Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Mere racism seems too simplistic
As with many people, I've been pretty excited about the goings-on in North Africa and the Middle East, and I started to think wonder why revolutions in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt are such big deals in comparison to the constant turmoil in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Even the genocides in the Sudan and Rwanda were framed in terms of a humanitarian problem rather than as a struggle for democracy. I think that my knee-jerk reaction to this is that it's racist, but perhaps it's more complicated. Perhaps it stems from our ally in Israel and our specific military interests. This is why I think I have the most problem with the neo-cons (though I did watch an interview with Wolfowitz the other day and agreed with a surprising number of things that came out of his mouth. I do think that ultimately they are less concerned with democracy as a concept and more concerned with military interests. I wonder what it would take for the US to send a navy ship past the Ivory Coast as it did near Libya. Perhaps Egypt had such good visuals and symbolism that it was able to get an unbelievable level of television coverage. Charlie Sheen is currently eclipsing what is going on in Libya because it's more messy, bloody, and will likely end in a country that looks more like the Sudan than what we hope Egypt will look like. In any case, it's worth asking why the revolutions of certain countries get more press than others, and think that dismissing these discrepancies as racist is too simplistic. Americans are just as racist if not more racist against Arabs and Persians as they are against sub-Saharan Africans. Why are conflicts so different in those different parts of the world?
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
First Blog: Were the NeoCons right?
So, I'm stepping into 2003 and starting a blog. I thought that this might be a better place to have some of the conversations that I've been having on Facebook. Maybe this is like trying to use a dial-up modem. In any case, here goes.
As the protests in in the greater Middle East (from Morocco to Iran) have expanded over the past several weeks, I keep having this horrible feeling in my stomach that some of the neo-conservative ideas from the aughts were actually correct. They might have been correct about strategy if not about tactics. When one gets past all of the faux reasons why we went into Iraq (WMDs, oil, dictator, etc.), the real reason for this war, which is about to have its eight birthday, was to "spread democracy through the region." The thought was that as the statue of Saddam fell, the people would rise up, and democracy would prevail in the region. As history has told us, the overthrow of Saddam was not the necessary catalyst to bring about a surge of democracy, but perhaps the peaceful revolution in Tunisia was.
This presents two difficult lines of thought. If the neo-cons were right, and their Machiavellian strategy was correct, albeit egregiously implemented, then perhaps its worth thinking about the rhetoric of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al seriously. This pains me, but the roots of neoconservatism can be traced to May '68 in France, and perhaps it's worth thinking about whether bringing about regime change by ruthless dictators is a strategy worth considering.
The more likely scenario is that what looks like a glorious revolution now is going to turn into the sectarian, regional, power grabs that characterized the war in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, though on a level much larger and bloodier. If we take a historical analogy, the paths that these countries take is much more likely to look like Belarus or Serbia than Czech or Eastern Germany.
In any case, I ask the question of whether the neocons were right more as a heuristic than as a belief. I'm worried about the optimism that the left has for these "organic," "populist" revolts, and especially the egregious comparisons with what's going on in Madison. As liberals, we need to be able to be self-critical of our positions and to entertain the notion that sometimes we might have been wrong. I am most certainly not claiming that we should have gone into Iraq, or that I endorse pre-emptive war or anything along those lines. However, I want to ask the question of whether a strategy of regime change for countries who live in poverty with dictators isn't a bad idea.
As the protests in in the greater Middle East (from Morocco to Iran) have expanded over the past several weeks, I keep having this horrible feeling in my stomach that some of the neo-conservative ideas from the aughts were actually correct. They might have been correct about strategy if not about tactics. When one gets past all of the faux reasons why we went into Iraq (WMDs, oil, dictator, etc.), the real reason for this war, which is about to have its eight birthday, was to "spread democracy through the region." The thought was that as the statue of Saddam fell, the people would rise up, and democracy would prevail in the region. As history has told us, the overthrow of Saddam was not the necessary catalyst to bring about a surge of democracy, but perhaps the peaceful revolution in Tunisia was.
This presents two difficult lines of thought. If the neo-cons were right, and their Machiavellian strategy was correct, albeit egregiously implemented, then perhaps its worth thinking about the rhetoric of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al seriously. This pains me, but the roots of neoconservatism can be traced to May '68 in France, and perhaps it's worth thinking about whether bringing about regime change by ruthless dictators is a strategy worth considering.
The more likely scenario is that what looks like a glorious revolution now is going to turn into the sectarian, regional, power grabs that characterized the war in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, though on a level much larger and bloodier. If we take a historical analogy, the paths that these countries take is much more likely to look like Belarus or Serbia than Czech or Eastern Germany.
In any case, I ask the question of whether the neocons were right more as a heuristic than as a belief. I'm worried about the optimism that the left has for these "organic," "populist" revolts, and especially the egregious comparisons with what's going on in Madison. As liberals, we need to be able to be self-critical of our positions and to entertain the notion that sometimes we might have been wrong. I am most certainly not claiming that we should have gone into Iraq, or that I endorse pre-emptive war or anything along those lines. However, I want to ask the question of whether a strategy of regime change for countries who live in poverty with dictators isn't a bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)