How The Hamas Victory Refutes The Bush Foreign Policy Myth

In the days since the shocking Hamas electoral victory in Palestine, most of the world has reacted with shock and concern. The big exception seemed to be President Bush, who sidestepped the issue for the most part. He was speaking cluelessly in Thursday's press conference about "watching liberty begin to spread across the Middle East". His administration didn't share such sentiments, as Sec. of State Rice was quick to make clear the U.S. would not deal with Hamas unless they changed their positions. Many people (including moderate conservatives like Andrew Sullivan) noted that this victory represented the crumbling of the Bush foreign policy foundation- that forcing democracy into the Middle East will bring about peace and marginalize terrorists- and a huge setback for Mideast peace. But the Bush P.R. machine had to avoid overall negativity (or risk acknowledging this loss for his foreign policy) and this was reflected amongst the opinions of his most loyal supporters who shrugged their shoulders with a "hey, sometimes in democracy you don't get the winners you like" sentiment. This sentiment ignores that the Hamas victory was the latest in a growing trend of fundamentalist Mideast victories after similar ones in countries like Egypt and Iran (and to a lesser extent, the overwhelming Shiite victory in Iraq). The people of the Mideast do not desire our style of government... agree or disagree with their stance, it must at least be acknowledged.

Those wishing (such as National Review editor John O'Sullivan on this week's 'Left, Right, and Center') to defend the Bush foreign policy, and look for the silver lining in this cloud, opined that this is an unavoidable, necessary step in the slow road to peace- the terrible twos of democracy, if you will. This position holds that the people of Palestine do want reform and that's why they threw out a corrupt government. And now that they have put Hamas in power, the bluff will be called and Hamas will actually have to fulfill the basic needs of government, leaving less time for terrorism. If it doesn't work, the pundits posit, the system will simply self-correct, as the people can just replace the government in the next elections. It's an optimistic point of view, but is it also hopelessly naive? It assumes that the reason Palestinians elected Hamas was because of reform... and not as a violent 'fuck you' to the West. It also assumes that such a radical change will foster a self-correcting political environment. Hopefully, their optimism will trump harsh reality. Still, the Bush democracy-plan for the Mideast never pitched interim terrorist governments that would hopefully collapse under their own inability to govern as the Soviet Union did after 50 years.

More importantly, this attitude of 'Hey democracy doesn't always work the way you like, but the people have made a choice, and they must correct it themselves' directly refutes the rationale for the invasion of Iraq (the current removing-Saddam-to-liberate-the-people one, not the original WMD and Al Qaeda one). By this current attitude toward Hamas, the U.S.'s attitude toward Iraq should've been that Saddam Hussein was a democratically elected madman who we avoid relationships with, but was a problem for the people of Iraq to 'self-correct' either democratically or through other means. If we accept that democracy must be allowed to take its course (even if unpleasant results occur) and people are responsible for correcting problems electorally, was Hussein then not our concern, but that of the Iraqi people? Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the U.S., this is accepted fact now, we invaded to remove a leader who was politically our enemy and to nation-build in that country. I mean this not to defend Hussein's barbaric dictatorship in any way, but to note the hypocrisy in policy. We see this same hypocrisy in the hostile way the Bush administration is dealing with Venezuala's Hugo Chavez.

The Bush foreign policy myth is thus exposed on two levels- that invading Iraq was never an altruistic desire to liberate oppressed peoples of a secular society, and that the idea that you can force democracy upon a hostile region and bring about peace is a farce. As Sullivan noted, the Hamas victory "represents one critical pillar beneath the Bush foreign policy crumbling into dust".

Or if you live in the President's world- "liberty begin to spread across the Middle East".