Continuing with the theme that I expounded earlier, here’s more on the march of freedom in the Middle East, from the AP:

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?

The money quote comes from Lebanese sociologist Dalal al-Bizri: “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.’”

Meanwhile, in Iraq, 2,000 people demonstrated against terrorism at the site of yesterday’s barbaric attack against Iraqi civilians by resistance fighters insurgents terrorists.

The New York Times editorial board:

[T]his has so far been a year of heartening surprises - each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power. Washington’s challenge now lies in finding ways to nurture and encourage these still fragile trends without smothering them in a triumphalist embrace.

Lebanon’s political reawakening took a significant new turn yesterday when popular protests brought down the pro-Syrian government of Prime Minister Omar Karami. Syria’s occupation of Lebanon, nearly three decades long, started tottering after the Feb. 14 assassination of the country’s leading independent politician, the former prime minister Rafik Hariri. … To stem the growing backlash over the Hariri murder, last week Syria announced its intentions to pull back its occupation forces to a region near the border - although without offering any firm timetable. Yesterday, with protests continuing, the pro-Syrian cabinet resigned. …

Last weekend’s surprise announcement of plans to hold at least nominally competitive presidential elections in Egypt could prove even more historic, although many of the specific details seem likely to be disappointing. Egypt is the Arab world’s most populous country and one of its most politically influential. In more than five millenniums of recorded history, it has never seen a truly free and competitive election.

To be realistic, Egypt isn’t likely to see one this year either. For all his talk of opening up the process, President Hosni Mubarak, 76, is likely to make sure that no threatening candidates emerge to deny him a fifth six-year term. But after seeing more than eight million Iraqis choose their leaders in January, Egypt’s voters, and its increasingly courageous opposition movement, will no longer retreat into sullen hopelessness so readily. …

Over the past two decades, as democracies replaced police states across Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America, and a new economic dynamism lifted hundreds of millions of eastern and southern Asia out of poverty and into the middle class, the Middle East stagnated in a perverse time warp that reduced its brightest people to hopelessness or barely contained rage. The wonder is less that a new political restlessness is finally visible, but that it took so long to break through the ice.

But it didn’t take long at all, really, once the Western world actually showed a commitment to the cause of freedom in the Middle East. As long as we allowed ourselves to be lulled into inaction by the paternalistic attitude of the “multi-culturalist” Left — the belief that Arabs have a “different way” of doing things, that we shouldn’t “force Western democracy” on them because, really, they don’t want democracy — the tin-pot tyrants of the region were able to hold sway over the teeming masses.

Many liberals used this result as evidence that their paternalistic attitude was correct, asserting (or, more often, snidely implying) that the people of the Middle East could rise up if they wanted to, without Western support — and if they didn’t do so, that meant they didn’t want to. Hence the argument, “I support the overthrow of Saddam, but only if it comes from within.” (Lest we forget, the United States needed foreign help to throw off the yoke of tyrannical rule, too. Internal revolution is hard.)

Thankfully, we have a president who recognizes that freedom from tyranny is not a cultural construct, but a universal human yearning — and a universal human right. Now, at last, it’s perfectly clear that the awesome power of the United States stands not with the tyrants, but with the democracy-supporting masses… and suddenly those masses are feeling emboldened, and are proving the Left wrong and (though it pains me somewhat to say it) the Right right.

And the New York Times, which opposed the policies that brought about this sea change, wonders why it took so long.

As Dale Franks says: “Finally, the NYT is on board with Democracy promotion in the Mideast. Glad to have you aboard, guys.”

The Times is right about one thing: we shouldn’t be triumphalist. These are small steps, and there is plenty of time and opportunity yet for the forces of repression to push back. But these small steps could very well be, as Gandalf said, “like the falling of small stones that starts an avalanche.” The pro-democracy Arabs are beginning to wake up and realize that they are strong. That is a very good thing.

Andrew yesterday pointed me to this post, which cites some evidence that even the execrable House of Saud may be starting to come around. Wouldn’t that be something? And as Franks says, these are developments that “we wouldn’t be seeing at all had we followed the advice of the Dean/Kennedy crowd.”

Money quote from the article Andrew sent me:

The most deeply pessimistic view one can take of all this is that regimes in the Middle East and the Arab world now feel pressured into giving lip service to election reform and to making cosmetic changes allowing women more rights and participation in the process of government. But even this is an improvement from where we were just a few short months ago. You don’t have to be a full-blooded neocon to feel a twinge of cautious optimism in your gut over these recent events and to hope they are the beginning of something much bigger.

I’m not a full-blooded neocon by any means; I’ve always been appalled by the Left’s attitude toward this stuff, but I’ve never been quite sure that the Right was right, either. I’ve long been on the fence as to whether this “democracy promotion” business would work, though I certainly hoped it would. I am definitely feeling a “twinge of cautious optimism” now.

Oh, and about that whole “Arabs don’t want democracy” meme? I think we can safely conclude that it, too, is bound for history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.

UPDATE: Ed Kilgore of the Democratic Leadership Council, guestblogging for Josh Marshall on Talking Points Memo, provides a rebuttal:

[I]t literally never crossed my mind that Bush’s fans would credit him with for this positive event [in Lebanon], as though his pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment.

This is the kind of thinking, of course, that has convinced God knows how many people that Ronald Reagan personally won the Cold War. It’s the old post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy. This is a president and an administration that chronically refuse to accept responsibility for the bad things that have happened on their watch–even things like the insurgency in Iraq that are directly attributable to its policies. Barring any specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders) that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria’s setbacks in Lebanon, I see no particular reason to high-five him for being in office when they happened.

Let us congratulate the Lebanese, not those in Washington who would take credit for their accomplishments.

I suppose it’s possible that post hoc ergo propter hoc applies here, but when democracy in the Middle East makes virtually no progress for decades, and then suddenly a whole bunch of positive developments occur in rapid succession within the course of a few months, I am inclined to invoke a different rule: Occam’s Razor. Which is more likely: that these simultaneous developments are being helped along — catalyzed, if you will — by the presence, almost literally next door, of the world’s most powerful military, whose commanders publicly and vigorously support the spread of freedom in the Middle East… or that this is all a grand coincidence?

I think the answer is fairly obvious.

Whatever you think about the wisdom of the policy — I tend to think it’s a good thing — the Bush Administration certainly does appear, with its statements and actions toward Russia and now Egypt, to be getting serious about this whole “freedom” thing:

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in an interview that he hoped Egypt “gets the strong message that the United States will not look the other way anymore, that the suppression of democracy is no longer a matter of purely domestic affairs in a country.”

On a related (?) note, there is some good news out of Egypt.

UPDATE: TigerHawk sees a cause-and-effect relationship between the two Egypt stories linked above.

UPDATE 2: Villainous Company says it’s all about Condi’s boots. Heh.

One of these days these boots
Are gonna walk all over you…

P.S. I’m just waiting for the other boot to drop, as it were, with regard to Saudi Arabia, and its “freedom” problems…

Now it’s official: the Shiite has hit the fan:

Ibrahim Jafari, a Muslim scholar and leader of Iraq’s oldest Islamist party, was unanimously nominated as prime minister Tuesday by the Shiite-led alliance that carried the country’s historic elections last month, and his confirmation by the national assembly seemed all but assured.

The selection of Jafari opens the way for the first Shiite-led government in Iraq’s modern existence, and it signals a dramatic change for the Arab world, where Sunni Muslims are dominant. It also puts the United States in the position of providing its armed forces to protect a government led by an Islamist with ties to Iran.

Jafari says Iraq won’t be the next Iran, but some are skeptical:

The soft-spoken physician who spent nine years as an exile in Iran has lately been at pains to appear as a moderate on the issue of religion in government. He and other members of his United Iraqi Alliance slate have stressed that they have differences with the Iranian theocratic model and that Iraqis need a government that will represent all groups.

“Iraq is actually made of various populations from all nationalities, sects and religions,” Jafari said in a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times here. “Nobody can rule Iraq unless he would walk alongside all Iraqis and represent all the Iraqi people.”

But some Iraqis and foreign observers note that Jafari heads Iraq’s oldest Islamist party, and they worry he will seek to impose a more religious government than he lets on. They note that he has been lukewarm to the U.S. presence in Iraq and has said he would like to see U.S. troops withdraw once Iraqi forces are trained. [Um, isn’t that President Bush’s position, too? -ed.]

They also recall that the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini initially disavowed political motives after an Islamic revolution overthrew the shah of Iran in 1979. “All the experts got it wrong in Iran too,” said a senior U.S. diplomat here with considerable experience in the region.

Have the mullahs arrested Bin Laden? They say no:

Iran denied Monday suggestions on some local Internet sites that it arrested Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, the Western world’s most wanted man, on the border with Pakistan.

“This information is wrong and bin Laden has not been arrested by our security forces,” government spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh said at a weekly press briefing.

Some Iranian Internet sites quoted American officials as saying the Al-Qaeda leader…had been arrested two weeks ago by Iranian forces.

Well that’s certainly a big relief.

MOSCOW Feb 18, 2005 (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that Moscow will continue its nuclear cooperation with Iran and that he is convinced Tehran does not intend to develop atomic weapons.

Iran’s nuclear program is likely to be one of the top issues when Putin and President Bush meet Thursday in Slovakia.

Moscow has helped Iran build a nuclear reactor, a project that has been heavily criticized by the United States, which fears it could be used to help Tehran develop atomic weapons…

A Russian analyst questioned whether Putin’s statement was based on actual information or on expediency.

“To my mind, it’s hard to find arguments to support Putin’s declaration,” said Anton Khlopkov, director of the PIR Center, which studies weapons issues. He noted that “Iran is potentially an important strategic partner for Russia … (with) a whole series of coinciding interests.”

Fie.

“…Now then, Dmitri, you know how we’ve always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb. …The Bomb, Dmitri…. The HYDROGEN bomb! …”

“Well, it’s good that you’re fine and … and I’m fine. … I agree with you, it’s great to be fine. … Now then, Dmitri, you know how we’ve always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb. …The *Bomb*, Dmitri.”

(Hat tips: Becky and Stanley Kubrick. :)

Pending a 3-day period for Objections.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Here is a list of the political alliances receiving the most votes in Iraq’s Jan. 30 national elections and the number of seats they will receive in the 275-member National Assembly, provided the results released Sunday are certified.

Note that the Shi’ites have (provisionally) 140 seats - an absolute majority of the 275. (But it takes 2/3 to Do anything so they still must Coalesce, which is Good.)

At 26% of the vote and 27% of the seats (75) the Kurds got their whey :), running Whey ahead of their estimated 15% of the population. Go Kurdistan! :)

Total votes: 8,550,571

Invalid votes: 94,305

THROWN OUT!!! :)

It’s reported elsewhere (can’t find the Link now) that said Turnout represents some 58% of the Eligible. (I think that means of the Registered, not of the Voting-Age Population total, but I don’t know for sure.) Sunni turnout was Terrible - down in single digits in some damn Province or other - so the Other turnouts had to be Massive, to average out at 58%.

Also Ran:

The Turkomen, 3 seats

The National Independent Elites and Cadres, 3

The Commie Reds, 2

The Assyrian Christians, 1

The Reconciliation and Liberation Entity, 1

:)

This is why the Iraq WMD debacle is such a big deal, contrary to the heads-in-the-sand proclamations of some on the right.

It is also why Bush should not, under any circumstances, have been re-elected after what happened with Iraq.

If a different U.S. administration — a Kerry Administration, a Dean Administration, a Lieberman Administration, even a different Republican administration with a different national-security team — were saying what the Bushies are saying now about Iran, they would be subject to much less skepticism. Some skepticism, yes. But much less.

However, given that Bush is still president and his entire team is still in place — no one has been fired, and some have been promoted — the question must be asked: what reason does anyone have to trust the The Neocons Who Cried Wolf?

As Joe Biden said at the Democratic National Convention:

Forty years ago, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to seek support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then, he offered to show classified intelligence information as proof. De Gaulle said, “That’s not necessary. I know President Kennedy. I know he would never mislead me on a question of war and peace.” Would a single foreign leader react the same way today?

No, they wouldn’t — nor would the majority of the American public. Worse, even once the evidence is aired, many would remain extremely skeptical. They’d wonder: “Is the intelligence being ‘hyped’ again? Is relevant contrary information being left out, again? Can we really trust these people, this time?”

Recall, by the way, that the third time the boy cried wolf, there really was a wolf. That’s why this is such a gravely serious problem. The case against Iran appears to be much stronger than the case against Iraq ever was. A conflict with Iran may, God forbid*, prove necessary — much more necessary than Bush’s discretionary** war with Iraq. Yet because of what happened with our intelligence in Iraq (and, perhaps more importantly, the perceptions of what happened with our intelligence in Iraq), the Bush Administration is uniquely ill-suited to fight even a necessary war of pre-emption.

I blame Ohio. :) And Iowa.

*I say “God forbid” not only because war is inherently something that we should hope doesn’t happen, but because we are no position, militarily or strategically, to fight a war with Iran right now. Doing so would probably require either a) a draft, or b) abdicating our responsibilities in Iraq and leaving that country to the wolves, which would be both morally wrong and strategically disastrous (get ready for the “blowback” in a decade or two). Moreover, a war with Iran would be much harder to win than the initial ground war with Iraq was, and the chances of it turning into a huge, Middle East-wide conflagration — particularly one involving Israel — would be much higher.

**I personally believe that the war in Iraq was justified but not necessary. Hence, “discretionary war.”

P.S. Here is David Kay’s column.

I’m no conspiracy-minded, blame-America-first lefty, but is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that Abu Grahib was in any way an isolated incident. Accounts like this lend credence to earlier accounts like this, and lead to the inescapable conclusion that, well, we’ve really f***ed up this war, big time. The “force of human freedom,” my eye.

Honestly, how many consecutive days is it possible to accurately publish news stories with headlines like “Insurgents Step Up Violence Ahead of Vote“? Hasn’t that been the headline for, like, a week straight now? How damn G-ddamn “steps” are there? Isn’t there some finite point at which no more “stepping up” is possible — i.e., a point at which the level of violence has reached a critical mass, and the country is just basically an active war zone, in which no one is safe anywhere, at any time? And if we’ve already reached that point, aren’t these headlines just an inaccurate attempt to impose a sequential plot line on a relatively static situation, for the sake of dramatic storytelling? In other words, shouldn’t the story really be headlined, “Iraq Continues to be Extremely Violent Ahead of Vote”?

I’m probably wrong. I’m just annoyed by the repetitive headlines, is all.

The hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has come to an end. President Bush, however, maintains that WMDs were there and that he was in the right when calling for the invasion:

Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official [Charles A. Duelfer, the official who led the weapons hunt in 2004] said that possibility is very small.

The final, follow-up report is expected soon. The preliminary report was presented to Congress in September.

Via Instapundit, I came across this fascinating post by Kevin Drum of The Washington Monthly (an establishment liberal magazine out of Washington, DC). The question has been debated: Did we go to war without enough troops? Are we losing in Iraq because of the lack of manpower? To a rising number of critics (more and more of them on the Right these days, following Andrew Sullivan’s lead), the answer is obvious–and Rumsfeld’s the culprit whose head must roll to satisfy their anger over the supposed error which was borne of his headstrong stubbornness.

Admittedly, I’ve supported Rumsfeld and his assertion that you “go to war with the army you have”, but despite my bias, the not-enough-troops criticism has always seen too cheap and unsubstantiated to me. Now, from a liberal magazine, I have seen as good a refutation as there is:

Suppose Rumsfeld had agreed with guys like Eric Shinseki and proposed an invasion with more troops. How many could he have called on?

…[I]f we used every single active combat brigade of the Army and Marines — denuding our forces everywhere in the world to do it — and then filled up every possible National Guard and reserve brigade, we might scrape up about 500,000 troops.

Of course, no one seriously suggests that we should strip every last soldier from Europe, North Korea, and our other overseas deployments. Realistically, then, the maximum number of troops available for use in Iraq is probably pretty close to the number we have now: 300,000 rotated annually, for a presence of about 150,000 at any given time.

The only way to appreciably increase this is to raise the Army’s end strength by several divisions, and this is exactly what Kagan and Sullivan think Rumsfeld has been too stubborn about opposing. But as they acknowledge, doing this would take a couple of years — and as they don’t acknowledge, it would have made the war politically impossible. The invasion of Iraq almost certainly would never have happened if Rumsfeld had told Congress in 2002 that he wanted them to approve three or four (or more) new divisions in preparation for a war in 2004 or 2005.

…Kagan and Sullivan both supported the Iraq war, but it never would have happened if Rumsfeld had acknowledged that we needed 100,000 more troops than we had available at the time.For that reason, conservative critiques of Rumsfeld on these grounds strike me as hypocritical.

(more…)

Just a link to help us all remember the solders who give us the best gift of all our Freedom.

Happy Holidays

CNN is reporting an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah.