Middle East

I just came across two news reports about the same event. It’s interesting to make note of the way that the info is presented.

The event in question was the release of the third Arab Human Development Report. (Sorry, I can’t find a copy of it online as of this writing.) The previous reports were rather heartening to people who genuinely want to see the Arab world embrace democracy and economic progress, since they recognized the fact that it was mainly Arab culture that was holding them back.

This BBC item about the latest report has the headline REPORT URGES ARAB WORLD REFORMS. The author, Jon Leyne, states that the problems facing Arab culture come from within, mainly due to a lack of human rights and an abundance of judicial compliance. He goes on to note in passing that the AHDR also condemns the US for our support of Israel, and the invasion of Iraq. But the criticisms of the US and Israel are hardly the main subject of the news item.

Then we have this rather shrill item from Reuters, written by Suleiman al-Khalidi. (The full text is cut-n-pasted below, because both Reuters and Yahoo have a habit of changing the content of their news items without explanation or apology.)

The headline reads ARAB REPORT SEES LITTLE REFORM, FAULTS US ACTION. It looks to me that the author was rather desperate to find something critical to say about the US, and even goes so far as to accuse the United States of wide scale theft. Abu Ghraib is mentioned as well, although it’s very unclear how a scandal in one prison could keep the entire Arab world from enacting reforms.

It looks to me that the Reuters report is a prime example of how Arab culture will only improve after they start to take responsibility for their own actions.

Remember the BBC reaction to the invasion? How they were practically begging their imbedded reporters to find atrocities committed by US troops, or instances where Saddam’s soldiers defeated American units?

I never would have thought that I’d think of the BBC as the voice of reason when it came to the Middle East.

Read more

Bottom line is: the world has changed, we’re not living in the fifties anymore and when a tyrant is kicked out, no other tyrant can claim his place. Why? Because nothing can be done behind closed doors anymore, the whole world can watch and have a say in almost everything everywhere and the era when thugs could reach power against a nation’s choice is over. The world has simply changed and the change cannot be reversed.

–Omar

The clear strategic conclusion remains what it should have been long before Coalition troops entered Saddam’s evil domain: No matter how strongly we wish it to be otherwise, we are engaged in a regional war, of which Iraq is but a single battlefield. The war cannot be won in Iraq alone, because the enemy is based throughout the region and his bases and headquarters are located beyond our current reach. His power is directly proportional to our unwillingness to see the true nature of the war, and our decision to limit the scope of our campaign.

[. . .]

No, we can only win in Iraq if we fully engage in the terror war, which means using our most lethal weapon — freedom — against the terror masters, all of them. The peoples of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are restive, they look to us for political support. Why have we not endorsed the call for political referenda in Syria and Iran? Why are we so (rightly and honorably) supportive of free elections in the Ukraine, while remaining silent about — or, in the disgraceful case of outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell, openly hostile to — free elections in Iran and Syria? Why are we not advancing both our values and our interests in the war against the terror masters?

–Michael Ledeen

Arafat’s slide into illness has raised fears of chaos among Palestinians, whose 4-year-old uprising for a state has stalled.

Of course there wasn’t much chaos under Arafat’s orderly, benevolent rule, just as there wasn’t any chaos in Iraq under Saddam or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Yeah, chaos, that’s the worst outcome possible. Better to have some of that nice stability like they used to have.

Bring on the chaos — and the freedom and opportunity.

(via Michael Totten)