1
   

Success in the Middle East? Try telling Howard Dean

 
 
Fedral
 
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 02:23 pm
Success in the Middle East? Try telling Howard Dean[/u]
By:Bill Murchison
January 6, 2004

George Bush's anti-terrorist policy is such a smashing, crashing, slobbering, falling-down failure that ... that ... Afghan women are about to gain equal rights with men. And non-Islamic peoples in Afghanistan -- Christians included -- are gaining the right to public worship.

Afghanistan's just-concluded national assembly has decided as much. Oddly, it decided so around the same time Osama bin Laden supposedly re-emerged to champion, in yet another Al Jazeera tape, the overthrow of the "crusaders." The juxtaposition of events could not have been sweeter. The voice of the past -- bin Laden's -- squeaks in protest against the future he himself made inevitable through the Sept. 11 attacks. The country that welcomed and harbored Al Qaeda is giving equal rights -- and a guaranteed 25 percent of assembly seats -- to women. Think of it! Arabic women making law alongside the menfolk! Why, it's enough to make an embittered, gray-bearded screwball go out and machine-gun his camel.

According to our ambassador in Kabul, Afghanistan's new constitution is "one of the most enlightened constitutions in the Islamic world." Which, admittedly, isn't saying much, but you have to start somewhere. The "somewhere" to which American resolution and military power have delivered Afghanistan is a place no one -- least of all the Afghans -- could have envisioned on Sept. 10, 2001.

That Afghanistan -- its very name reeking of the remote and exotic -- stands ready to model democracy for the rest of us is, well, a little improbable.

That's a smaller problem than one might think. The imperative here is that Afghanistan, not the U.S. Congress, should model democracy, or something resembling it, for the Islamic world. Wouldn't that be something? Afghan success, or even just partial success, with representative institutions and embedded rights might remind Arabs that life under a succession of squalid dictatorships is not kismet. The Iraqis, who had a civilized constitution before Saddam Hussein destroyed it, would seem first in line for inspiration of this sort. Afghanistan's success at uniting, or anyway calming, wild and dissident factions suggests that post-Saddamite Iraq, with a little will and persuasion, could achieve something similar.

But Bush's anti-terrorist policy is a failure! The president's foes regularly say so. Howard Dean doesn't feel one bit safer with Saddam behind bars, he reassured fellow Democrats out in Johnston, Iowa, the other night.

One has to wonder how Dean connects the dots in his head. Or whether he actually tries.

What Dean wants, he wants now, this very minute, and if that thing is ironclad guarantees of safety, and if President Bush doesn't deliver said guarantees, waaaaah! Dean seems to fancy Rome as having been built in a single day. Maybe he had an ancestor -- Quintus Deanus -- in charge of construction.

The slow, steady progress exemplified by the convening of bitterly opposed factions; the pursuit of reconciliation and compromise; the walkouts and the walk-back-ins; the stuff that went on in Afghanistan, for instance -- ahem; the governor of Vermont is Not Impressed. Won't do! Not enough! Iraq, you have to infer from the governor of Vermont's searching critiques, is a write-off so long as the United States tries to do it all alone.

The real pity is that, concerning Iraq, what the United States needs isn't cheerleading or poor-mouthing either one. It's realism and perspective. It's consolidation. Nothing like what we have been doing has ever been done before. We clomp through unknown territory. Even Republicans aren't sure how much more liberating they want to do for a while.

Hyped Up Howard's refusal to admit much, or any, good in Bush's Iraq policy destroys nuance and pushes Americans apart rather than inviting them to serious conversation about national ends. You wonder sometimes whether democracy -- the institution Afghanistan is buying into -- is all it's cracked up to be. Didn't democracy produce Howard Dean? It did. It also affords the chance to do something about him.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,828 • Replies: 27
No top replies

 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 03:37 pm
The initial fallacy in this piece lies in its author's inability to find Afghanistan on a map. It isn't in the Middle East, but in South Asia. It just gets worse after that.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 03:45 pm
hobitbob wrote:
The initial fallacy in this piece lies in its author's inability to find Afghanistan on a map. It isn't in the Middle East, but in South Asia. It just gets worse after that.
That's right - obvioulsy no-one trusts the CIA anymore:



from The CIA World Fact Book:
Quote:
Afghanistan ...
Location:
Southern Asia, north and west of Pakistan, east of Iran
:wink:
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 03:48 pm
hobitbob wrote:
The initial fallacy in this piece lies in its author's inability to find Afghanistan on a map. It isn't in the Middle East, but in South Asia. It just gets worse after that.


We should all hope to live up to your standards of precision... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 03:51 pm
Well, I acept that some of you do not. But that's what plebs are for. You guys are useful for your strong backs, not your weakened brains. Wink
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 03:55 pm
McGentrix wrote:


We should all hope to live up to your standards of precision... Rolling Eyes


Eh, basic knowledge of geography is a standard of precision?

Wow!
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 09:04 pm
Lower
The standards for Right Wingdings has been lowered by 50% ever since Dubya the Dunce is the standard bearer.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 09:46 pm
Well, after 11th september, anyone with a dusky complexion is "middle eastern," right? That would explain the Ecuadorean couple beaten up in the inner harbour in Baltimore in October of 2001, adn told to "Go back to yer camel country."
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:46 pm
So what is middle east? Asia seems to be a continent, beginning in downtown Istanbul and extending through China, Japan, Korea. Excluding Asian countries excludes Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Israel,et.al. Africa seems to extend south and west of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, excluding Egypt. So just what is this Middle East thing that's excluded from being a part of named continents?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 12:51 am
Well, since the Americans (and British) started to call the formerly 'Near East' "Middle East", there's truely some co´nfusion.

Generally, American geographs call 'Middle East' the lands around the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, extending from Morocco to the Arabian Peninsula.

Obviously, others like to call any Asian country (excluding the most eastern) Middle East.

Regarding when and where I went to school, I never would call Afghanistan a Middle East country in the above sense: we still use the term 'Near East' here, so 'Middle East' has quite a different meaning!
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 12:57 am
I tend to consider the Middle East (or Near East) to extend from the eastern shores of the Med, to the Iran/Afghan border. Afghanistan India, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, etc.. are all southern Asia.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 09:55 am
I'm inclined to agree with Walter and hobitbob, but note that I say "inclined", Walter says "generally", and hobitbob says "tend." All things considered, I would not discount an article or other commentary solely on lack of precision in the constitution of the Middle East.

By the way, I used to be confused by one of Europe's crack trains. The Orient Express terminated in Istanbul. I have always thought it should make it to China, or at least Burma.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 10:30 am
Well, roger, according to "The Encyclopedia of the Orient", these countries belong to that part of the world:
Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, U.A.E.,| Western Sahara, Yemen.

Unlike in the USA, 'Orient' in Europe means, well, 'Near East'.
Orient (and orientalism) has a special meaning to Europeans, since the 'Orient' defines the 'Occident' (Europe).

(And thus 'Oriental Studies' are Arabic, Persian and Turkish Studies, Orient carpets come from North Africa, Turkey and 'Persia', Oriental cooking is Arabic cooking ... :wink: )
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 10:57 am
hobitbob wrote:
Afghanistan India, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, etc.. are all southern Asia.


Eh ... Azerbajjan, like all of Transcaucasia (Armenia, Georgia), is formally Europe, I believe.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 11:00 am
All I know is they don't look like Texans, so they're fair game....kill 'em all and let God? Allah? Buddah? oh wait....Lord Satan (since that's who these actions REALLY serve) sort 'em out.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 11:02 am
<went to look it up>

Yep - Azerbaijan is a member of the Council of Europe, for example. (It's a member of the OSCE, too, but that doesn't say much, cause so is Tadzhikistan. But CoE membership is a good yardstick.)

Meanwhile, anyone got any comment on the article?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 11:11 am
nimh wrote:


Eh ... Azerbajjan, like all of Transcaucasia (Armenia, Georgia), is formally Europe, I believe.


Azerbaijan: "Southwestern Asia, bordering the Caspian Sea, between Iran and Russia, with a small European portion north of the Caucasus range."

Armenia: "Southwestern Asia, east of Turkey"

Georgia: "Southwestern Asia, bordering the Black Sea, between Turkey and Russia "

:wink:
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 11:21 am
As I understood it the term Middle East implied an ethnic unity (Arab). I would not include Iran (Persian) in that category.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 11:35 am
According to the UN there is no "Middle East" at all. The entire Persian Gulf region including Egypt and Iran (and everything in between) is considered "Western Asia".

http://www0.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/westasia.pdf
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2004 11:50 am
I believe, after carefully re-reading the article, that the author was referring to Iraq in the title and using Afghanistan as an example. Therefore, the author is correct and Hobitbob is correct in stating that Afghanistan is indeed in Asia.

The pitiful part is that Hobitbob did not read the entire article and just let his blind hatred of the right blur his vision.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Success in the Middle East? Try telling Howard Dean
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 06:12:18