Because the best things in life are free.

 
Swords to Plowshares

When former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer began appearing on TV to defend and promote his book, “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror” he posited the same paradigm to every host. He said, “We have a choice between war and endless war”. No foreign policy expert could put it better. But don’t tell that to Rich Lowry, editor of “The National Review.” He’s all too eager to accuse “liberals” of being true defeatists of the Pax Americana. But in classic Lowry fashion, he never identifies which events in the Middle East or elsewhere demonstrate reasons for jubilation or at the very least, hope.

The greatest irony is that mere hours after writing his editorial, Chechen separatist Aslan Maskhadov was killed in a firefight with Russian troops. President Vladimir Putin is not celebrating. He does not assume that Russia’s war on terrorism is over. He no doubt remembers that Boris Yeltsin promised a short and easy conflict only to face a two year insurgency that only came to an end because of a Russian military withdrawal. When Putin, as Prime Minister, decided to reassert Moscow’s authority, Chechen tactics changed from standard resistance within the province to nationwide terrorist attacks. Despite Putin’s ability to use the conflict to tighten controls on the media, increase police powers, and expand the role of the Russian Presidency, the civilian body count continues to rise. This is because, as Scheuer would say, Putin chose endless war.

Liberals fear that the Bush Administration will also choose “endless war” because it provides the illusion of temporary victory but promises the reality of permanent defeat. Michael Tomasky, editor of “The American Prospect” said in an interview with the “New York Times” published last Sunday echoed this by suggesting that a two-state solution is not going to end violence between Israel and Palestinians. Lowry no doubt thinks Tomasky’s comment is sour grapes. Libya has renounced its weapons of mass destructions program, Iraq had free and fair elections, and Syrian troops are pulling back from Lebanon. And most importantly, there have been no major terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001. President George W. Bush deserves credit not just for Iraq, but all of it’s reverberations throughout the Arab world. But give the Arabs credit too. The Qatari government’s decision to invest in Al Jazeera was made long before Bush ever decided to run for President. Dubai’s investment in its Media City initiative also dates from 1990s. And then there is Bahrain, whose emir announced a referendum in early 2001 to turn the country into a constitutional monarchy.

Meanwhile the Karzai government in Afghanistan has less control of the country now than the Taliban did. Bush’s silence on the genocide in Sudan administered by an ethnically Arab regime is deafening. And there is apparently no American impetus to push freedom in oil-rich Central Asian republics like Kazakhstan. Lowry must not want to take credit for these “advances”, probably because they provide no instant gratification for Bush or the conservatives. Liberal commentary, by and large, will acknowledge these shortcomings (to suggest that the overall picture is a mixed bag) only to be assailed by the right for always “blaming America” and being “cynical”. At first it appears to be a Hobson’s choice: talk openly about what has gone wrong and be labeled a traitor, or discuss positive developments and be accused of not wanting to give Bush and the neoconservative strategists their due.

Michael Scheuer suggests that liberals focus on “exit strategies”. President Bush continues to move back the goalposts on Iraq. Osama bin Laden still evades capture. And while Al Qaeda has yet to perform an American encore, the organization’s reach has expanded from Africa and the Middle East to Europe and even Australia’s doorstep. Yet this has occurred despite acquiescence to bin Laden’s original casus belli : the American military presence in Saudi Arabia. Lowry and his kind would be quick to swoop on this, arguing that “we won’t know if we have won until we know”. But don’t bother asking what sign ensures victory: no conservative pundit has a clue.

Liberals should not bother to throw them a rope. Instead, liberals have to talk about what cannot be achieved through military means. You cannot bomb your way to democracy, even if it appears American military intervention in Iraq is causing authoritarian Arab regimes to liberalize some political processes. Moreover, you certainly cannot bomb your way to diverse, integrated economies. But no one likes to hear complaints without solutions. Simply reiterating failure is never political savvy, but describing shortcomings as opportunities for new ideas always is in fashion. Liberals, therefore have to explain how America (and the Arab world) can beat their swords into plowshares. And it’s not as hard as it might seem.

Iraq is full of archeological and historical treasures, preserving and rehabilitating them will help to attract tourists and foreign investment. Dubai’s role as the economic heart of the Middle East is buoyed in part by its heavy investment in the state-subsidized airline, Emirates. Negotiating an “open skies” agreement with Dubai and other countries that show progress towards democracy should be a priority. Al Jazeera’s ability to grow and provide jobs and revenue for Qatar and the Arab world is reliant on expanding its availability worldwide. Helping to broker the channel’s entry into the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States would be a tremendous boost to Qatar and free speech in the Arabic-speaking world.

All of these initiatives would encourage the “swords to plowshares” methodology. And all of them have been ignored by the President or his Congressional allies. But most importantly, they encourage hope, even for liberals who are uncertain democracy alone will solve of all the Middle East’s ills.
posted by Thomas at 10:19 PM 0 comments