Present at the Destruction
Posted on January 4th, 2009
by Leon Hadar |
|
This is from my article in TAC, Democracy and Its Discontent (February 27, 2006), which was a critique of the Bush Administration’s Freedom Agenda and the Democratic Peace Theory, and which was published in the aftermath of Hamas’ victory in the parliamentary election in the West Bank and Gaza which the administration had promoted:
When Palestinian and Israeli officials frantically lobbied in Washington for the postponement of the parliamentary elections in the West Bank and Gaza, noting that polls pointed to a possible victory by Hamas, America’s top democracy cheerleader, Condoleezza Rice, was dismissive of those Middle Eastern naysayers. “Holding free and fair Palestinian Legislative Council elections on January 25 represents a key step in the process of building a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state,” Rice said in a Jan. 11 statement. “Development of a Palestinian democracy based on tolerance and liberty is a key element of the Roadmap,” she insisted. You have to believe that if you build a democracy, they will come. And on Jan. 25, Hamas came.
This is just to remind you (in case you’ve forgotten) that we have to thank the Bush Administration for mess in Gaza, and in particular for its decision to push for the election that brought Hamas to power and which then was followed by the decision to punish the Gazans for the outcome of their vote.
And add to that all the other achievements in the Mideast — Iran’s allies coming to power in Iraq following the “liberation” of Iraq and Hizbollah’s increasing power and prestige following the election in Lebanon and the American backed Israeli retaliation in Lebanon (and I won’t mention to other foreign policy fiascos).
So if former Secretary of State and Wise Man Dean Acheson’s memoir was titled, Present at the Creation, here is my proposal for a title for the memoir of soon-to-be former Secretary of State and the lightweight Condi Rice: Present at the Destruction.
Filed under: Foreign policy
The major reason why Palestinians elected Hamas in Gaza was because of the corruption of the Fatah party.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=685129
This is just to remind you (in case you’ve forgotten) that we have to thank the Bush Administration for mess in Gaza, and in particular for its decision to push for the election that brought Hamas to power and which then was followed by the decision to punish the Gazans for the outcome of their vote.
And add to that all the other achievements in the Mideast — Iran’s allies coming to power in Iraq following the “liberation” of Iraq and Hizbollah’s increasing power and prestige following the election in Lebanon and the American backed Israeli retaliation in Lebanon (and I won’t mention to other foreign policy fiascos).
All of this is true, but context is important. It isn’t as though things in Gaza would be awesome had the US not interfered.
The only thing that Muslim Palestinians and Jewish Israelis seem to agree on is that civilian casualties on the other side are okay.
We are no more culpable for that attitude than we are capable of changing it. That said, we should leave the region alone.
Leon — i think the Bush Administration is also moving closer to a State of Delusion. Exhibit A: today on Face the Nation. In a flimsy “exit interview,” veep Dick Cheney was asked by Bob Schieffer, “are we better off today?” After a weak litany, Cheney says the new administration no doubt arrives with a boat-load of challenges awaiting it, “just like when we came in” … our task was to come in and “ultimately to deal with the aftermath of 9/11.” Huh? I just listened to the video on the CBS site (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4697453n) just to make sure I heard it right. Freudian slip? Subtle bait and switch? Honest mistake? Schieffer let it go, as he did with plenty of the bunk Cheney was peddling about Iraq. Harry Shearer over at the Huffington Post said it best:
“But what happens when a member of the Bush Administration, making another stop on the Bush Legacy Project tour, appears live on one of those programs? Judging by Sunday morning’s Face the Nation, what happens is a return to the respectful or intimidated cringe that typified Washington media during the run-up to the Iraq War.
Bob Schieffer had the usual stack of papers in front of him as he questioned Vice President Cheney. But, as Cheney trotted out old and new boilerplate — the intelligence was wrong, all our surveillance and interrogation procedures were done “by the book” — Schieffer sat as mute as a chastised third-grader. “
Kelley — These guys have been in a State of Delusion for quite a while…
In this same vein Leon to me at least maybe the most appalling aspect of the policy of Bush and Rice and Company in the Mideast (and indeed elsewhere too) has been it’s shallowness. I forget where or when he said it but even worse than the remarks of Rice that you cite Bush himself at one point is quoted as essentially saying that he thought that our major mistake over there had been in supporting stability since it hadn’t “worked,” and that upheaval would somehow naturally result in democracy wherefrom peace and prosperity would then of course naturally flow. Or, to paraphrase John Lennon, the “All You Need Is Democracy” theory of geo-political Mideast policy.
No matter how foolish one can find the convoluted or “root cause”-type theories of even the most liberal or Leftist academic foreign-policy theorists, at the very least it’s hard to say they are shallow. But that absolute archetype of a teacher’s pet Rice spent just how long at foreign-policy thinking and the best she could come up with was this bumper-sticker of a theory? “It’s all and only about Democracy”? What about maybe … some economic prosperity playing a part too? Might even be a necessary precondition so as to create a middle-class that values stability and has some ability to make its voice heard. Or what about our obviously militarized presence over there in the first place? Or what about the idea that Islam is simply confronting many of the same problems of modernity that we have and that even we haven’t fully come to grips with yet so meaning we ought to have some sympathy and patience for its situation? Or what about … oh, you name it as also playing a part?
But no, Bushism and Rice-ism was the best the Republicans could do? And they were all willing to march off a cliff behind that duo’s paper-thin banner? Mesmerized maybe by how simple it was that even talk-radioheads could grasp it and turn it into snappy catch-phrases? Did they not have the phone numbers of at least a few conservative or moderate foreign-policy thinkers?
The Republicans are a team with no depth. Indeed, a team that seems to disdain depth, and the Academy especially. Reactionary and anti-intellectual to the core; indeed, reactionism almost as their central organizing principle.
Makes you wonder whether any degree, amount or quality of thinking can help them. How do you save a person who’s drowning by throwing them a rope when they hate ropes?
I have to think that these media interviewers are doing these simply by habit and believe that the Bush team (which has exhausted and delegitimized itself) needs no rebuttal. It is its own rebuttal.
A new website that this site’s readers will like: http://exceptionmag.com/