Blogs and Stories
Mission Accomplished: He Was Right
Scott J. Ferrell / Congressional Quarterly / Getty Images
The moment would not last. Under pressure both from its political allies at home and its dictatorial allies in the Arab world, the Bush administration publicly backed away from its pledge to respect the will of the electorate and more or less shut down the democracy promotion project altogether.
No one doubts the potential danger in allowing Islamist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, whose goals and aspirations do not align with America’s interests in the region, to take part in free elections. But the real danger lies in stifling the political ambitions of such groups. That is because whenever moderate Islamist parties have been allowed to participate in the political process, popular support for more extremist groups has diminished (it should be noted that Hamas is actually the more moderate of the Islamist groups in Gaza, particularly when compared to its rivals in Islamic Jihad).
Consider the case of Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, or AKP), which went from being a banned opposition group into the most democratic political force the country has seen, and whose success has sapped Turkey’s more radical religious groups of their popular support. Conversely, when Islamist opposition has been suppressed, militant groups and religious extremists have gained favor. The Algerian civil war, which ravaged that country for nearly a decade in the 1990s and left an estimated 200,000 dead, is a strong case in point: The rise of the ultra-violent militant organization the Armed Algerian Group (GIA) was the direct result of the Algerian military’s decision to ban political participation by the more moderate and accommodating Islamists of Front Islamique de Salut (FIS).
The fact is that President Bush was right: Only through genuine democratic reform can the appeal of extremist groups be undermined and the tide of Muslim militancy stemmed. History has shown repeatedly that allowing such groups to participate more fully in the political process often forces them to moderate their radical ideologies (see: Likud). Thus far, predictions that electoral victories by Islamist parties would inevitably result in the demise of democracy have proved false. Indeed, the opposite is true.
Let us imagine for a moment what would have happened had Hamas been allowed to take its rightful place, albeit with certain restrictions and limitations, as the freely elected government in Palestine. Let us imagine the State Department had not financed and supervised the political campaign of Fatah, “down to the choice of backdrop color for the podium where Mr. Abbas was to proclaim victory,” as a recent column in the Christian Science Monitor claims.
Let us imagine that the United States and Israel had not banned together to blockade Gaza in an attempt to “starve the [new] Palestinian Authority of money and international connections,” as Steven Erlanger of The New York Times reported, “[so] that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement.” Is it inconceivable that Hamas would have undergone a transformation similar to that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the AKP in Turkey, or, for that matter, Fatah itself, which was designated a terrorist entity until it became an internationally recognized political entity (and ally to the U.S. and Israel) ? Had Hamas been given the opportunity to govern and fail (as it probably would have), would it still enjoy the popular support it receives from Palestinians? Or would the people have turned against it in favor of a less ideological, more accommodating, and more effective political party—say, Fatah—much as Fatah’s egregious failures turned the Palestinian people toward Hamas? It is often said that elections do not a democracy make. True enough. However, two consecutive elections, particularly in a place like Palestine, would have been a pretty good start.
The simple fact is that democracy cannot take root in the Middle East without the participation of parties like Hamas and Hezbollah. So rather than making it impossible for the peoples of the Middle East to elect such groups into power, perhaps we should try giving them a reason not to.
Read More Farewell Chronicles:
Part I: 20 Forgotten Bush Scandals
Part II: Son of Nixon
Part III: I Survived the Bush Presidency
Reza Aslan, a contributor to the Daily Best, is Assistant Professor of Creative Writing at University of California, Riverside and Senior Fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara. He is the author of the international bestseller, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam and the forthcoming How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Stiffing the Revolutionaries
Reza Aslan, a contributor to the Daily Beast, is assistant professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside and senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara. He is the author of the bestseller No god but God and How to Win a Cosmic War.
Naive Obama Gets Iran Results
Reza Aslan, a contributor to the Daily Beast, is assistant professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside and senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara. He is the author of the bestseller No god but God and How to Win a Cosmic War.
Obama's Last Iran Option
Reza Aslan, a contributor to the Daily Beast, is assistant professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside and senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara. He is the author of the bestseller No god but God and How to Win a Cosmic War.
Nope. No, not, and never.
'Yet what few of Bush's critics seemed to notice is that the peoples of the Middle East-those who "live in tyranny and hopelessness"-actually took the president at his word.' - those are people we call 'suckers'.
Yes, all very nice what President Bush said , but the fact is that he did nothing to follow through and ended up stifling democracy and supporting undemocratic regimes in the Middle East.
Mr. Aslan is right, wouldn't it be nice if Dubyah had the ability to DO what he SAID. It'd be nice if I could turn into a leprechaun and make pots of gold, but that isn't going to happen either.
I think the author is a fool. 1999 was the last year nobody died in Israel due to terrorism. Both Israeli's and Palestinians accomplished that achievement by working together. That was when both parties were actively involved in peace talks and had hope of success. Bush is the one who abandoned those talks, and abandoned the troubles as a policy while unilaterally supporting one side in a conflict where both sides have valid issues. The first item of Bush's first national security team meeting according to Paul O'Neil, who attended, was to end substantial involvement in the peace talks. "Some times it has to get worse before it gets better".There it is, Bush's strategy, make the situation worse!!
The reason the last eight years have been a disaster is because Bush has isolated us from our major Arab allies, and abandoned even the appearance of being a fair broker.
Hamas was elected after all, largely because Bush insisted on the elections when any idiot could have told him Hamas would win those elections. Currently Abbas's term as President has expired and he's clinging to power anyway.When he does submit to elections in the near future, it's very likely Hamas will win leadership in the west bank too. Not because Hamas hasn't been allowed to fail, as the author implies; but because the Palestinian people have witnessed electing moderates doesn't buy them any moderation on the part of the Israelis or the United States. Their lands continue to be confiscated (ongoing settlement building in the occupied territories outside of Israeli's boarders), Their towns continue to be separated by 600 roadblocks. Their innocent citizens continue to be killed on an order of 10 or 20 to one of the innocent citizens of Israel. It's no wonder why Hamas is gaining support, and Bush hasn't been right on anything in that region in eight years.
The argument that no nation would live under rocket attacks is a farce.The fact is Israel herself requires the Palestinians to live lives under an embargo, and periodic guided missile attacks which kill many more people than the Hamas rockets ever have and likely ever will.
Extra! Extra! U.S. Actions Don't Live Up to U.S. Rhetoric. Hasn't it always been thus?
the gaza elections were a monumental step forward in the region, but in typical bush fashion, they were mishandled from the beginning. the us backed their horse, and when it lost, they refused to view hamas as legitimate... so once again, in this situation, bush was all talk and no substance.
It's important to remember that the Bush Doctrine is preventive war - not promotion of democracy. Saving the World for Democracy has been the American Brand since at least Wilson. Mostly, we've Saved the World for Capitalism, frankly.
Democracy is not the key to peace in the Israeli troubles. The keys are to grow moderates on both sides through even handed dealings.Then when we have grown moderates, to take an active role in negotiating a settlment.Bush has spent the last eight years growing extremists on both sides of these troubles.
Bush was "ridiculed" for that speech because HOW the Conservative / Neocon mindset took to solving Middle East problems, by the barrel of a Gun. In addition just as Bush was babbling about Democracy his own actions such as torture, rendition, Iraq War etc, hardly gave him much credibility abroad, most especially with the Middle East. What does Bush and Co think "Democracy", "Ending Tyranny" etc looks like? They recklessly assume simply willing our way into a society will somehow transform them into SUV loving, Mall Shopping Democratic people....
The NeoCon world View has died an ugly death, just as their failed policies continue to crumble they still purport that they stand in the high ground.
We will pay dearly for Bush's reckless middle east policies ( or lack therof for ) years to come.......
To: jaguarxjs,
I think it i funny how a president can make all kinds of promises during campaigning, but the truth of the matter is, he can not do anything without the House and Senate.
In this case, President Bush had to fight with a democratic majority, that would veto anything he suggested. I think they would veto his lunch order.
The idea of getting out of Iraq is all good in theory, but the reality of it all is, there are still the wannabe's who want to control the world through violence.
And the grim fact is, the world is going to be at war as long as the human race cannot separate their religion from government.
That is what makes the United States, even with flaws, a great country to live in. That, my friend, is why people from all religions, race, and countries come to live here.
There have been times I did not agree with President Bush, but I understand the political "games" that are played. I feel EVERYONE in Washington, D.C. is to blame for all of the United States problems. It would be a breath of fresh air to replace everyone in the capitol with honest people without hidden agendas. (now I will step off of my soap box, thank you)
The trouble is, was and always will be that democracy is often accompanied by violence and extremism. Saddam's Iraq was a very peaceful place, when it wasn't warring with its neighbor, or with us. Political scientists know that the introduction of democracy into a nation unleashes powerful and often destructive forces. There are so many examples of this: civil rights for blacks led to years of terrorist violence by white supremacists. Hitler was an elected official.
We must ask ourselves: do we want a safer world, or a more just world? If we want to promote democracy in the Middle East, we need to face the fact that we are likely to suffer as a result. Just because Hamas might fail to govern effectively if left alone does not mean that their failure will give birth to an organized opposition of moderates in the near term. Nor will it guarantee that foreign policy conducted by Islamic democracies (e.g. Iran) will make the world safer.
" If we want to promote democracy in the Middle East, we need to face the fact that we are likely to suffer as a result. Just because Hamas might fail to govern effectively if left alone does not mean that their failure will give birth to an organized opposition of moderates in the near term."
did you happen to miss the examples cited in the piece that contradict the premise of your argument? and im pretty sure that violence against african-americans was not a direct result of the civil rights movement...
The trouble with this article is that the author and headline writers are being coy/sarcastic when they say Bush was "right" - at least that is my generous interpretation, as opposed to just plain dumb. But by saying it so starkly it puts the reader in the entirely wrong frame of mind as they read it. If you get all the way through its clear that the real thesis is that things might have been better had we not interfered with the democratic process in Palestine. In other words, had Bush actually meant a word of what he said and actually acted in accordance with the ideals of his speech, things might have been better. Ha Ha. It is of course highly debatable whether that's true. But I presume the author doesn't really believe that there was any sincerity in Bush's statement about democracy. There was never the slightest evidence or action that Bush before or after his speech intended for the U.S. to truly be a defender of democracy anywhere, other than where it held a specific strategic advantage to the U.S. and only under our terms, which really is a contradiction of true democracy. Put aside that it took almost no time for Bush to say that democracy in Palestine doesn't count when the results don't turn out the way he wanted them. If we are really the selfless defenders of democracy, why are we not in Zimbabwe right now? That is a democracy clearly under siege by a dictator. Why are none of our closest allies in the Arab world democracies and why aren't we don't anything about it? The truth is in the Arab world democracy (which more closely if imperfectly reflects the will of the people) usually leads to hostility toward the U.S. Even in Iraq, the more democratic control we selectively and slowly hand them, the less friendly toward the U.S. they become. So joke's over - clearly the U.S. has never been a supporter of democracy. And by the way, let's not lay this all on Bush. We have been touting defender of democracy status for at least 60 years and it has never been true. It wasn't true in Korea or Vietnam or in any number of other countries we have inserted ourselves into over the years. Just about every President has made a similar claim, even as we funneled money to dictators and terrorist groups that were opposed to leaders unfavorable to U.S. interests.
Bush's "spreading" of democracy (including torture) has been the most effective recruitment tool for the Mid-East jihadists.
To say that W was right is a joke.
Anyway, that whole strategy came from Cheney. Read "Angler" when you have some time, and you'll see the greatest danger to the Constitution in modern times.
@medic209, "had to fight with a democratic majority" - you have got to be kidding! This was 4 years ago. The Republicans ran both houses of congress at that time and rubber stamped pretty much anything Bush came up with (and he vetoed nothing they gave to him).
The problem is as others have noted that it was empty and hollow rhetoric. The reality was that they wanted to use the pre-emptive war in Iraq to re-mold it as an "example". In reality, it was a counter-example. Further, Bush supported the worst dictatorships in the region both to ensure the flow of oil (no point knocking over the Apple cart when we buy apples) and the right to use the Countries for our military (supplies, flyover, bases, etc).
The Gaza situation in part exists because the US pushed them to vote quickly, and Hamas won. The author does not seem to have noticed that implication.
Maybe the better way to look at this is to look at a different situation--Algeria. Democratic elections that resulted in a coup the US supported. The question is, do you support democratic institutions that succeed based on non-democratic goals?
The group that won in Algeria won on promises of making Algeria an Islamist country. Is there a point to democracy if leads to democracy's repeal?
Looking at both Gaza and Algeria, it is easy to say that they are both popular responses to overwhelming corruption. Yet all the talk in peace negotiations seems to focus on dividing the spoils of war rather than protecting the foundations of civilization in these districts.
The lesson of the mid-east is all about violence....as a form of acting-out, as a poor cousin to diaolgue. Whoever employs violence to achieve a political or social goal will eventually fail. Bush...by his assertion of the right of "preemptive war"...has reinforced a failed pattern of behavior. It takes real fortitude to accept blows without retaliation...without "lashing out", to employ a more dramatic word. Fortitude is a virtue both sides have failed to demonstrate. Prudence and Justice require both Fortitude and Temperance to bear fruit. It will also help to accept that human frailty is a condition for both sides. All, including, and perhaps especially, the USA need to aim higher to achieve a good and realizable down-to-earth result.
As long as antisemitism rules the middle east, there will be no democracy.
Excellent article. Allowing Hamas and Hezbollah to run candidates is a terrific idea, as is promoting Democracy. As long as the voters there understand, from time to time, Israel will have the FULL LEGITIMATE RIGHT to bomb the Hell out of them for Hamas' and Hezbollah's indiscretions ... everything will work out for the best.
Maybe we should think of it this way, and being born and raised in NYC, I have had a great deal of experience in this sort of thing; It is ok for NY State to elect Mafia Politicians, as long as they understand that, from time to time, the Federal Government will have to invade NYC to wipe them out. If that is how you wish to live your life, then that is your choice. Or, you could be Democratic about it all and CHANGE YOUR VOTE. We do that all the time in NYC, in addition to voting with our feet, which is even more popular.
This young man is very mislead. How'd he get a forum here?
It is not "backing off" from support of democracy to notice that a population elected a terror group to govern.
It is not preventing Hamas from taking its rightful place in the Palestinian government for American taxpayers to stop shoveling money at Palestine when a terror group is elected to power.
Young man, you can't go blind to the fact that Hamas is a terror group and spin-out a valid policy perspective.
It is not blockading democracy to cut off funds that would otherwise end up in the hands of terrorists. It is following our longstanding national policy of not supporting terror groups.
We can choose not to support terrorists, just as Palestinians can choose to elect them to power. Should we start supporting terror groups because they won an elections? Do the people who elected them deserve our support?
In fact, it is supporting Palestinian democracy to let the Palestinian voters know that their votes must be cast with reason and open eyes. That they elected a terror group and supposedly did it for more prosaic reasons than endorsing terrorism, suggests they need to exercise better judgment when they vote. The West doesn't support terror groups---elected or not. Now the Palestinian voters know that.
No American taxpayer should have to put a penny in Hamas' pocket because a Palestinian overlooked the fact that Hamas was a terror group when he voted. Next time Palestinians vote, they damn well should know that electing a terror group to power makes their government an outlaw--democratic or not.
This misguided young fellow tells us that Hamas is more moderate than some other groups in Gaza: was Stalin "more moderate" than Hitler?. Hamas was so moderate that it expelled from Gaza by force of arms any government official who happened to be Fatah: a coup d'état against the Palestine's democratic constitution. This unstudied youth has apparently never read Hamas' Charter which dedicates it to an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy.
Hamas is so moderate that it launches missiles into Israel--11,000 of them.
The Palestinians (at least in the West Bank) will have a chance to vote again. If they've had their eyes open, they will have learned that their votes have consequences: one of which is that electing a theocratic terror group to power is expensive because some of us in the West are not so deluded as to ignore the nature of such a group.
Hezbollah and Hamas should moderate, renounce their charter purposes and terror murder, but American taxpayers putting money in their pockets won't encourage their movement away from murderous terrorism. What a crock.
"If you get all the way through its clear that the real thesis is that things might have been better had we not interfered with the democratic process in Palestine."
citivas my problem with that statement is we are involved up to our upper lips in the middle east in handing out cash, weapons and supplies, but not in that order.. Subsidies to Israel, Egypt, Lebonon, Jordan and the PA are all a big part of their ability to govern.
Israeli's might not like to hear it and they do have the strongest economy in the region, but sustained, constant and generous US aid created that country as much as their famed abilities on the battlefield. After each and every war generous US aid has doubled trippled or quadroubled...
One problem Hamas had in governing effectively in GAZA after they took over wasn't Bush's involvement; frankly it was because the US with held the aid we were giving to the PA who previously ruled there.
But what was Bush going to do? After Hamas won the election his hands were tied. Bush's problem was he wasn't thinking ahead or listening to competent advisors when he forced the PA into those elections.
hamas was never given a chance to moderate, as soon as they were elected, they were treated like a rogue state, israel refused to work with them, and the us began working to undermine them. if you treat them like a failed state, guess what you'll end up with...
Mr. Aslan has written a nice piece of 'catch-22ism'. My first question is when will Americans get over the notion that democracy is the only acceptable form of government there is, excuse me, American-style democracy. Particularly Bush style democracy than puts the cart before the horse and cause Machiavelli to smile. Did not our own democracy grow out of economic necessity and more importantly, geogaphic isolation from the governors?
Let's face it about Geo.W.Bush: he's an empty suit which makes him the perfect lackey for neo-cons who guise this illusory chase for democracy being the answer for everybody for their true aim of economic colonialism. There it is; as plain as the nose on your face. Stop all the bullshit.
The middle east is a 3,000 year old catastrophe that may someday learn how to unyoke itself from religious extremism and economic exploitation but it is for the United States to attempt to facilitate, encourage and communicate the benefits of peaceful potitical coexistence. In the meantime, this US/Israeli military crusade must stop before that even 'might' happen.
Oh, was the real George (Washington, that is) ever right about those foreign entanglements and war.
Hang around for a few years and see how a sensible approach, like Obama/Clinton (negotiate, facilitate, mediate) will reshape what the middle easterners make of themselves--- by, for and, of themselves. With sensible energy policy here at home we can cease losing one more drop of American blood over the undrilled oil lands of that far away desert place. Thank you.
I find this very interesting. For most of his presidency, George W. Bush did not want to be bothered with the problems in Israel. His attitude was to let the Israelis do what they wanted. It was only after Arafat died and new leadership appeared that came in the form of Hamas did Mr. Bush show any interest. If he had continued what Bill Clinton had begun to work toward peace and reconciliation in the area, we would most likely be seeing different outcomes that what we are seeing today.
The war now explodes the theory about two democracies never fighting each other. Terror is still terror, democratically elected or not. Hopefuly, the Gazans will learn from the error of their ways.
medic209 writes
"To: jaguarxjs,
I think it i funny how a president can make all kinds of promises during campaigning, but the truth of the matter is, he can not do anything without the House and Senate.
In this case, President Bush had to fight with a democratic majority, that would veto anything he suggested. I think they would veto his lunch order."
Unfortunately, Mr Bush, through unconstitutional "signing statements" has given himself the equivalent of the line item veto. He has, on many occasions, picked through and signed into law those portions that his backers wanted, and thrown out the rest.He has also, through many hundreds of 'executive orders', done worse.Most people in the USA don't realize how very little of the original democracy we have left. All the neo-conservatives had to do was 'wave the flag', and millions laid down in the road and let the bad things roll over them. Very sad.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.