A New Spin on Iraq...

[BT]

I did read your post. Show where he was influential.
Being tucked away in an inconsequential board might actually prove the opposite.

[domer]

Credentials are a valuable indicator of the worth of a commentator, but the proof comes when his/her arguments are re-presented, examined, analyzed, synthesized and so forth in an ongoing process of dialogue. In the end result it is the force of argument which distinguishes a commentator, not a set of credentials or accolades, which serve only a gatekeeper (wheat/chaff) function, which themselves can be unreliable in both including or excluding commentators from serious consideration.

[Plane]

I am less interested in the examination of these persons  as I am in the validity of the idea.


Do Arabic Cultural features die in a democracy?

[Michael Tee]

<<Credentials are a valuable indicator of the worth of a commentator . . . >>

You've obviously missed the point of the thread up to the production of credentials.  The issue was not the worth of the commentator.  I myself find him to be dangerously right-wing and seriously misguided.  Henny produced sufficient proof of that.  

The issue was whether the idea that Arabs need to jettison their culture had been widely spread before the invasion.  plane claimed never to have heard that before.  I produced an article by Pipes which also cited Fouad Ajami, another academic who, like Pipes, had been saying precisely that.  sirs countered by declaring that Pipes (who he admittedly had never heard of) was "fringe" and therefore didn't count.  I produced some of Pipes' resume, not to prove "the worth of the commentator" (frankly, the guy's an idiot) but that he had all the earmarks of mainstream acceptance of his authority.  Hardly a "fringe" commentator.  And that's what THAT debate was all about.

[Michael Tee]

<<Do Arabic Cultural features die in a democracy?>>

Depends what you conside Arabic cultural features.  Do women have to be veiled or not?  Do men have to be the boss or not?  Do Jews and Christians have to pay a special tax or not?

Every religion and culture adapts to one degree or another.  The Jews are a perfect example.  They give up some cultural features and keep others. 

The Western world adopted democracy as a necessary alternative to the contradictions in their lives and it was adopted in stages.  At the same time as democracy was being adopted, other features of the culture were changing.  It would be a Herculean effort to try to assign to each stage of each change, how much was due to democracy and how much to other forces also developing or evolving at the same time.  I'd say the changes came as a package - - as democracy was advancing, so was scientific knowledge and at the same time religious influence was in decline.  All the changes that were conducive to democracy didn't necessarily happen because the people were hell-bent on achieving democracy and all else had to fall into place.  There was just a lot of natural interaction and democracy for whatever reason continued to advance, benefitting from some of the societal changes and being held back by others.

The difference in Iraq is that a bunch of heavily-armed foreigners invaded the country and are now telling the people there (for public consumption at least) "All right you bastards, become democratic."  The entire society is being force-marched in one direction and every other feature of the culture is being examined by plane from one POV only, that is, will it help the advance of democracy or will it hold it back?  That wasn't how democracy evolved in the West and it's unreasonable to think it can be force-fed to the Iraqis, trimming back every other societal factor that gets in the way.  It's plane's priority but it's not necessarily the priority of the Iraqi people.

[domer]

Well, then: silly. As to the substance you flagged, the answer is intuitive and easy: Arabs, like everyone else, will not be forced to abandon their cultures but to modify and adapt them in the face of competing truths pouring in from the modern world. Next.

[BT]

That wasn't how democracy evolved in the West and it's unreasonable to think it can be force-fed to the Iraqis, trimming back every other societal factor that gets in the way.

Is it unreasonable to believe the Iraqi's are capable of democratic elections?

The Iranians i believe were touted as having conducted the same very recently.

Are the Persians that much more superior than the average arab?

[Henny]

I did read your post. Show where he was influential.
Being tucked away in an inconsequential board might actually prove the opposite.

Ok, I found his "resume" online. There is a specific reference bolded and highlighted as you read down:

Daniel Pipes
Middle East Forum: Founder and director
Project for the New American Century: Signatory


Institutional Affiliations

Washington Institute for Near East Policy: Adjunct Scholar (2)
U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon: Golden Circle supporter
New York Post: Columnist (4)
Jerusalem Post: Columnist (4)
Middle East Forum: Founder and Director (9)
Project for the New American Century: Signatory (12)
Naval War College: Former lecturer (1, 4)
Harvard University: Former lecturer (1, 4)
University of Chicago: Former lecturer (1, 4)
University of Pennsylvania: Former lecturer (3)
Foreign Policy Research Institute: Director (1986-1993) (3)

Government Service

U.S. Institute of Peace: Former Member of the Board (2003-2005) (10, 11)
Department of Defense: Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology (current) (1)

Education

Harvard University: Ph.D., History (1978) (1)
Harvard University: A.B., History (1971) (1)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1316

[Plane]

     I try to understand democracy in the way that Thomas Jefferson espoused it , the legitimacy of government arising from the consent of the governed.


     Anything that the people abhor ought to be rejected by a democratic government , anything that the people love ought to be supported by a democratic government .

     If there is any success in the establishment of democracy then the government ought to become coped to the people .


     In this situation I would expect it to be imposible for the things the people love to be threatened unless the tradition that is most important is repression itself.

[BT]

Department of Defense: Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology (current) (1)
 

And?

He is assigned to a committee.

Big Deal.

[Plane]

 
I have been reading the Daniel Pipes website.

He is alarmist and not admireing of Arab culture.

Not entirely happy with Bush either.

http://www.danielpipes.org

President Bush Replies to My Iraq Critique
October 25, 2006

Well, not exactly, but at a news conference today, George W. Bush in effect answered the argument I presented yesterday at "In Iraq, Stay the Course - but Change It," that coalition forces should be redeployed to the uninhabited regions of Iraq. He acknowledged problems in Iraq but insisted that the administration's course remains correct. He offered a strong rationale for the intense involvement in Iraq (and Afghanistan) which I disputed:

Our security at home depends on ensuring that Iraq is an ally in the war on terror and does not become a terrorist haven like Afghanistan under the Taliban. … The fact that the fighting is tough does not mean our efforts in Iraq are not worth it. To the contrary; the consequences in Iraq will have a decisive impact on the security of our country, because defeating the terrorists in Iraq is essential to turning back the cause of extremism in the Middle East. If we do not defeat the terrorists or extremists in Iraq, they will gain access to vast oil reserves, and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments across the broader Middle East. They will launch new attacks on America from this new safe haven. They will pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia. … If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America's security, I'd bring our troops home tomorrow.

The president is clear here, if not entirely explicit: The coalition must defeat the Islamists in Iraq to prevent them from taking the country over and using it as a basis to attack the United States.

I agree that we do not want Islamists ruling in Iraq but I wonder why the threat in Iraq is so important that American and other Western forces must fight them with boots on the ground in Baghdad. Actually, the Bush administration has already helped Islamists take over in Baghdad (not to speak of the Palestinian Authority) through elections; is that really so different from their winning a military victory? And speaking of a military victory, that is what Islamists are currently achieving in Somalia, with barely any response from Washington.

Why this inconsistency, this privileging of Iraq? I think it has little to do with the dangers of Islamists taking over there but results instead from the accumulated inertia of what I yesterday called the "mouse that roared" or "Pottery Barn rule" assumption. This holds that when the United States protects its interests by invading a country, it then has a moral obligation to rehabilitate it. That's a mistaken mentality that is leading to major damage. It needs to be focused on and reassessed. (October 25, 2006)

 

[Henny]

The difference in Iraq is that a bunch of heavily-armed foreigners invaded the country and are now telling the people there (for public consumption at least) "All right you bastards, become democratic."  The entire society is being force-marched in one direction and every other feature of the culture is being examined by plane from one POV only, that is, will it help the advance of democracy or will it hold it back?  That wasn't how democracy evolved in the West and it's unreasonable to think it can be force-fed to the Iraqis, trimming back every other societal factor that gets in the way.  It's plane's priority but it's not necessarily the priority of the Iraqi people.

I have to agree with this, MT (the problem of forced democratization). To elaborate a little bit, I believe that Arabic culture could be very compatible with Democracy, and there are budding signs of that all over the Middle East. What I see as being most problematic is that while America is good at disrupting things over here, they are NOT doing that well in the short term with their PR campaign.

For some the attitude has become one of pulling away from anything and everything American, and America has put a lot of stress on Democracy. And they don't want it... because it's American! You run into this with people (mostly) who are middle-aged and older, but kids are being influenced as well by the attitudes of their elders. (And on the other hand, the young people are also often drawn to all things Western, which may make a difference in the long term.)

[Henny]

And?

He is assigned to a committee.

Big Deal.

LOL. He would have to be the White House Chief of Staff for you to concede the point, BT?

[Plane]

The difference in Iraq is that a bunch of heavily-armed foreigners invaded the country and are now telling the people there (for public consumption at least) "All right you bastards, become democratic."  The entire society is being force-marched in one direction and every other feature of the culture is being examined by plane from one POV only, that is, will it help the advance of democracy or will it hold it back?  That wasn't how democracy evolved in the West and it's unreasonable to think it can be force-fed to the Iraqis, trimming back every other societal factor that gets in the way.  It's plane's priority but it's not necessarily the priority of the Iraqi people.

I have to agree with this, MT (the problem of forced democratization). To elaborate a little bit, I believe that Arabic culture could be very compatible with Democracy, and there are budding signs of that all over the Middle East. What I see as being most problematic is that while America is good at disrupting things over here, they are NOT doing that well in the short term with their PR campaign.

For some the attitude has become one of pulling away from anything and everything American, and America has put a lot of stress on Democracy. And they don't want it... because it's American! You run into this with people (mostly) who are middle-aged and older, but kids are being influenced as well by the attitudes of their elders. (And on the other hand, the young people are also often drawn to all things Western, which may make a difference in the long term.)

There is some history in this concept.

In Cuba , in the Phillpines and in Japan.
In Cuba we set out explicitly to produce liberty and establish human rights , our failure was miserable .

In the Phillipines we did no better for a long time , but when there was finally a genuine voce of the people government it politely asked us to decamp or military presence.

In Japan the effort to produce a democracy has woked outstandingly well though the Japaneese discuss with one anthr whether they should ore often tell us "no".

The question seems often to become whether the objective of the new form of government is to be good for its own people or for the US which is building it.

[BT]

LOL. He would have to be the White House Chief of Staff for you to concede the point, BT?

No but he would have to have reached the heights  of other academics like Kissinger, Rice, Brezenski or even Patrick Moynihan for me to acknowledge that he was influential upon the Bush Admin.

This guy has as much influence as Pat Buchanan. Little to none.