Ciao!

The analysis is indeed comprehensive. It describes US actions rationally, agreed. However, it does so as if the US were world sovereign. Like: "The large solution is to reform the Arab/Muslim world. This is the path we have chosen." or "To make clear to everyone in the world that reform is coming, whether they like it or not."

What about the sovereignty of States? The US are not the only country possessing this right. There had been a debate about preemtive wars. This analysis goes beyond that. It talks about war because of very remote possible future threats. Reform is a nice expression for oppressing the Middle East. Whether we like democracy or not doesn't matter, here. As long as the Arabs don't like it, we are oppressing them. Of course, system change needs time. Everybody ought to have known that.
This was nicely underlined in the analysis. It might take decades.

This childlike outline is definitely one of the more embarrassing, illogical, naive, and racist attempts to give a rational explanation for the US's illegal invasion of a sovereign country.
The outline starts out by criticizing Middle Eastern countries for their "collective failure as nations" without any recognition of the US and UK's historical role in that failure. Historical roles such as creating all these ME states in the 1940s and '50s (yes, the West did just draw lines in the sand), and supporting/using monarchies and dictators to stabilize the region so the West could extract oil--just to name a couple. This failure to even mention the abused history of the region is then compounded by a obviously racist observation that Arab and Muslim culture makes little or no contribution to the world. What! What world is this is he refering to? Quite possibilty it must be the world as seen through the closed mind of someone who thinks US culture is equal to the world. I certainly would not call a region that is the home to the three largest religions in the world (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) as "making little or no cultural contribution." Far from it--most of the world's culture is based on contributions from this region--whether it be in religion as previously stated or from the areas of art, science, geography, and history. This person has such a weak historical background that he has no idea the computer he was using would not have been possible without Arab contributions in the field of mathematics.
The weak logic then continues in the second part of the outline where the various rationales for war are laid out. This person doesn't even agree with the Bush administration's attempts at a case for war, since Weapons of Mass Destruction aren't mentioned (sorry Miguel, meta-argument or not everyone has to give a actual reason for invasion, not a meta-physical one). Instead the points given by the writer had a lot more to do with Muslim cultural and economic envy of the US. So, the writer is basically stating that the reason al-Quada, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad are all so against the US is because they're envious of the US culture? That notion goes beyond ridiculous and enters the world of fantasy. Instead of these fanciful points, how about considering the fact that there isn't a single strong democratic country in the region. That there isn't single country in the region which hasn't been abused by foreign forces for many, many years. That many of the people in the region blame the West for supporting dicators, sucking their natural resources dry, polluting their country, pitting them against each other, and generally manipulating an entire region to satisfy the West's hunger for stability and oil.
My final criticism comes from the brief and limited way in which the writer considered other non-military solutions to the problem. The writer said that attempting an international criminal justice solution to the problem had been tried in the 1990s and 1980s and that such a method did not work, because the Arab world viewed it as cowardly. What is he talking about? Surely he's not suggesting that the 1980s and 1990s were a time period in which the US supported a robust international court which indicted and prosecuted global terrorism--such a thing has never been supported by the US. The 1980s started out with a major revolution in the region, Iran, because the people of that country were sick and tired of the dictator imposed on them by the US. This revolution exposed all the evils of a regime which had been supported by the US for the past 25 years--is that what the writer meant by international justice? Or did the writer mean the international justice given to the region by the arms-trading Reagan administration, who violated US and international law by negiotating with terrorists to gain political advantage through the release of US hostages. Or perhaps the writer meant the international justice given to the region by the CIA's many, many covert operations in Lebanon.
The only solution to global terrorism is not a weak outline which attempts to justify illegal actions--the only solution is the creation of a system of international justice that promises fairness and decency to everyone, not just those countries with the biggest guns and the most money.

Dear Patrick, I totally agree.

This argument shows that the author believes american culture to be surperior to other cultures.
That is kind of biased to say the least.

That author was talking about Western culture. And, yes, I do believe that Western culture is superior. And, no, I'm not a cultural relativist.

Western culture is a "universal" culture, which means that it's not tied to any ethnicity or race. A culture that espouses free speech, a separation of church and state, individual liberties, freedom of association, political equality, and all the rest -- which contribute to higher living standards, more advanced medicine, the ability to travel into outer space, and all the rest -- is far superior to anything else out there so far.

Marco & Patrick:

I fail to see how the outline I liked to (but didn't write or agree w/ 100%) is "racist". Both of you have, on occassion, argued that the Middle East -- specifically Islam and/or Arab culture -- is incompatible w/ democracy. THAT is a racist statement.

Den Beste is arguing that tyrannical regimes will change, whether they (the tyrants and fanatics) like it or not. He also assumes that the PEOPLE in the region desire and would enjoy democracy and democratic rights.

Unless you want to argue that Arabs only deserve or want to be ruled brutally.

The parts of the outline that appeared to me to be "racist"--had to do with the statements Mr. Beste made about how Western culture is superior AND how nothing of value has come out of the ME. I'm not from that region, but if someone were to speak of my country and my region in such a highhanded and dismissive manner--I would certainly take offense. From the outline, it appeared that Mr. Beste believes it is the duty of the US to straighten out the poor Muslim countries who haven't been able to get their act together. It was that tone that I was addressing. Maybe racist isn't exactly the right term, perhaps culturalist would be better.
As far as being a racist myself, I don't think so. What I have said about the ME is that maybe Western-style democracy is not the choice of government for the people who live there. Americans need to stop thinking that every country in the world wants to emulate their culture, their government, and their civil society in general. Of course, I would agree with you--western-style democracy appears to me to be the best form of government. I'm sure people who lived in earlier democracies, such as Venice and Athens, thought their style of democracy was the best, but each country(or city-state) managed to find their own government and their own voice. Having someone come to your country and tell you what kind of government you can or can't have is not the way to build a nation--all it does is create yet another oppressed people.
What the US is doing in Iraq is wrong-we are illegally imposing government on a people, it is not coming from the people. We're not letting them work out their own structure. The argument could then be made against letting the Iraqis figure it out by saying the country would dissolve into civil war. Well, maybe the Iraqis need to battle it out amongst themselves--which would be a horrible experience and I would not support a civil war--but maybe that's the only way they feel they can rid themselves of the past and try to move on. Or more positively, maybe the Iraqis will rise up in a non-violent fashion, "ask" the Americans to leave their country and figure out a structure that works for them. Gandhi's work in India is a perfect example of a people who wanted their occupier to go--and the occupier left in a non-violent way. India was a mess after the British left and "the separation" of India and Pakistan was a great tragedy, but those people were figuring it out for themselves. The result is that today India is the largest democracy in the world.

While I can't speak to De Beste's argument itself (it's his argument, not my own), I don't think he's a racist. I think he was pointing out that in the last several decades, nothing of cultural consequence has come out of ME. But that's not due to any racial inferiority of its people, rather that it's governments dissuade innovation and development. I think THAT was his argument (an argument I agree w/).

I also agree w/ my very Muslim and very Egyptian friend, Moataz, when he argues that western democracy is NOT incompatible w/ Islam or Arab culture and that it IS desirable for the people. Democratic values are not "white" values or even "European" values -- they are UNIVERSAL values.

Miguel,
I am disapointed. Why do you twist my argument as if I was making a racist statement? It may be your style of discussion to be agressive and to force others into defending their own position instead of convincing others more offensively.
Not very nice. But ok, here comes my defense:

One can not force a democracy onto a people that doesn't want it. Historic example for this in my own country was the so-called Weimar-Republic. Only if a majority of the people endorses our beloved democratic principles democracy has a chance. I don't argue that Muslim countries deserve a brutal regime. I just argue that they -like anyone else - deserve a regime of their choosing. After WW2 the allies helped to build democracy in Germany. Believe me, it wouldn't have worked if the German people had still wanted their Kaiser back.

So, it is great to advertise human rights and democracy. But it is shortsighted to believe that the arab region is a blank slate. Copying the West won't work. A combination of both cultures probably will. Finding that combo will take longer than just giving our institutions to the Arabs but it has more chances to prevail.

Patrick wrote:

This failure to even mention the abused history of the region is then compounded by a obviously racist observation that Arab and Muslim culture makes little or no contribution to the world. What! What world is this is he refering to? Quite possibilty it must be the world as seen through the closed mind of someone who thinks US culture is equal to the world. I certainly would not call a region that is the home to the three largest religions in the world (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) as "making little or no cultural contribution." Far from it--most of the world's culture is based on contributions from this region--whether it be in religion as previously stated or from the areas of art, science, geography, and history.

Simple response:
2000 years ago, heck even 500 years ago, the Arab world made contrbutions ot world culture, art, science etc. In the last century or two its total contribution to the rest of the world's culture has been minimal. This is a question of tenses. Whatever dynamic culture may have existed in the middle east in the past, it has disappeared now. This compares unfavouably with many countries further east such as (say) India, which can make equal or better claim to having been colonized by the west, and which continues to make scientific and artistic contributions to the world.

Patrick wrote:
This person doesn't even agree with the Bush administration's attempts at a case for war, since Weapons of Mass Destruction aren't mentioned

Simple Response:
Alternatively the commentator didn't get down to section VI.C.1.e where they are used as part of the justification for chosing Iraq as a country to invade.

The contributions from the Middle East have been slim recently, agreed.

As Miguel already argued that is more due to the government system than due to the nature of the people themselves.

But can we install a working democracy there out of the blue, now?

How many centuries did it take for Europe to profit from Arab contributions to Mathematics and other sciences and arise from the "Dark Ages"? If they want democracy, we shall aid them. If they don't we shall not force them. Churchill once put it this way: Democracy is not a good system, but it is the best I know off. (I couldn't quote literally, sorry)

Maybe people from the Middle East will come up with an even better system, who knows? But who are we to stop such attempts?

The Iraqi people shall have freedom. That includes however the freedom to disagree with Europe or the USA. They are not inferior to us, they shall decide for themselves.

Although I wasn't completely supportive of the war, I am impressed at the early attempts of reconstructing the nation so far.

Like Marco said, a combination of western and islamic principles would form the new Iraq culture. And I can't wait to see what it would be like.

To build stability in the region, I support US maintaining and continuing the safeguarding role, until the Iraqis are ready. And when would they be ready? That depends largely on the Iraqis. Now why do I support US "oppression"?

Firstly, Saddam loyalists are still out there plotting away and would dash to fill in the power vacuum if they had the chance. There could be civil war, more deaths. That's bad, and US would be faulted for leaving the new Iraq in its infancy.

Secondly, can a country without a prior history of democracy, be entrusted to take care of themselves, at least within a short amount of time? Have the new leaders the means and resources to rebuild its economic and political infrastructure? Certainly they would need help from US forces.

Thirdly US is the best candidate to ensure Iraq's political and economic success - US needs Iraq to be stable for economic gains, needs Iraq to practice democracy properly so it wouldn't cause problems for America, and US has its own people to answer to should it not deliver. I say thats a powerful motivation to be there.

Here's an interesting article:
http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-29-025137.asp?reg=MIDEAST

I really have a hard time seeing the Patrick etc. argument as anything but this:

1. It is racist to SAY that Middle East countries are backward.

2. Middle East countries are doomed to stay backward, so don't even try otherwise.

Going along with that is another argument you see a lot:

1. We made them as terrible as they are today.

2. Therefore we shouldn't help them.

The spread of democracy in culture after culture suggests that Arabs, who have more historical roots in western-style freedom than many now-free Asian peoples for one, could transition to a kind of democracy over time. One of the main things standing in their way has been support by the two Cold War powers for dictators. It's not the only one, as simple-minded folk like Noam Chomsky would claim, but sure, it's in the top three or four, we can admit that.

Whoops-- make that WAS. The son of an unreconstructed Cold War-era dictator-coddler, and his administration full of same, turns out to be more willing than anybody before him to kick the bastards out. Or kick one bastard out as a first step toward scaring the other bastards into reforming.

So why, you ask, do we have the right to play king of the world and kick bastards out? Well, you said it yourself-- we have been all along. Correcting our mistakes, replacing the scum we helped get and stay there with something else thus hardly counts as a new era in the violation of sovereignty.

But even if we hadn't-- the fact is, they brought it on themselves. The war didn't come to them until they brought it to us. Saddam's sovereignty didn't become the business of the world until he invaded Kuwait and a UN peacekeeping regime was established. The Taliban would have been allowed to make Afghanis miserable forever, except that wasn't enough misery for their black little hearts, they had to spread it to New York and Washington. They made it our business. Until you understand that, there's not much you DO understand.

Den Beste argues that the US must reform the Arab/Muslim world in order to prevent the extremists and terrorists from attacking US citizens again, such as occurred on 11 Sept. And I agree with Francis' point that Muslims have made many cultural contributions in the past, but that was long ago. To claim that the outline presented is racist, or biased towards US dominance of the world, buries the point in a heap of culturally relativistic BS. And who claims that Arabs or Muslims don't want or need representative gov't? They certainly understand free-market concepts, and the rule of law, both of which are sorely needed in Iraq after thirty years of fascist/Ba'athist rule.

Fundamentally, the US is the world sovereign - or close to it. We control by force or threat of force most of the planet - which is the supreme authority that is the necessary component of sovereignity. Uniquely, we don't care to exercise that sovereignity over non-US territory. But when forced to, as in this case, military force proves who is the sovereign. Only nations with sufficient nuclear deterrence capability now maintain actual sovereignity.

I guess one course of action is to first explain why American culture is inferior to everybody else's, or at leats responsible for the failings of everybody else's cultures, before pointing out the said failures. Mea culpa, mea cupla, mea maxima culpa.

Or one could ask the millions of Arab Muslims who voted with their feet and uprooted themselves to flee the abysmal failure of their native societies what they think about it. They are most likely a lot better informed that all the self-loathing Patricks of the world combined, and probably oblivious to their insatiable politically correct "white guilt".

After all, there is no racism in the Middle East. Jews, Christians and all others are treated as equals. So are women. The rule of law consistently prevails over the arbitrary. Property rights are respected, as are the freedoms of speech and expression. How could one possibly think American 'culture' might be superior in any way to such an earthly paradise ?

It must be real nice and comfy to live in a reality distortion field...

This is nothing new. Read the book by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, entitled, "War Is A Racket!"

The only problem in the mid-east is they're not killing each other in large enough numbers!