Blogs and Stories

Reza Aslan

Mission Accomplished: He Was Right

BS Top - Aslan Bush Doctrine 174 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.

Back to Top
January 13, 2009 | 7:14am
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Digg
|
|
Emails
|
print
Comments ()

tommytimp

Nope. No, not, and never.

|
|
Reply
9:36 am, Jan 13, 2009

jaguarxjs

'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.

|
|
Reply
10:02 am, Jan 13, 2009

sebasma

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.

|
|
Reply
10:31 am, Jan 13, 2009

FNYGY1

Extra! Extra! U.S. Actions Don't Live Up to U.S. Rhetoric. Hasn't it always been thus?

|
|
Reply
10:35 am, Jan 13, 2009

sfraser85

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.

|
|
Reply
10:37 am, Jan 13, 2009

FNYGY1

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.

|
|
Reply
10:38 am, Jan 13, 2009

sebasma

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.

|
|
Reply
10:41 am, Jan 13, 2009

muddog

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.......

|
|
Reply
10:44 am, Jan 13, 2009

medic209

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)

|
|
Reply
10:48 am, Jan 13, 2009

GMCaesar

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.

|
|
Reply
10:56 am, Jan 13, 2009

sfraser85

" 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...

|
|
Reply
11:11 am, Jan 13, 2009

citivas

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.

|
|
Reply
11:39 am, Jan 13, 2009

roger37

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.

|
|
Reply
12:12 pm, Jan 13, 2009

pkimelman

@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.

|
|
Reply
12:32 pm, Jan 13, 2009

themartian

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.

|
|
Reply
12:41 pm, Jan 13, 2009
Leave a comment

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.

View Comments

Mission Accomplished: He Was Right

Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |