Thrilled by the ‘Arab Spring’? You’re Delusional
I am actually shouting at my television.
I am watching Fox News Sunday, and politicians and pundits with whom I normally agree — Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Bill Kristol — are all making me crazy with their advice on Libya. Each seems to believe that success in America’s latest foreign adventure is predicated on taking out Moammar Gaddafi, and they are all blaming President Obama and Secretary Robert Gates for failing to grasp the obvious.
So now I’m yelling: “Guys, the question is not what to do about Gaddafi — the question is what to do after he’s gone!”
Senator Lieberman seems to have this worked out. He echoes a sentiment I have heard regularly from lawmakers and journalists since January, when the “jasmine” revolution erupted in Tunisia. Once brutal dictators like Gaddafi, Mubarak, and now possibly even Bashar Assad in Syria are deposed, democracy will surely bud and bloom all over the Middle East. There is even a name for this awakening, “Arab Spring,” which I must admit has poetry to it. It would make a good show tune.
But as foreign policy, it is dangerously delusional.
Whether Gaddafi flees to Venezuela, barricades himself in his Tripoli fortress for a prolonged siege, or finishes toes up in a ditch, the vacuum he leaves behind in a country he has dominated for 40 years is what should concern policymakers. And the question they should be asking is this:
If freedom and democracy are waiting to sprout from Tunis to Manama, where are the seeds? Who exactly is doing the sowing?
Unlike that other fertile era when democracy flowered across central Europe before the Berlin Wall finally collapsed twenty years ago, there are no Lech Walesas or Vaclev Havels to lead the way to a totally new and unfamiliar system of self-governance. Instead, in Egypt — the country for which most analysts have the highest hopes — we are witnessing the triumphal return of Yusuf Qaradawi, probably the preeminent Islamic scholar in the world and the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. While he was living in exile in Oman, Qaradawi preached jihad regularly on Al Jazeera and encouraged the murder of civilians in Iraq. Now, when he prays in Tahrir Square, he can draw a million people.
The protesters who toppled Mubarak never exceeded a hundred thousand.
Meanwhile, we learn that one of the rebel leaders we are backing in Libya is Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, whose last tour of duty was fighting against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. His fighting force, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is an ally of al-Qaeda and a fellow traveler with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood and al-Qaeda have fallen out over tactics in the past, specifically over whether Bin Laden should have launched an attack on the West on 9/11 which killed Muslims. However, there is no disagreement over whether to kill infidels in Muslim lands: it is decreed in the Qu’ran.
Hasidi and his soldiers may be handy in a firefight right now, but what does the United States do if they want to hang around after the battle and help to write a new constitution?
Thank you Mr. Grandy, for an honest analysis regarding sharia and the prospects for the future of democracy in the Arab world. It provides some needed balance to the wishful thinking that passes for analysis by those who blindly worship “Democracy.” I have no doubt that time will prove you right.
Guess what?Some of these pundits, and otherwise sensible politicians, would do well to park themselves in the hotter than hot Middle East once ‘hope’ springs eternal through ‘democracy’.Holy smokes….
It will NOT be their bodies on the firing line when-not if-ALL hell breaks loose.
Therefore, I expect that our leaders in Israel will tune them out and proceed from saner ground.
I understand your concerns, Fred, and I generally agree with them. However, I still feel that we should be supporting Gaddaffi’s opponents, regardless of the shady past of individuals, regardless of the possibility of strict Sharia being imposed, regardless of the possibility of Islamism rearing its ugly head. My reasoning is twofold:
There are two possibilities outcome-wise, in Libya: either Gaddaffi survives in the leadership of the country, or he doesn’t. If he survives, and we don’t try to oust him, people across the Middle East and the rest of the world will essentially blame us for his survival. If he survives even though we try and oust him, we’ll look weak, perhaps, and earn his undying enmity no doubt…but he’s a flake, and was always unstable anyway. And if we fail to oust him but try, we can at least say to those doubters that we tried to do the right thing.
On the other hand, if he’s thrown out of power and we’ve done nothing to hasten his departure, those who overthrew him are likely to regard us skeptically at best, and probably with a certain amount of hostility. The rest of the Arab world has nascent democracy movements, and those groups will regard us with suspicion. On the other hand, if Muammmar winds up in exile wherever, or even dead, those democracy advocates will regard us more positively, and the regimes in the Middle East without democracy will perhaps think about changing their ways in a positive fashion.
In sum, I see the difficulties that might occur in supporting what *might* develop into an extremist regime in Libya. I just think the downside of us doing nothing is quite easily worse, and while I think we should exercise caution and pay careful attention to events there and who the players are, the background of one individual, or even one group, shouldn’t disqualify the resistance to Gaddaffi in general from our support. Egypt has just announced it is going to hold parliamentary elections. I’m sure everyone in the naysayer crowd will be upset if the Muslim Brotherhood is even allowed to run in the election, which if you think about it for a second is the definition of democracy, provided they agree to uphold the rights of minorities. Yes, I know that in the past they haven’t supported democracy at all, but political parties *do* evolve. It used to be that our friends the Democrats were rabid supporters of the institution of slavery; they’ve become more enlightened in the last 150 years. I don’t know whether the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved, but eventually we’re going to have to ask the question, at least in a small way, and the only real meaningful way to ask the question is to let them have a chance to do something good or bad, and see what choice they make.
I am afraid this attempted whitewash is only as good as hogwash. The latter, however, has been achieved perfectly.
There has been one Mid-East Mohammedan country that had established a democratic government — Turkey. That was in the late 20s and it is now a proto-Islamic theocracy. Nowhere else in the Mid-East has any Mohammedan nation supported deomocracy. Not Iraq or Afghanistan (with sharia-compliant constitutions, approved by the US), and nowhere else. Lebanon had a vaguely democratic government, but that was while it was ruled by Christians. Once the Mohammedans took over, democracy was gone, replaced by a typical Mid-East kill-crazy theocracy/idiocy. To compare the Mid-East with any European nation is idiotic. Arabs and Mohammedans are peoples who have never had democratic governments, and whose religion forbids them. BTW, the Democrats still favor slavery; it’s just that whites have replaced blacks as the slaves.
What is it with you people and “democracy”? As the democratically elected, raving Islamist in charge of Turkey put it, “Democracy is like a streetcar; when you get to your stop, you get off.” He is in the process of arresting all the leading secularists in his country on trumped-up security charges. Turkey has apparently reached its’ stop. As has the rest of the Muslim World, democratic or no.
With the exception of Malaysia, the Muslim world, and particularly the Arab Muslim world, is hopelessly backward, economically doomed, and temperamentally unprepared to do anything constructive about it. They prefer to blame their troubles on the West, and on an insufficiently powerful dose of the poison that has stunted their pathetic cultures.
We do not have any friends among them, but they save their strongest hatred for each other. And pretty soon they will all have nukes, so this should work itself out fairly quickly. The question which should concern us is how to minimize the damage they inflict on us as they sink into whatever grisly fate awaits them, not trying to befriend them. Trying to influence which Allah-crazed Islamic tyrant runs which Allah-crazed Muslim rathole is a waste of good cruise missles. And the way things are looking, we are going to need those cruise missles.
two wrongs don’t make a right ..unless you are a marxist or democrat.
It amazes me also, how so few among the leaders of the Conservative movement (those officially recognized as such) are willing to ask “who lost Egypt.”
It was the Officer Corp, still far above the poverty line there because of American direct payments, who deposed Mubarak, and not the public relations disaster of having allowed a “Freedom Demonstration” to camp out in Tahir Square. That same group, always overlapped by members of the Brotherhood and among whom were those who murdered Sadat, have already outlawed a repeat of such a demonstration. I doubt they will be any more willing to allow western media to set up cameras there than the People’s Army in China will tolerate another Tiananmen Square.
The values of the so-called “Enlightenment” make lousy state policy, especially foreign policy. Faith in mankind may be admirable, but its poor substitute for protecting objective national interests, like national survival.
Demonstrations were already outlawed before Mubarak fell and with much more deadly consequences if violated and the demonstrations were a lot more than bad publicity but an uprising of millions across Northern Egypt with real power.
The army is being circumspect because they know that using outright force will see a return of those people in the streets. The MB may or may not become a force in a future gov’t but to suggest they can take over when they could not overthrow Mubarak is just silly.
In the long run the MB have no vision of gov’t other than mass cultural censorship, putting women in their place and hostility against Israel; this will not raise the minimum wage to where it legally is supposed to be which is 3 times where it actually is nor will it magically create an economy to come up with that money. This was an economic uprising and not a religious one and many in Egypt will simply not allow it to be hijacked for religion which believe me, they have plenty of already.
The main worry for Egyptians is not the MB but the old regime because they have in no way simply given up and the religious element among the army is far outnumbered by regime leftovers.
It’s spring time for Mohammed and Islam,
Winter for women and gays.
We’re marching to mecca enthralled,
Look out, here comes the sha’ria law.
Spring time for Mohammed and Islam,
The caliphate is here once again.
Spring time for Mohammed and Islam.
Watch out Infidel, we’re going to war!
Don’t be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Freedom and Justice Party!
*Thank you* for an intelligent commentary on this subject. The neo-cons advocating U.S. involvement in Libya are indeed delusional, if not psychotically delusional. The “rebels” are not only affiliated with the Muslim brotherhood, but the intel is that they are being promoted by Iran, while supported by Al Qaeda. For anyone to ask us to believe that helping these “rebel” thugs is a *good* thing is like asking Lara Logan to believe that walking the streets of Cairo is a safe proposition. There is no good to come of helping either side.
I thought I was the only one who thought of “The Producers” when this started up.
Actually, the various revolutions in progress remind me much more of the Iranian revolution in 1978-79, and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan a decade later. Both followed the pattern of the French Revolution, the 1848 European revolts, the Russian Revolution of 1917-18, and the Mexican Revolution of the same period (1914-21).
In each of the above cases, pluralistic, democracy-minded “liberals” overthrew the sitting (authoritarian) government, and were in their turn overthrown by another group of authoritarians. The Directory overthrew the Assembly in France, the Bolsheviks massacred the Mensheviks in Russia, Huerta helped Madero overthrow Diaz’ and then did away with Madero himself, the Taliban executed almost everybody in Afghanistan, and the 1848 uprisings ended with the most violent elements turning on their former “allies”. (The 1848 revolts’ denouements have passed virtually unnoticed by historians due to the speed with which the monarchies reasserted themselves- with the bayonet.)
The moral is that with rare exceptions (such as the United States), those who overthrow a dictatorial government are almost never the ones who end up running things in the end. The usual “winners” are those who are the most ruthless, the craziest, and the most heavily armed.
And most of the “idealists” who started it end up with a deer-caught-in-the-headlights look. On their way to the gallows, guillotine, firing squad, or whatever.
In the Islamic world, by the nature of the culture, the ones most likely to come out on top are those who are the most like the dictators they are trying to get rid of now. Except probably even more unhinged.
I don’t see this ending well, at all.
clear ether
eon
I teach history. Your analysis is spot on. “Doomed to repeat” should be ringing in the ears of the planners in Washington.
I really like your analysis eon, and especially your use of historical examples.
I look it at from a slightly different angle, though. Since our intervention started last month, I keep thinking of the Russian Revolution, where a half-hearted, poorly-planned Allied intervention ultimately achieved nothing but prolong a bloody civil war. It looks right now like that’s what we have achieved in Libya.
“So now I’m yelling: “Guys, the question is not what to do about Gaddafi — the question is what to do after he’s gone!”
Pity that in last night’s speech, Obama did NOT answer that critical question. American presidents never seem to be concerned with what comes AFTER one of their military “adventures,” either Bush in Iraq or Obama in Libya.
Oh, and by the way, who is going to pay for all this? I thought we were broke? So now we’re coming up with a few million dollars A DAY to support this new war? Wow, I didn’t know we had all that spare cash lying around. Maybe we could use that money for something really important, like reducing our national debt? Naaaaa, that would make too much sense.
Where’s a leader when you need one? What is this academic air head in the White House going to do next, he doesn’t have a foot left to shoot. If you think the world had pieces to pick up after the peanut farmer, just wait.
In my opinion the whole Muslim Middle East is nothing more than Hitler’s Germany spread over several different countries, but all with the same stated goal, world domination under the guidance of Mohamed. Most if not all have openly stated and chanted death to the infidels, death to Israel and the Jews. Allah Ackbar, or is it Seig Heil, hard to tell the difference, oh my goodness, I just don’t know what to do.
…hitler’s germany without discipline
I see I am not the only one with this sentiment of the Arab world. To make matters worse, you have a culture that is incapable of feeding itself (Egypt was once the bread basket of the Roman Republic) yet alone building a self-sustaining market based economy.
So what will a people do, who are unable to make, buy, or trade for life’s essentials; whilst dominated by young men indoctrinated with a death-cult religious fervor? They will take what they need through intimidation or outright force.
Europe especially, in a few years may face a situation that will make the Corsairs raiding European commerce of the past look tame by comparison. How will they cope with a hostile mass, both inside and outside their borders, possible armed with crude nuclear weapons? Compliments of Pakistan or Iran.
Thank you for your insights, Mr. Grandy. You are seeing clearly what others aren’t even looking at.
Those who think that turmoil in Muslim nations will result in sudden outbreaks of Democracy aren’t in touch with reality.
Very well said and I agree 100% with Mr. Gandy.
Chaos is always dangerous; chaos you don’t control is even worse.
And we’re supposed to believe a group of people, some of whom can’t even balance their own finances or pay their taxes, are “in control.”
The rain falls on the thorns in the desert as well as the flowers in the garden.
One does not have to be even slightly familiar with the history of the Middle East or Moslems to see that Islam is a hyper-volatile and violent politicial doctrine. It seems to be on fire everywhere, and Obama is doing nothing but fanning the flames. As much as I would like to see Qaddafi burn in hell for Pan Am, he has largely been in check for the past 20+ years. (thanks to Mr. Reagan)I shudder to think what the next asylum escapee in charge will do.
No Soldier or Marine I have talked to is optimistic in the least about these revolutions. Those of us who have spent time on the ground in direct contact with the natives (not just shaking hands with diplomats like Senator Lieberman) know better.
The Arab peasants aren’t Americans in robes. They come from another world with values and beliefs directly opposed to our own. Setting them free to choose their own governments is not a good idea.
Well said and simply said, good sir. Thank you
“Now, when he prays in Tahrir Square, he can draw a million people.
The protesters who toppled Mubarak never exceeded a hundred thousand.”
When a thing is repeated often enough, it gains a life of its own and before you know it, it is reality. When one wants to make an argument, it is important to be accurate and have context.
I was in the streets and in Tahrir Square from the beginning of its occupation and for 8 of those 15 days, that is when I could reach it without being arrested or assaulted. I photographed the uprising in the streets on Jan.28 (Angry Friday) and was in Tahrir most days thereafter.
First of all, Qaradawi cannot draw 1 million people to Tahrir and didn’t. It is doubtful there were anywhere near 1 million people in Tahrir that day but the point is that they would’ve been there regardless if Qaradawi had been there or not as they are every Friday en masse. Put Qaradawi in another place where he is the sole draw and there will be no giant crowds.
More important for context, the day that Qaradawi was in Tahrir was not the biggest crowd I saw in Tahrir; it was big but there were 2 or 3 other days bigger. The statement that the largest protest only crowd in Tahrir could only draw 100,000 needs context. Whatever the number one agrees on, if we agree it is 100,000, then Qaradawi, if he is given credit for his one day which he should not be but let’s say he is, then he cannot outdraw a raw crowd of protesters but the other way around. I know this for an absolute fact since, on days important to the protest, the pure protesters routinely outdrew or equaled the day Qaradawi spoke.
However, I should say once again, that the day Qaradawi spoke was in no way considered HIS event; he was simply one of the many reasons people were in the square that day and in light of the fact that they were always in that square during calls for crowds, his presence in those terms was irrelevant.
In short, the idea that Qaradawi can outdraw protest crowds in Tahrir by 10 to 1 is an utter falsehood and lacks context besides. I would argue, that in his own venue, the protests in Tahrir could easily outdraw Qaradawi 10 to 1.
Mr. Grandy, I too have been perplexed at the ‘The enemy of my enemy is..’ fiction afloat.
It reminds me of the ‘Army of Darkness’ movie whereas sworn enemies ‘Duke Henry the Red’ and ‘Lord Arthur’ fight side-by-side for a mutual enemy and embrace following the defeat of said enemy.
Everyone loves a worthy and most welcome ending but I too live in reality.
a rush to action ALWAYS has dire consequences. Not to mention we know the result of an, ‘assumption’.
It’s disheartening to see politicians use pie-in-the-sky ideas for diplomacy to ‘do over’ nearly 1 1/2 millennia of history. Albeit good or bad.. it is still history. Then again, Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech rewrote A LOT of the ‘Middle East’s contributions to ‘society’ so this is familiar territory for this formerly trainer/now big boy pants ‘Leader’.
I have to disagree, things right now suck, with tyrants frozen in power and absolutely no movement, the only way to go is up.
I said at the time, that installing a Democracy in Iraq was one of the greatest strategic maneuvers in Human history. It was an example of cultural judo of the first water, putting a naturally corruption reducing Democracy in what was once the most cosmopolitan Arab nation, and its central location, was the best response to 9/11.
Bush is going to gain huge credit for this eventually, as he should.
Everyone is worried about the Moslem Brotherhood, and Islamists taking control from the Tyrants. But, I wonder how much credit and support they will get in the polling booth, as I seriously doubt that they will be able to take control without a vote. And even if it’s the case of “One man, One vote, Onetime” that is still a Victory for us, as it is a Cultural recognition on their part, that only a Democratic vote can confer Legitimacy.
We Win!!!
Great article. Only one of the pundits the author lists may be somewhat okay, and I’m not even sure about him. Kristol is the worst. Try Napolitano on Fox Business. He seems to get most things right. I don’t watch the others much anymore.
Fred, you are absolutely right. I just called up Sen.McCain and asked them do they know who they are going to arm? Where the rebels that we are supposed to save stand..with us or Al Qaeda? Then I came across your column.
God Bless you..you are on the mark. They have never had any structure as to what is a democracy and someone will go back into the space if Gaddafi leaves.
Yet, Hark! Farakhan said No to Pres. Obama since he and Rev. Wright visit Gaddafi quite often to the State Dept. dismay but they never stop them.
So, now Gaddafi will stay on and our Congress is irrelevant as this Pres sent our soldiers to a foreign land that we have no vital interest in, said Gates and he drinks champagne while announcing this.
What cares he about the spouses and parents of these soldiers that he could not pay the respect due to those who might die and give the address in the Oval Office as a President of the United States should do!
Many Israelis were watching events in Egypt with nervous concern and skepticism – and they were criticized, by Jewish liberal pundits especially, for not joining in the celebrations. But they had cause for concern, especially given talk of revisiting the existing Egypt-Israel peace agreement.
Yet now what we’re seeing is the possibility of a more extremist Sunni crescent stretching from Tunisia to Libya, Egypt, northern Sudan and Yemen. Meanwhile, increasingly unfriendly Turkey is trying to bring Syria, Lebanon and Jordan into its orbit. Maybe that Israeli skepticism was justified after all.
“But as foreign policy, it is dangerously delusional”
Well, at least one person gets it.
Little lenin wouldn’t have got involved if he didn’t see an opportunity, and for him opportunities always include chaos and weakening the United State, and usually, increasing the strength of the caliphate (because Islam is one of the forces that is the most destructive to the US).
It is the obligation of every person who wants America to continue as the greatest force for good in history to oppose EVERYTHING the boy king does. Thinking otherwise is dangerously naive and naively dangerous.
Perhaps there is something about Egypt which leads to magical thinking:
Pharoh’s dream (Gen41)
22And I saw in my dream, and, behold, seven ears came up in one stalk, full and good:
23And, behold, seven ears, withered, thin, and blasted with the east wind, sprung up after them:
24And the thin ears devoured the seven good ears: and I told this unto the magicians; but there was none that could declare it to me.
25And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do.
26The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one.
27And the seven thin and ill favoured kine that came up after them are seven years; and the seven empty ears blasted with the east wind shall be seven years of famine.
28This is the thing which I have spoken unto Pharaoh: What God is about to do he sheweth unto Pharaoh.
Slick move by Joseph. It would take more convincing majic for another Pharoh to let the Israelites go.
From a recent TNR article:
Cairo, Egypt — On a hot July evening this past summer, toward the end of our interview, Aref Desouki, vice-chair of a faction of the liberal Ghad Party, suddenly got defensive. After dodging questions about Egyptian State Security’s infiltration of his party, the bespectacled, cane-carrying mathematics professor wanted to emphasize that political conspiracies aren’t unique to Egypt. “You are controlled in the U.S. by an underground government,” he said, completely seriously. “A secret government that is related to the Zionists and the Jewish-Christian Zionists. For at least forty years, the U.S. has been more supportive of Israel and no U.S. president can go against this or he will be killed, like Kennedy. And when Clinton talked about Arab rights, they sent Monica to his office. And Monica is Jewish.”
Through nearly five months of interviews with opposition leaders in Egypt, I have come across perfectly well-educated people who happen to believe that the CIA killed Marilyn Monroe (because of her affair with Kennedy); MI-6 killed Princess Diana (because she was dating Dodi Al Fayyad, a Muslim); and the U.S. government was behind 9/11 (because a few Al Qaeda operatives couldn’t have possibly pulled off such a large operation), among many others.”
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85817/egypt-conspiracy-police
While we laugh at Mossad Sharks, the mere fact that such ideas, though perhaps not widely believed, is not laughable in Egypt is concerning. These beliefs are not, as many apologists assert, mere propoganda tricks of an autocratic regime, they reflect beliefs deeply rooted in the national conscious.
The ever pragmatic Israelites need to keep this in mind when dealing with a new reality in Egypt and elsewhere. Anti-semitism, Anti-Zionism, and a host of myths concerning the US and Israel are likely to be more prevelent in the coming years. Like Joseph and Moses, a strategy for national survival for Israel and Jews should account for, and take advantage of this tendancy.
While I share the author’s general sense of dismay, in fairness, I think it should be admitted that there is an opportunity here. Yes, it may well turn out badly as in so many other revolutions. But it MIGHT turn out well. As I see it, the current situation in the Arab world of quasi-dictators who hang onto power for decades only to be replaced by their son(s) has worked badly for just about everyone, with the exception of France/Spain/Italy who have made deals with these dictators.
Ousting Mubarak/Gadaffi/Assad/etc. might produce better government. It might produce worse also. But does the author seriously suggest we should support the existing quasi-dictators? Surely not. So we can either (1) ignore the situation or (2) try to push it in a direction we like, meaning republics with real citizenship. Its not impossible for this to happen in Islamic countries – IT CAN HAPPEN. Look at Turkey under Ataturk.
Yes, there are real threats here. Yes, the M.B. may well take over Egypt. But a policy based on trying to make things better is not stupid. It may well fail, but consider the alternatives. For the record, I think our current president is both stupid and ill-advised. I wish we had a president like Eisenhower on hand. I suspect Obama will fail badly in this effort but there is a chance that things will work out well. The suggestion that we just watch from the sidelines is one I argued for in Libya but its too late now. We are in this. We should try to make the best of a bad situation.
Ataturk was almost 100 years ago, look at Turkey today.
I do wish for the most optimistic outcome in these countries but a democratic government does not equate to being Switzerland. Middle eastern countries are rife with social pathologies – the corruption and nepotism that permeate everything, the horrible religious and tribal bigotries and the poor treatment of women, just to name a few.
We’ll surely see improvements but a modern progressive society is still a long way off.
Time to dust off this quote from “The Third Man”.
“Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love – they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”
Just a minor correction, cuckoo clocks are not Swiss, they are German. Moreover, I am sick and tired of the reference to democracy and Switzerland. It is a republic with a constitution just like the US which also is not a democracy. Nitpicking? You betcha.
And I am tired of the common ignorance about the meaning of the terms: republic and democracy. The US is both a republic and a democracy.
The term ‘republic’ refers to the mode of organization of authority in the nation: elected or hereditary. A republic has its ultimate authority within an elected leadership.
The term ‘democracy’ refers to the method of decision-making in the government. Democracy means that the decisions of the govt are made by a majority vote.
The two terms refer to completely different situations within a governmental system.
The UK is a constitutional monarchy and a democracy.
The US is a republic and a democracy.
Get it? Nitpicking?
yes the difference means a lot and is lost on most people. sure a democratic republic but that doesn’t mean the two terms are interchangeable.
democracy is purely 50% plus one ..or in other words mob rule.
Congressman Grandy are we assuming that subsequent Islamic governments would eschew democracy – i.e. stop elections? Or would citizens not allow even Islamists get away with that?
Sounds to me like we’ll just see more rigged elections. That’s basically what the dictators have done all along, isn’t it?
Our true concern is whatever the hell it is about Islam that has popularized it so much. Just because we cannot see the appeal doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Know thine enemy.
..remember that even in the USA elections are rigged. mainly if not only by the democrats.
obama cheated in the primaries and it may actually have been won by hillary if the count was fair.
JFK cheated ..rigged the elections .
harry reid got more votes then there were voters.
there are many more cases out there that have not seen the light of day.
and on top of that in muslim societies islam wins and islam is not compatible with rights or democracy.
Thank you, Fred. It is nice to read one voice of reason on Libya here.
I consider support of the same Islamists who have been and still are murdering members of our armed forces a form of treason, and these putative conservatives who have assisted this project never will be taken seriously again. They may think they can slither on to the next shiny thing, but this betrayal of our military has relegated them to the dustbin of history.
It was woefully obvious from the outset that the whole of the Libyan uprising was orchestrated by al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah members and supporters. How the fools in the Administration, Congress, and punditworld can not hang their heads in shame tells me one thing. They don’t give a damn about our boys and girls in Afghanistan and Iraq, and probably secretly admire these Islamists for their murderous talent.
Lenin said something about selling the rope. I guess he couldn’t envision his enemies actually placing that rope around their necks.
excellent piece Fred
I also realize you are very cautious in you portrayal.
There is nothing that will resemble democracy this year, next year and my opinion not for a generation ..if ever.
to begin with a democracy where individual rights are guaranteed only exists in the USA and that right of the individual is failing because of people like bill Kristol, john mccain, lieberman and countless other so called leaders who fail in truth trying to be all things to all people.
governance should be easy. but people are not naturally alturistic nor should they be, but they should be held to account and none of them are.
the obama administration is well aware that the muslim brotherhood and the extreme islamists will gain control in the middle east …they want that.
ask yourself this question. HAS THIS ADMINISTRATION DONE ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS POSITIVE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR THE WORLD AT LARGE (THEY SHOULD NOT BE SO WORRIED ABOUT THE WORLD AT LARGE TO BEGIN WITH) ANYTHING???
ANYTHING??
IF IT WAS ACCIDENTAL IF OBAMA WAS JUST STUPID THEN AT LEAST SOME SMALL THING WOULD HAVE OCCURRED THAT FAVOURED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. YET THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. BECAUSE THAT IS THE PLAN. ANARCHY AND UNREST …WHY WHEN YOU ARE THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD WOULD YOU WANT TO DESTROY IT. ONLY ONE ANSWER THEY ARE MARXISTS AND MARXISTS HATE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
this will end badly for us and them.
…incidently bill kristol (what did obama promise in the closed door meeting …too bad he isn’t a journOlist who would write about that) just entered the group of non-conservative conservatives ..along with david brooks, david frum and the RINO’s
Congressman Grandy,
Great to see that you still have a venue where your voice can be heard (seen?). Your muzzling left a morning void in Warrenton, Va.
OK, everyone has misconstrued what I’m saying, a bit. I agree that there are pitfalls here, lots of them. I’m also aware of the Arab and Moslem world’s dismal record with regards to Democracy. I’m not saying that what I’m advocating is a *good* choice. I’m saying it’s the best of a bad bunch. No one seems willing to confront the issue of “what then”, and to me that seems the biggest question.
So, let’s go back to the beginning and reiterate. One of the leaders of the opposition to Gaddaffi turns out to have been rabidly anti-American in the past. What do we do when we discover this? Do we divorce ourselves from the opposition movement entirely? Go the Pat Buchannan route, and ignore everything that occurs offshore. I’m sure you’d get Ron Paul’s vote, but realistic people know that if we do *nothing*, we’ll be blamed for the outcome whatever happens, and we’ll have no say in the outcome. Everyone keeps saying that since we get little or no oil from Libya, we have no strategic interest there…but we have a serious interest in the stable price of crude oil, and if one of the suppliers (even one we don’t directly purchase any oil from) suddenly goes offline for a long while, the result will be a spike in oil, and in turn gasoline, prices. Simple economics.
Are there good choices here? No, I don’t think there are. Did Obama do the right thing in his policy so far? He waited, in my opinion, way too long for “international consensus” before sending in the planes to enforce the no-fly zone. In my opinion we got lucky, in that the insurgents were about to be completely defeated, and if that had happened a no-fly zone would have been irrelevant. The chief benefit of his policy (which seems to be the goal a lot) is that the elites in Paris and London are grateful that he acted as if their countries were equal partners in the action that followed. They’ll show their gratitude by disdaining our contribution and trying to take credit for everything good that stems from the no-fly zone.
…how can you advocate that it is a better choice when you have no idea what the second choice is?
by the way that is obama’s policy too. things that fail for 500 Alex.
I long supported the ouster of Mubarak. I recognized that while the regime created the illusion of a “stable” Egypt it fostered a Jew-hatred that was absent until Mubarak took over and a domestic political atmosphere that robbed Egyptians of all hope.
Mubarak and his cronies openly threatened the West and their own populace that if they fell they might throw their support to the Muslim Brotherhood. So yes, it is a battle the democrats have to fight. I long pointed out to them that they had no plan what to do when met by Islamic violence. I am thrilled but sober. I know I have little role for now in events. It’s up to the Egyptians; a democracy produces a government you negotiate with, not a dictator who seeks a master/slave relationship.