Bush's Flawed Policy

To say that the Bush administration's neoconservative policy of redrawing the ideological map of the Middle East by militarily forcing democracy into an unstable region has been a failure should be obvious now. Sure, there remains a possibility/hope that the people of that region will ultimately move away from radicalism and slowly adapt to more Western styles of democracy, but that should've been their decision, and their decision alone, from the beginning. Our heavy-handed (and clumsy) interference in the Middle East has increased the very problems we sought to eliminate. The fact that President Bush and his followers still perpetuate this democracy-spreading = peace myth while simultaneously working to undermine the newly elected governments of the region shows the arrogance at the heart of this policy.

Shibley Telhami (a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland) had a good column recently in the Washington Post where he explored this issue and the lack of options available-

The reality shown by Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections is this: If fully free elections were held today in the rest of the Arab world, Islamist parties would win in most states. Even with intensive international efforts to support "civil society" and nongovernmental organizations, elections in five years would probably yield the same results. The notion, popular in Washington over the past few years, that American programs and efforts can help build a third alternative to both current governments and Islamists is simply a delusion...

...Whatever the message of American foreign policy on democracy, it has not been clear in the Middle East. Most Arab governments see the American advocacy of democracy as primarily aimed at pressuring them to cooperate on strategic issues (such as Iraq, the war on terrorism and the Palestinian-Israeli issue) and at diverting attention from the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The majority of Arabs surveyed in our poll do not believe that the United States is serious about the pursuit of democracy and that the Middle East is even less democratic than it was before the Iraq war.

These statements may sound harsh to some, but it is the reality that is more and more being accepted. Henry Hyde, the Republican Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, openly questioned recently the "magic formula of democracy" the Bush administration has tried to sell, stating such a notion requires "an open-ended commitment of time and resources, which we cannot and will not do". This cautionary stance is becoming increasingly accepted on the Hill.

Despite this, most would agree that a peaceful Middle East is something worth fighting for (though not in the Bush/military/shock-and-awe way). So is there any good way to help achieve this goal with risking a further destabilization of the region? Telhami ponders this question-

Given this, skepticism about the real aims of these groups should be balanced by openness to the possibility that their aims once they are in power could differ from their aims as opposition groups. This requires partial engagement, patience, and a willingness to allow such new governments space and time to put their goals to the test of reality. Hamas, in fact, could provide a place for testing whether careful engagement leads to moderation.

If we are not willing to engage, there is only one alternative: to rethink the policy of accelerated electoral democracy and focus on a more incremental approach of institutional and economic reform of existing governments. There is no realistic third party that's likely to emerge anytime soon.

Such a more relaxed, cooperative approach might not be the policy of choice for some in the administration (ie. Rumsfeld), but I believe it is one that others (ie. Rice) are more predisposed to embrace. As Chris Matthews noted on a recent Hardball, most of the hawks have fled the administration after the Iraq war began to crumble. Hiding out at the World Bank is certainly preferable when the American people start demanding accountability for the war. That could be a good sign that at least some people, if not Bush himself, have learned their lesson. Time will tell on that one as we watch how the Iran situation is handled.

[PS- The LA Times has a look at how the Iraq war has strengthened Iran.]