s Mubarak saying he’s open to genuine elections. Sullivan doesn’t even mention Libya’s change of face, as well as the PLO’s rejection of Arafat, as well as the incredible response that the Iraqi elections received in the Arab press (in favor of it). On top of that, the UN was totally exposed for the ridiculously, corrupt and immoral organization that it is.

In other words, Bush has been vindicated in this way: As Sullivan says: Almost all of this was accomplished by the liberation of Iraq. Nothing else would have persuaded the thugs and mafia bosses who run so many Arab nations that the West is serious about democracy.

What has really occurred has been a vindication on the idea that Soft Power alone does not work in this region. You need Hard Power too and this region of bullies only responds to bigger bullies.

I suppose Bush has also been proven right in that there are a lot of people out there that do want democracy and freedom…and that are tired of corruption and excuse-making.

I’m still bearish on long-term change across the region (demographics…too many young, too many males), but it should be clear that power is needed when confronting Islamic Fascist autocrats.

Would the anti-Bush approach (Carter) really have worked? What were those practical solutions anyway? It’s easy to lambaste Bush when we never had to live through the even more frightening Carter approach.

Tags: No Comments