In an interview with the Spectator (UK), Ambassador Paul Wolfowitz makes some insightful observations as they relate to the revolution now unfolding in parts of the Middle East and North Africa.
According to Wolfowitz, (a) the predominant sentiment in the streets is not strongly Islamist; (b) Islamists, however, are hurrying to get into the game — and in Egypt, the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood increases the risk of a bad outcome; (c) Western governments can be a positive force on behalf of genuine freedom and against attempts to impose a new kind of tyranny of the Islamist variety; and (d) we can’t be a positive force if we are seen as propping up a hated tyrant or, worse, if we are perceived as encouraging the kind of bloody crackdown that could at best produce an artificial “stability” for a relatively short period of time.
“The possibility of a bad outcome is very real, particularly because we did nothing to encourage more evolutionary change earlier,” Wolfowitz says, “but I believe we have a better chance of a good outcome if we support positive change than if we support the status quo.”
He mentions democratic transitions over the past several decades, in places like the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, South Africa, Indonesia, Central and Eastern Europe, and nations (like Chile) in Latin America. “Few of these countries would qualify as Westminster-style democracies,” according to Wolfowitz, “but most are far better off as a result of these democratic transitions, and so are we.”
So far, he says, Tunisia and Egypt seem to be following this paradigm.
If Arab nations had started the kind of political reform some were advocating years ago, the current convulsions would not be happening. But Egypt is where Egypt is, and the goal of the United States should be to assist the pro-democracy forces there as best we can. Pessimism, fatalism, and lamentations are not a particularly useful guide to policy, especially when events are still unfolding and can, with a mix of skill and luck, go our way.
Nothing good is guaranteed, but nothing bad is inevitable.
Hmmm.
Wow. Could you just imagine Wright as a “national pastor”?? This is the guy who thought the US dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Dec 7th, 1941!
I can see it now …. “Here on July 4th, 1776, the United States of KKK invaded Iraq!”
Almost laughable, but not entirely.
avwh, not to be Mr. Nice Guy or anything, but isn’t sort of demeaning to relish in your “lefty” friends’ dillusionment and tell people about it on a public fourm?
Ironically, had they voted for Sarah, yes I know that crazy evangelical, actually had a history of gay friendly public policy, as her vetoing a proposition against gay marriage in her own state showed. It was much better to hang her in effigy in West Hollywood;that won them so much support (sarc)
My utopian messmates have been able to measure Palin’s IQ on the basis of Tina Fey’s schtick. I wonder if they would go along with a similar methodology to determine their own.
He doesn’t have to come out and support them in that manner.
The Dems were never so foolish to have their fingerprints on the legalization of sodomy and extending the marital sacrament to, well, those of that persuasion.
It was ALWAYS about getting their near friends in the judiciary to do their dirty work for them, just like on abortion, so that all the while they could satisfy their bizarre hankerings, satisfy their base, and look shocked that the courts declared such behavior constitutionally protected.
All Obama has to do to render them blissful, or perhaps more “gay” than their everyday “gayness” is to nominate a few more like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
That’s all it takes.
It doesn’t take some vast cultural battle, for the lefties on the court will do their bidding for them.
“Somewhere over the rainbow way up high
there’s a land that I heard of once in lullaby”
The slurping sound you hear is The One melting under the intense spray of Liberal spittle.
re: #2:
first, they’re not disillusioned yet (only their gay/lesbian friends are, so far);
second, I’m not “relishing” disillusionment, more amused at their viewpoint because I anticipate Obama will disappoint them big-time down the road, for the reasons I wrote;
third, as far as I know, my identity isn’t “known”; and
fourth, these friends certainly wouldn’t frequent this forum, so I feel fairly confident anonymity is preserved all the way around.
But thanks for worrying about them.
I’m having a completely different experience with my ‘lefty’ friends (or ‘Obama fans’ may be a nicer way to put it) in the weeks since the election and over the holidays. Mine are completely ignorant.
Mind you, these guys aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer to start with, but most aren’t outright dumb. They’re just uninformed.
The don’t know about Warren. They never heard of Blago. The don’t know anything about Eric Holder. They don’t know about Obama’s votes on the Born Alive bill. They know nothing about Prop 8, much less what Obama might think or have said during the campaign about gay marriage.
One even asked why they were calling him Barack “Hussein” Obama. She didn’t even know that was his middle name.
These people all get their information from traditional media sources, NPR, network television or shows like ‘The View’.
All they know is the idea of Obama feels good to them.
In fairness, didn’t we all “assume he was lying in order to get elected”? Besides, Obama supported Prop 8 to legalize gay marriage in California, at the same time as he was against gay marriage. He has brought the John Kerry approach to an art form. He wasn’t for it before he was against it. He was for it AT THE SAME TIME that he was against it.
Hmmm.
“Besides, Obama supported Prop 8 to legalize gay marriage in California, at the same time as he was against gay marriage.”
You have a bit of a problem here. Prop 8 defined marriage as between a man and a woman, i.e. nixes gay marriage. So Obama supporting Prop 8 -and- being against gay marriage is correct and not in any kind of opposition.
“So Obama supporting Prop 8 -and- being against gay marriage is correct and not in any kind of opposition.”
Except he didn’t.
Obama *opposed* prop 8 while saying he *supports* a traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Man. I have never seen anyone exert so much influence over the critical thinking skills of normal people the way Obama does. He truly proves that you can fool ‘all of the people some of the time’. Yet to be seen; can he fool ‘all the people all of the time’?
#10, I misspoke. Obama was against Prop 8 — he supported a vote for legal gay marriage. http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html
Obama’s strongest voting block, African-Americans, voted to outlaw gay marriage by 3:1 margin. They may have been the margin of victory on Prop 8. Irony is so ironic sometimes.
No, #10, #9 got the contradictions right, just misstated Prop 8 and Obama’s position. Obama opposed Proposition 8 (so hurtfully divisive, don’t you know), but claims also to oppose re-definition of marriage. Yet he also supported the California Supreme Court’s equal protection rationale for accepting gay marriage. In other words, Obama apparently means that he opposes same sex marriage for himself – perhaps offering some comfort to Michelle – but he’s for whatever it takes to establish it i the law.