|
Pipes on Moslem independence
Supplementing Gibbon’s point on the difficulty of making Arabs submit to outside rule, is Daniel Pipes’ article today in The New York Sun on the impossibility of making Moslems submit to non-Moslem rule. He says we should forget about creating Iraqi democracy, set up a democracy-leaning strong man, and get out. When it comes to the democratization of the Moslem world, Mr. Pipes definitely ain’t working on Midge’s farm. I can’t help but wonder how the neoconservative establishment treats him regarding his apostasy on their central article of faith.
In light of the current troubles we’re having in Iraq, readers may also find it worthwhile to revisit my cautionary article about the neoconservatives’ democratist project, published in October 2002 at Front Page Magazine: “National Defense or Global Empire?” Comments
A nice breath of fresh air, considering that we’ve been bombarded by neocon agitprop from the likes of Michael “Creative Destruction is our Middle Name” Ledeen. The fact is that some people just don’t like the “Western way of life” and an attempt to impose it on them will lead to violence against us. There are countless Shiites who were happy that the US did away with Sadaam a year ago who are now attacking the US. Isn’t it funny: some people actually would like to run their own country. Posted by: Steve Jackson on April 13, 2004 8:34 PMMr. Jackson’s last sentence is a cheap shot. He makes it sound as if America’s purpose is to control the Iraqis and deprive them of self-government, when in fact our whole purpose has been to help them achieve self-government and not come under the tyrannical rule of either Shi’ites or Sunnits or Ba’athists or some horrible chaos. I happen to think the goal of Iraqi self-government is unlikely and even utopian, but it has, nevertheless, been the sincere purpose of our government. Mr. Jackson’s cheap shot would deny that fact. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on April 13, 2004 8:50 PM“I happen to think the goal of Iraqi self-government is unlikely and even utopian, but it has, nevertheless, been the sincere purpose of our government.” I wonder. Listening to Bush tonight (his press conference is on as I type), I am more worried than ever. About our presence in Iraq, he has said, “we’re changing the world”. He has said it four times—so far. This man is delusional. Amidst all the stumbling, stuttering, and groping for words, this seems the only coherent point he can make. He’s going to bleed this country dry. Posted by: Paul C. on April 13, 2004 9:10 PMMr. Jackson said, “[S]ome people actually would like to run their own country.” If this principle were applied consitently, it would lead to the abolition of foreign policy; any attempt by a state or a group of states to force another state to do something or to refrain from doing something would, to some degree, deprive the people of the later country of the ability to “run their own country.” I realize that Mr. Jackson probably does not intend such an abolition of foreign policy, but that would be the result of a consistent aplication of the principle he articulated. On a more particular point, I agree with Mr. Auster that President Bush sincerely desires to recreate Iraq as a liberal, democratic state. I also concur with him that design is unrealistic. A final point: Our leaders do not seem to have observed that the entity of the “Iraqi people” only exits in a geographical or political sense. There are three main peoples in Iraq, namely, Sunni Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shiite Arabs, along with small minorities of Turks and Christian Arabs. Posted by: Joshua on April 13, 2004 11:31 PM |