The Arab Spring:Victory for George Bush?
Did the Former American President Sow the Seeds of Democracy in the Arab World by Overthrowing Saddam Hussein?
George Bush may have been a pioneer, perhaps even a visionary: Yes, it’s an idea that’s garnered some support. He wanted to spread democracy throughout the Middle East, from Algiers to Karachi. His expedition into Iraq was supposed to be the first step in weakening the Arab-Muslim world and infusing it with the light of democracy. However, this undertaking seemed to falter in the sad reality of the Iraqi chaos and to drown in the fury sweeping from the Nile to the Euphrates in response to American intervention in the ancient Mesopotamian region. But now look at the neoconservatives around George Bush, lifting their heads back up. What if this Arab spring has finally served as their retroactively deafening justification? What if this yearning for liberty that pushes the people to protest is, at its core, the greatest proof of just how right these politicians’ ideas were? The reasoning is seductive, the argument subtle, but largely biased.
There are three reasons for this: first, the failure in Iraq. The political system erected on the ruins of the Baathist system in Baghdad is run on mob mentality. It took nine months to form a government. The country was ravaged by brutal attacks. The Christian minority, which had been protected under Saddam, is being martyred and threatens to disappear entirely into exile. Everything runs based on a denominational system, with the Shiite clans leading the pack. Corruption reigns supreme, including in the autonomous Kurdistan. This crushing defeat in Iraq upset the centuries-old balance between the Arab and Persian worlds, between the Shiites and the Sunnis, and opened an inviting road into Iran from the whole region.
Premature to Declare Victory
Secondly, these Arab protests are purely homegrown. Ben Ali is being swept from Tunisia, Mubarak from Egypt, Gadhafi is threatened and the Western world’s presence in this tornado is not necessary. No one predicted the coming storm: not Washington, not London, not Paris. All the ambassadors were caught off guard, including the American Embassy in Cairo, with over 1,600 personnel. The moral of the story is that true change must come from the inside, and can never be imposed by external forces. And, as Alain Juppé emphasized, think twice before even imagining an intervention in Libya.
Lastly, no one knows what these revolutions will lead to, and it is premature to declare victory. They carry both formidable hope and many uncertainties. It’s still too early to tell whether or not they will lead to the installation of more democratic systems. The Tunisian protesters have a political maturity that may help to avoid months without control, and help the country to create viable solutions toward which everyone can work. But higher powers can shake up anything. In Egypt, the army served as a safeguard. But how long can it control a transition period? And in Libya, once Gadhafi is out of the picture, how can such a divided, tribally-dominated country be run?
George Bush may have been a pioneer, perhaps even a visionary: Yes, it’s an idea that’s garnered some support. He wanted to spread democracy throughout the Middle East, from Algiers to Karachi. His expedition into Iraq was supposed to be the first step in weakening the Arab-Muslim world and infusing it with the light of democracy. However, this undertaking seemed to falter in the sad reality of the Iraqi chaos and to drown in the fury sweeping from the Nile to the Euphrates in response to American intervention in the ancient Mesopotamian region. But now look at the neoconservatives around George Bush, lifting their heads back up. What if this Arab spring has finally served as their retroactively deafening justification? What if this yearning for liberty that pushes the people to protest is, at its core, the greatest proof of just how right these politicians’ ideas were? The reasoning is seductive, the argument subtle, but largely biased.
There are three reasons for this: first, the failure in Iraq. The political system erected on the ruins of the Baathist system in Baghdad is run on mob mentality. It took nine months to form a government. The country was ravaged by brutal attacks. The Christian minority, which had been protected under Saddam, is being martyred and threatens to disappear entirely into exile. Everything runs based on a denominational system, with the Shiite clans leading the pack. Corruption reigns supreme, including in the autonomous Kurdistan. This crushing defeat in Iraq upset the centuries-old balance between the Arab and Persian worlds, between the Shiites and the Sunnis, and opened an inviting road into Iran from the whole region.
Premature to Declare Victory
Secondly, these Arab protests are purely homegrown. Ben Ali is being swept from Tunisia, Mubarak from Egypt, Gadhafi is threatened and the Western world’s presence in this tornado is not necessary. No one predicted the coming storm: not Washington, not London, not Paris. All the ambassadors were caught off guard, including the American Embassy in Cairo, with over 1,600 personnel. The moral of the story is that true change must come from the inside, and can never be imposed by external forces. And, as Alain Juppé emphasized, think twice before even imagining an intervention in Libya.
Lastly, no one knows what these revolutions will lead to, and it is premature to declare victory. They carry both formidable hope and many uncertainties. It’s still too early to tell whether or not they will lead to the installation of more democratic systems. The Tunisian protesters have a political maturity that may help to avoid months without control, and help the country to create viable solutions toward which everyone can work. But higher powers can shake up anything. In Egypt, the army served as a safeguard. But how long can it control a transition period? And in Libya, once Gadhafi is out of the picture, how can such a divided, tribally-dominated country be run?