Arabs See Beginning of New Era

[igloo]

Some Arabs See Beginning of New Era

By DONNA ABU-NASR

Associated Press Writer

March 1, 2005, 3:16 PM EST

KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia -- It was a scene the Arab world's autocratic regimes have dreaded -- and through the power of satellite TV, it could catch on as fast as the latest hit music video: Peaceful, enormous crowds carrying flags and flowers bringing down a government.

What happened in Lebanon this week, analysts say, is the beginning of a new era in the Middle East, one in which popular demand pushes the momentum for democracy and people's will can no longer be disregarded.

Television stations broadcast Beirut's protests live into homes, coffee shops and clubs across the Middle East, with the dramatic images of Lebanese youths wearing red-and-white scarves and waving the country's red, white and green flag as they handed out roses Monday to troops who had been ordered to block them. The coverage, lasting all day with hardly a break on some stations, culminated with the Syrian-backed government's resignation.

Inevitably, it raised the question among many spectators: What about here?

"I wish this could happen in Yemen," Ahmed Murtada, an unemployed Yemeni, said in San'a. "But here, tanks would prevail."

Anas Khashoggi, a 46-year-old management consultant in the Saudi city of Jiddah, said he followed Monday's events from beginning to end. "I wanted ... to see how the government reacts to the will of the people," he said.

Was he disappointed? "Not at all," he said.

The scenes from Lebanon come as Saudis are having their first -- albeit small -- taste of democracy. In the second round of the country's first nationwide elections ever, Saudi men go to the polls Thursday in the kingdom's east and south to choose municipal councils. The monarchy has been promising reform, but going slowly.

Newspapers in Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- authoritarian nations where the state heavily influences the press -- did not shy away from showing the protests.

"The Lebanese street joins the opposition," read the banner headline across the front page of the Saudi daily Okaz, along with photos of the Lebanese protest tents and a banner in Arabic reading, "We want the truth."

In Syria, however, the state-controlled media was largely silent. It reported on the resignation of Prime Minister Omar Karami but did not mention -- much less show pictures -- of the protests. State TV aired none of the dramatic footage the few Syrians with satellite dishes could see with a flick of the channel.

Syria has kept a firm hand on its small reform movement. But it had a rare instance of civil violence last year, when riots in March between Kurds and police spread to parts of northeastern Syria and killed at least 25 people in unrest sparked by a soccer brawl but fueled by Kurdish resentment.

"What happened in Lebanon conforms with our hopes for every Arab country," said Michel Kilo, a Syrian intellectual. "It was a rehearsal for a peaceful popular movement that unfolded right before our eyes."

The protests in Lebanon -- triggered by the assassination of the popular former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14 -- come on the heels of a string of democratic steps in the Arab world, including elections in Iraq and by the Palestinians, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's promise to allow multi-candidate presidential elections.

But the forcing out of Lebanon's government sets a very different precedent in a region where freedom of speech is muzzled, human rights activists are jailed and sons either succeed or are being groomed to succeed their fathers.

"For the first time in the history of the Arab world, a country's policy has come face-to-face with the will of the people who went down to the street and said: 'We don't want you,'" said Dalal al-Bizri, a Cairo-based Lebanese sociologist.

"The minimum feeling among Arab masses now will be: 'Are the Lebanese better than us?'" she said.

Many may be wary of where the people spirit takes Lebanon. If the protests drag the country into civil war or prompt a fierce Syrian response, as some critics have warned, bloodshed could scare off others.

Also, Lebanon's uniqueness in the region could lessen the events' impact. Its 3.5-million people belong to 17 sects, with large Christian and Shiite communities. Its press is the freest in the Middle East. Its issues are with external domination from Syria, not a domestic government, and the protests resulted from the explosive trigger of Hariri's murder.

Still, with television making people power visible to all, "it's a phenomenon that will catch on the way music video clips have caught on," said al-Bizri.

It may not spread quickly, however. Sherine Bilal, a 19-year-old Egyptian student, was wary of the limits imposed in her country, where protests are usually restricted to university campuses.

"Here, if we try to demonstrate, we can only do it inside these walls," Bilal said from at the American University in Cairo. "Even then, it's only about certain things."

But Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi talk show host on Dubai TV, had a warning for Arab governments, pointing to Ukraine's Orange Revolution: "Either they embrace the orange, or they will find themselves slipping on the peels of bananas."

Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press

[obby]

Apparently Bushs assertion that freedom is a God given right all humans long for is not far fetched. He's been ridiculed over that since post 9/11. Now look @ the changes going on in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Ukraine, etc......Like Bush said, "FEEDOM IS ON THE MARCH".

[igloo]

Apparently Bushs assertion that freedom is a God given right all humans long for is not far fetched. He's been ridiculed over that since post 9/11. Now look @ the changes going on in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Ukraine, etc......Like Bush said, "FEEDOM IS ON THE MARCH".

Amen brother.....

Remember, the only reason Bush was ridiculed by the clueless left in this country is because he is Bush.......

When one of their "own" talked about the same very things in the past, their vaginas dripped endlessly

Another example of the clueless ones being completely lost is with SYria....remember how they say Bush and his administration lied about Syria, their role in the insurgency, their harboring of former Saddam loyalists, etc....

http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?t=262654

[kramadas]

Apparently Bushs assertion that freedom is a God given right all humans long for is not far fetched. He's been ridiculed over that since post 9/11. Now look @ the changes going on in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Ukraine, etc......Like Bush said, "FEEDOM IS ON THE MARCH".

I don't think anybody is arguing the fact that freedom is for all people (the God give part I would ridicule too). Its just ironic that he says that, whereas US policy in the past has only been in support of its own self interests rather than "spreading freedom". There have been cases whereas self-interest has gone against freedom in the past, and self-interest has won.

Igloo - I think you're confusing left with ultra far-left. I don't think anyone denied that Baathists could have escaped to Syria.

The only reason Bush was criticized was because of his intrusive foreign policy, extremely poor post-war planning, stretching the army a bit thin, etc(at least from me). And I definitely stand by that because only many years down the line will we know whether the neo-con foreign policy view is actually successful. It would be illogical to attribute all thats going on in the ME to Bush and his Iraq war, as it would be illogical to discount it completely. The demonstrations in lebanon were initiated because a popular public figure was assasinated, the Israel/Palestinian steps cuased by the death of Arafat. I don't place much faith on Egypt's and Saudi's "move toward democracy" as I think its just a sham.

Overall though, things seem to be looking good for the ME.

[bklynzzfinest]

I don't think anybody is arguing the fact that freedom is for all people (the God give part I would ridicule too). Its just ironic that he says that whereas US policy in the past has only been in support of its own self interests rather than "spreading freedom". There have been cases whereas self-interest has gone against freedom in the past, and self-interest has won.

Personally, I wouldnt ridicule someone for saying Freedom is a "God given right". It conveys the same idea as saying "Inalienable rights", and its the IDEA thats important not how its worded.

[kramadas]

Personally, I wouldnt ridicule someone for saying Freedom is a "God given right". It conveys the same idea as saying "Inalienable rights", and its the IDEA thats important not how its worded.

Guess we differ on this. As someone who does not believe in God, I'd be insulted if anyone said God "gave" me anything. At least the version of God that most current religions believe in.

[bigpoppanils]

Guess we differ on this. As someone who does not believe in God, I'd be insulted if anyone said God "gave" me anything. At least the version of God that most current religions believe in.

[igloo]

I don't think anybody is arguing the fact that freedom is for all people (the God give part I would ridicule too). Its just ironic that he says that, whereas US policy in the past has only been in support of its own self interests rather than "spreading freedom". There have been cases whereas self-interest has gone against freedom in the past, and self-interest has won.

Igloo - I think you're confusing left with ultra far-left. I don't think anyone denied that Baathists could have escaped to Syria.

The only reason Bush was criticized was because of his intrusive foreign policy, extremely poor post-war planning, stretching the army a bit thin, etc(at least from me). And I definitely stand by that because only many years down the line will we know whether the neo-con foreign policy view is actually successful. It would be illogical to attribute all thats going on in the ME to Bush and his Iraq war, as it would be illogical to discount it completely. The demonstrations in lebanon were initiated because a popular public figure was assasinated, the Israel/Palestinian steps cuased by the death of Arafat. I don't place much faith on Egypt's and Saudi's "move toward democracy" as I think its just a sham.

Overall though, things seem to be looking good for the ME.

To answer your first part, would Bush have been ridiculed, or would "self-interest" been used if he uttered these words:

We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

-- John F. Kennedy

Or what if Bush spoke about liberty for the Iraqi people instead of WMD......oops, I forgot, he always has, such as this example:

Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it.

-- George Bush, United Nations Speech in Sep '02

In short, Bush was mocked and ridiculed for saying teh same exact things suck as Kennedy and Clinton. I guess the LEFT (not just extreme LEFT) are pissed that either he actually acted upon his words or they are pissed it was not one of them who acted.

Which leads me to your comment about left vs. extreme left. With the example of Syria, the left, extreme left, Dems, and applicable media downplayed and diminished everything the administration said about Syria. Comments were made ranging from Bush is looking to start another war to he recklessly saber-rattling to he is an outright liar. Left, extreme left, Dems, and media ---in unity.

Not sure where you are going with saying Bush was killed for "intrusive foreign policy", but I guess I should repeat that what Bush says is labeled "intrusive" and if someone like Clinton said the same thing, it would be labeled "visionary" or "humanitarian" or "leadership".

Would it be illogical to attribute everything happening in the ME to Bush?....of course not, but to not attribute the majority of it is illogical. You say it would be also illogical to discount it completely, but quite frankly, that in itself is discounting it.

In short, Bush pushed change, when the left and the Euro-elites pushed for the status quo. That is the bottom line.

The other events you mentioned did not occur in a vacuum or are isolated events, they occured because of the undercurrent of change and momentum being seen in the ME, that were directly or indirectly the cause/effect of Bush's policies.

It was Bush's policy to isolate Arafat, demand that be be recognized as the person he was, a terrorist and an obstructionist to peace. It was Bush who pushed for the elevation of Abbas when Arafat was still alive. It was Bush who supported Israel when they took out the leadership of Hamas and others, that now paved the way for Abbas to have dialogue with the more moderate wing of Hamas (I have a problem with this). ANd I could go on and on. Arafat's death cleared the way for many of Bush's policies and past decisions to take off. Do not diminish that.

And the Lebanon assassination is directly tied to EVERYTHING that is going on with Syria, including the U.S./French pressure for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. Again, you are discounting.

You are correct, it will take years, decades to claim anything a success. But what you are seeing in the ME now is a direct result of American foreign policy, and a failure of European foreign policy to be on the right side of history (that includes the Dems and left in this country).

I agree with you that post -war planning was less than adequate, but to say it was extremely poor is , well extreme. On the surface, it may look that way, but the more I have read and researched, it was not as bad as one may think.

Sometimes shit just happens that is unintended.

For example, during the planning for the war, detailed post-war plans were made for shit that never happened: scorched earth polices by Saddam, including all the oil wells on fire, dams being blown up, etc.---massive refugee and humanitarian crisis---a wicked initial battle for Baghdad (it fell faster that anyone had predicted).---and a WMD attack (yes, a WMD attack). These are just some. There were many "worst-case scenario's" that were planned for that simply did not occur. This is a good thing right? This was also the direct result of a brilliant military plan.

Now, with the amount of troops that were used--that is a tough debate. For the footprint that was chosen, it is completely understandable. A quick, mobile strike force that bypassed the majority of Iraqi's cities, in order to show that the war was truly ONLY against the Iraqi regime, sned a message of liberation and not occupation, to minimize civilian casualties, minimize damage that would need to be rebulit later, prevent those "worst-case" scenario's, and to overwhelm Iraqi forces with speed and power in taking Baghdad. In the initial war, the plan was well-conceived, brilliant, well-intended, and brialliantly executed.

Now post-war, perhaps more troops were needed, perhaps not. Obviously, the size of the insurgency was under-estimated. More troops may simply be inviting more attacks and providing more targets. I believe there was a mistake made by dismantling the Iraqi army so fast (remember, you had to be a Baathist in Iraq, but many did not want to be).

However, I think the crux of the problem was not really troop size, or even under-estimating the size of the insurgency. I think it all stems from a diplomatic failure--and that was to use Turkey as a staging ground to launch the 4th ID from the North. This force was planned to go straight through the Sunni triangle, and a lot of bad guys would have been killed and others denied sanctuary. Lots of bad guys would have been killed, the area would have "felt" the war, and there would not have been a whole area for bad guys to escape to and regroup.

I have read a lot of why Turkey refused, and it it extremely complex. But I believe history will show that this event, or element, would have made things completely different today. Completely different. Instead, because of this, the mistakes that have been made (i.e. disbanding the Iraqi army) were magnified, and the American troop level became a bigger factor.

Now, of course, if we did not disband the Iraqi army, Bush would still be getting killed for that, but that is for another debate (I actually posted a great article about that).

History will also show that the behavior of France and Germany, and the UNited Nations was wrong, inaccurate, disgusting, and led directly to additional hardships for the Iraqi people. ANd the liberated Iraqi people will never forget that. (France's behavior is still repulsive).

Anyway, to sum up my diatribe, what you are seeing in the ME today is the effect of Bush's policies. Some direct, some indirect. Some would have only happened because of Bush's policies, some were expedited because of Bush's policies, some happened because "other" things happened because of Bush's policies, and some happened simply because they needed a little push.

EIther way, don't discount in any way.

p.s. I think the "left" is performing a little revisionist history now by now saying "it was the extreme left", not us "honorable" lefties. There was an extreme left that was repulsive and now severely marginalized. But the "left' has nothing to be proud of. Their hypocritical behavior, cheap shots at Bush, shameful politics, can not hind behind the "extreme" left.

[kramadas]

To answer your first part, would Bush have been ridiculed, or would "self-interest" been used if he uttered these words:

We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

-- John F. Kennedy

Or what if Bush spoke about liberty for the Iraqi people instead of WMD......oops, I forgot, he always has, such as this example:

Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it.

-- George Bush, United Nations Speech in Sep '02

In short, Bush was mocked and ridiculed for saying teh same exact things suck as Kennedy and Clinton. I guess the LEFT (not just extreme LEFT) are pissed that either he actually acted upon his words or they are pissed it was not one of them who acted.

.

I actually don't care if Clinton, Kennedy, or even the Pope pushed for an "intrusive" foreign policy approach - I would have been against it. Remember, I support the ideals I like, not any party. If Clinton had done what Bush had done I would have been as against it (as I was). However, one thing you're right, and that this things have been set into motion in the ME which is in *some* part due to Bush (I never dismissed the effect of his policies). Syria's call for evacuation was because of the killing of the ex-prime minister - whether there would have been the same reaction before 9/11 is only pure speculation (unless there is an actual poll taken of the protesters). Same with the Palestinian situation. And C'mon Igloo - Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been promising "reforms" for a long time now, with nothing really emerging.

Let me ask you a question - If ever there was a situation where Bush had to choose between the interests of the US or supporting a foreign democracy rather than dictactor with less than favorable results for the US, which way do you think he'd go? History has shown that the US (note, I’m not talking parties here) ALWAYS acts in its self interest, even over freedom of other peoples - and that is understandable. Hence, the rhetoric of “promoting freedom†is not truly altruistic but convenient because it happens to line up with US interests. But that is another topic completely. And coming to the topic of promoting freedom - how come there is no real push for freedom in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, etc? I think the lack of any real action there supports my above argument, because it serves the US interest better to not go against these governments.

Don’t know much about Turkey’s refusal to let US troops stage there, or what could have happened if the US could have gone through Turkey, so I’ll have to take your word for it.

I’ll be glad if I’m wrong about the neo-con foreign policies, if that means that Bush achieves real peace in the ME. However, its too early to tell if anything was really a success, and so we’ll wait and see. I will agree that things have been set in motion, and Bush definitely had something to do with it. However, to say that Bush caused all this (as some die-hard Bush supporters might claim) is plain fallacy.

BTW, have you read the book, "Ghost Wars"? It was recommended to me by a friend who's involved in politics, so I'm going to try get to it at some point.

[igloo]

I actually don't care if Clinton, Kennedy, or even the Pope pushed for an "intrusive" foreign policy approach - I would have been against it. Remember, I support the ideals I like, not any party. If Clinton had done what Bush had done I would have been as against it (as I was). However, one thing you're right, and that this things have been set into motion in the ME which is in *some* part due to Bush (I never dismissed the effect of his policies). Syria's call for evacuation was because of the killing of the ex-prime minister - whether there would have been the same reaction before 9/11 is only pure speculation (unless there is an actual poll taken of the protesters). Same with the Palestinian situation. And C'mon Igloo - Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been promising "reforms" for a long time now, with nothing really emerging.

Let me ask you a question - If ever there was a situation where Bush had to choose between the interests of the US or supporting a foreign democracy rather than dictactor with less than favorable results for the US, which way do you think he'd go? History has shown that the US (note, I’m not talking parties here) ALWAYS acts in its self interest, even over freedom of other peoples - and that is understandable. Hence, the rhetoric of “promoting freedom†is not truly altruistic but convenient because it happens to line up with US interests. But that is another topic completely. And coming to the topic of promoting freedom - how come there is no real push for freedom in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, etc? I think the lack of any real action there supports my above argument, because it serves the US interest better to not go against these governments.

Don’t know much about Turkey’s refusal to let US troops stage there, or what could have happened if the US could have gone through Turkey, so I’ll have to take your word for it.

I’ll be glad if I’m wrong about the neo-con foreign policies, if that means that Bush achieves real peace in the ME. However, its too early to tell if anything was really a success, and so we’ll wait and see. I will agree that things have been set in motion, and Bush definitely had something to do with it. However, to say that Bush caused all this (as some die-hard Bush supporters might claim) is plain fallacy.

BTW, have you read the book, "Ghost Wars"? It was recommended to me by a friend who's involved in politics, so I'm going to try get to it at some point.

Yes, Ghost Wars was very good. I definitely would recommend it. As a matter of fact, C-Span just showed the author at a book signing, look for it. They tend to repeat those often. Let me know if you are looking for others, I can make some other suggestions.

With respects to my point about whether Bush or Clinton or the Pope say something, and how the same exact thing said would be viewed differently--I was not referring to you, but in general of what has transpired in the world of Bush bashing, ridiculous hypocrisy, and absurd Euro-elite babble.

However, I do disagree with you with respects to the changes that are occurring in Lebanon and Syria. Those are directly related to events that were in motion as a direct result of Bush policies. This is not fallacy but fact. There is absolutely no doubt about it. I think it just pains you to give Bush or the neocons too much credit. Check out some of my recent posts, good information to support that, as well as what I mentioned in my previous post.

With respects to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, you are correct. Reform has received lip service for ever, so I understand your apprehension. But from what I understand, women will vote for the first time in Saudi Arabia, and Muburak has agreed to amend their constitution. These seem to be tangible steps in the right direction and reason to be cautiously optimistic. Also, it would appear that in those countries, particularly Egypt, the media is starting to speak with more openness, which is always a strong sign of change. Not everything can change at the same pace, or require the same approach, or take the same exact steps. But all in all, change is occurring.

I am not sure we really disagree on the self interest vs democracy stance....my point is simply Bush has gotten killed for something that others have been praised for. Your hypothetical supports what I have been saying. With respects for the push for freedom in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, I think that different situations require different approaches, and a completely different set of circumstances to consider. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan represent two of the most complex and delicate, relationships/alliances we have. I do believe there has been "pushes" but certainly more subtle than in some other places, and understandably so. And of course, it serves our self-interest to alter our approach to the faced circumstances, but that does not mean there has not been any real action or a push/desire for "freedom".

I hear ya, I too hope the neo-con detractors are wrong, and it will take much time to prove that, but I do think you are minimizing the effects of Bush's policies. His policies have a lot more to do with what is going on than you and others are giving credit for.

How can Bush have previously been lambasted for his views and policies, and then not be given credit when those same very policies have spurred action, challenged the status quo, and set the wheels of change in motion. I guess history will determine how much credit he gets. My guess is a great deal.

Anyway, good talk. Pick up Ghost Wars, a definite good read.

[trigger55]

I have read a lot of why Turkey refused, and it it extremely complex. But I believe history will show that this event, or element, would have made things completely different today. Completely different. Instead, because of this, the mistakes that have been made (i.e. disbanding the Iraqi army) were magnified, and the American troop level became a bigger factor.

I'm half Turkish so I can sort of answer this, and like you said it's complex, but here's one of the main reasons. The first gulf war crashed Turkey's economy, it never fully recovered due to a string of bad politicians, debt, and corruption, even today it's still struggling. It started to finally recover after 12 years, until Bush announced he was going to war. No one wants to go through another 12 years of economic hardship... the people finally got hope to live better lives but it was all shattered. Also, during the 1st gulf war Turkey made a lot of economic decisions based on a promise that the US would pay them a certain amount of money (billions) because the economy took a huge hit from trade loss with Iraq and stuff. They never got the money, so it was only natural they wouldn't accept the $35billion this time around.

[igloo]

I'm half Turkish so I can sort of answer this, and like you said it's complex, but here's one of the main reasons. The first gulf war crashed Turkey's economy, it never fully recovered due to a string of bad politicians, debt, and corruption, even today it's still struggling. It started to finally recover after 12 years, until Bush announced he was going to war. No one wants to go through another 12 years of economic hardship... the people finally got hope to live better lives but it was all shattered. Also, during the 1st gulf war Turkey made a lot of economic decisions based on a promise that the US would pay them a certain amount of money (billions) because the economy took a huge hit from trade loss with Iraq and stuff. They never got the money, so it was only natural they wouldn't accept the $35billion this time around.

Thanks for the post,......Of course, a tremendous consideration was the Kurd issue as well.......a hugely complex issue with enormous implications for Turkey that the Turks-Kurds-Americans could not come to an agreement on that all sides trusted..........