Victor Davis Hanson on Middle East successes

VDH, the most important writer in America, argues that the aggressive policy the Bush administration has taken in the Middle East, from refusing to accept the legitimacy of the late Yassir Arafat to regime change in Iraq, is already bearing fruit in the region. He also thinks, as do I, that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia after the regime change in Iraq benefits the U.S. by giving it needed distance from the Saudi dynasty. He also cross references that to the constant criticism aimed at the U.S. from Europe and the Arab League:
But by withdrawing [from Saudi Arabia], the United States took the first steps in a long overdue disengagement from an autocratic dynasty that will either change under a consensual government into a titular and ceremonial royalty — like the British crown heads — or, as in the case of Iran's shah, be driven out by theocratic fundamentalists. Finally, the United States at last is beginning to cut loose from an octopus whose petroleum tentacles have wrapped deeply around banks, lobbyists, defense contractors, and lawyers in Washington and New York, both Republicans and Democrats, oilmen and multiculturalists alike. It is neither a wise nor a moral thing to have much to do with 7,000 royal cousins who have siphoned $700 billion from their country while unemployment there reaches 40 percent and while women, laborers from the third world, Christians, and assorted others are treated as undesirables.

Now in hindsight, few seem to object to the ostracism of Arafat or estrangement from Saudi Arabia. The moral?

As a rule of thumb in matters of the Middle East, be very skeptical of anything that Europe (fearful of terrorists, eager for profits, tired of Jews, scared of their own growing Islamic minorities) and the Arab League (a synonym for the autocratic rule of Sunni Muslim grandees and secular despots) cook up together. If a EU president, a Saudi royal, and a Middle East specialist in the State Department or a professor in an endowed Middle Eastern Studies chair agree that the United States is "woefully naïve," "unnecessarily provocative" or "acting unilaterally," then assume that we are pretty much on the right side of history and promoting democratic reform. "Sobriety" and "working with Arab moderates" is diplo-speak for supporting or abetting an illiberal hierarchy.

Comments

K2ENF said…
While detachment from the Saudis is worthwhile, there's a problem with it.

The problem with withdrawing from Saudai Arabia as such is that it creates something nature abhors... a vaccum.... Ironicly allowing the likes of Binladen, and his poison back into that country.

With all the stability popping up around the Saudis, instability in that counrty makes it ripe for a more radical takeover.... if we're not there to prevent it.

Popular Posts