Posted on 10/29/2004 5:54:13 PM PDT by Cyrus the Great
Being Republican and pro-Bush in Washington, D.C. is no easy matter - especially when you're young, your ethnicity is Middle Eastern, and your religious affiliation is to Islam. Your colleagues, friends, and acquaintances - white, black, and a whole host of "brown" - much more often than not identify themselves as Democrats. Others, say they are "ABB," an acronym for "Anything But Bush," and that their vote for John Kerry is not an endorsement of him, but rather a vote cast against George W. Bush.
On Nov. 2, as Americans head to the polls, people from around the world will watch with interest - particularly those in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In a region lacking the ballot box, they all want to vote. I know who they are rooting for. And I am confident that his middle initial is not "W." And I am confident that they are wrong.
On the Middle East and the "Greater Middle East" for what that's worth, Bush is the right candidate - unequivocally. His policies and beliefs are good for America - but they are also good for the region and all of its people - Arab, Israeli and Iranian, among others. Everyone, really, stands to benefit from his leadership on that front.
Prior to Bush, we never heard the words "reform" and "Middle East" in the same sentence - at least, not with any seriousness. It is miraculous that today, leaders in the Middle East have begun singing a chorus of "home-grown reform." "Home grown" what? Summits, initiatives, declarations and proclamations ... no, these would never have come about without Bush. And though they may be slow to manifest themselves, they are a welcome start. Arabs and Muslims will be the direct beneficiaries of such reform. Bush is rooting for you. You should be rooting for him, too.
On the Arab-Israeli conflict, I will admit - much to my chagrin - that Bush has not had the best of records. Neither has Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Nor has Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. But the reality of domestic politics in America is such that Israel is off-limits in the first four years of an administration (or if you do touch it, you never survive to see the first day of a second administration; evidence: George Herbert Walker Bush.) There is just too much political pressure, power and money involved. I'm not happy about that - but it is the reality, and I am a pragmatist. People counter this claim and point to former U.S. President Bill Clinton's first administration and the signing of the Oslo Accords. They were a failure. Years and years of "talks" that led to more settlements, more home demolitions, more terror and more fear. Israelis and Palestinians have suffered too much. In domestic political lingo in America, Oslo was somewhat of a partial-birth abortion: dead before being born.
In his second administration, Bush is in a unique position to do what no predecessor of his has done and what his rival certainly cannot do. Bush has been seen as such a "friend to Israel," that he will be able to pressure Israel to make the concessions it must for peace (and its own security). In so doing, he will not encounter the customary criticism and lobbying efforts of pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish groups in America: They know that his intent is not to crush Israel, but to support her. For many in America recognize that continuing to give Sharon the green light to do what he pleases will destroy Israel. It is, after all, to date defined by immigration; yet now we see it, a country defined by fear, a people obsessed with security, and a government witness to waves and waves of emigration.
Bush is the first U.S. president to insist on the necessity of a "State of Palestine," time and time again, but he knows what must be done before. In the end, his insistence on change and reform stands to benefit not only America, but Palestinians and the emergence of the state of Palestine as well.
And onto Iraq - surely a most unpopular decision of the Bush administration in the Middle East (and around the world). After all, this was the decision that put into the annals of history yet another failed Arab statesman - a legend without cause, a hero sans raison, and a man who preferred the bloodshed of the people he so tyrannically ruled for decades than surrender himself to the world community for the sake of his people. It is this, I believe, that has had people across the Middle East so disgruntled. But place disbelief and shame aside - and soon the realizations of the opportunities that exist from an Iraqi regime friendly to America will come to mind.
As I wrote over a year ago, America is in Iraq with a liberator's intent. To liberate the Iraqis from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, to liberate the Arab world of a failed leader who encouraged popular support for terror across the Middle East, and to liberate its own people - the Americans - and everyone around the world from the threat and fear of terror. Whether or not Saddam Hussein had specific linkages to Al-Qaeda is not the case I am making here. It is, though, that Saddam Hussein overtly encouraged terror and proudly harvested a culture of hate. Such forces must be reckoned with; these are battles that must be waged and won.
But it is no easy task as we all know today - in the end, I am a firm believer that America cannot want for Iraq and Iraqis what they do not want themselves. Without Saddam Hussein and with the eventual elimination of the daily terror we see in Iraq today, Iraq, the region, and the world will be better off. There is no question about that. But these things take time. Recall the number of years America spent in Germany and the greater number of years she spent in Japan. The mission cannot be completed without the loss of life, civilian and military, but in the end, it will lead to a better future - I am a firm believer of that - and those lives lost in the quest for such a future will not have been in vain.
Iraqis, free, secure and safe in their own land, will have the opportunity to rebuild their civil society and join the community of nations, not as a pariah state, but as a model for others around them. When Iraqis begin to see their fate tied to America's success there (this is, contrary to popular belief, either a win-win situation or a lose-lose situation; it is no zero-sum game), when the terror that kills more Iraqis than it does Americans wanes, and when the silent majority of Iraqis begin to condemn the horror their own citizenry (and those from the outside) are inflicting upon their countrymen, women and children, what Bush will have done for Iraq will be the greatest thing any man has done for Iraq in its modern history.
Such a pity that it had to come from the outside; but this is the reality - change was not, nor will it have ever, come from within so long as Saddam Hussein lived. Arabs know this; they just do not like to admit it. In the days leading to the war's beginning, I had many a conversation with various people from the Arab world - the most frequent comment was: "We do not want Saddam Hussein, but we do not want war, either." Such a delusional wish. I said I was a pragmatist, didn't I?
Move toward the subjects of trade and economic opportunity for the people of the Middle East, and you will also see that what Bush envisions is hope, opportunity, and prosperity. With free-trade agreements signed between Jordan and the United States, Morocco and the United States, and most recently, Bahrain and the United States, economic liberalization and the benefits it will bestow upon the people of the region are on the march. And on education, support for countries in the region pursuing educational reform has a special place in the U.S. State Department's budget. And so on and so forth - the American pocketbook is there to aid the Arab world, where it seeks to abandon the 19th century past it finds itself in and move with force and vigor into the 21st century.
Indeed, under Bush, all forms of support are there for the people of the Middle East - and in him, they have a real partner. On Nov. 2, those wanting progress in the Middle East lend their support to Bush. And so, being pro-Middle East and pro-Bush, seems to me, an unusual anomaly. It makes absolute sense. An in-depth look at his policies toward the region and her people, after all, reveals that W stands for the Middle East.
Ping!
Wow, great post, thank you.
Great article--thank you for posting.
"...what Bush will have done for Iraq will be the greatest thing any man has done for Iraq in its modern history."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.