Arab Spring

The Arab Spring Becomes a Western Winter

Is the Arab Middle East ready for democracy? We know how the past two American presidents have answered this.

|

Is the Arab Middle East ready for democracy? We know how the past two American presidents have answered this.

The revised stated purpose behind President George W. Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was to build a new world order by forcing democracy on populations to whom it was truly alien. The original stated purpose for invading Afghanistan was to destroy the folks who provided shelter to the 9/11 attackers, and the original stated purpose for invading Iraq was to rid it of a government that possessed and might use weapons of mass destruction.

But when we learned that the real support for the 9/11 attacks came from folks protected by our so-called friends in Saudi Arabia, and when we learned that the only weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq were the ones the U.S. sold to Saddam Hussein in the mid-1980s, which he no longer possessed, the Bush administration changed the rhetoric but not the violence or its cost.

Since the termination of those wars came about after the installation of puppet regimes in both countries, and since those regimes now claim legitimacy because they were elected by the people permitted to vote there, we have been reminded that democracy is more than the result of a majority vote. It is respect for the rule of law and recognition of the inalienable rights of the individual. It is not torture, extra-judicial killings, or government-sanctioned rape and legal suppression of women and girls; it is not racial and religious and ethnic hatred and persecution; and it is not the rule of mobs in the streets.

When Egypt was in turmoil a year ago, President Obama nudged Hosni Mubarak from office. He was the longtime American puppet and Egyptian strongman who called himself president but was never really elected. His downfall was followed by a short-lived military dictatorship, and that was followed by the popular election of Islamic radicals to the government. They hate the West, the U.S. and Israel.

Is it any wonder that our embassy in Cairo has been attacked and our folks who work and live there are threatened every day? Should the president alone be able to help depose a foreign leader without the consensus of the American people or their elected representatives in Congress? Did the president's miscalculations take into account that it might be better to leave in place the devil you know instead of inviting the devil you don't know to replace him? Did he consider that the leader of Egypt is for the Egyptians—and not the American government—to decide?

The case of Libya is even worse. There, Obama unlawfully, deceptively and unconstitutionally bombed Libya in an effort either to kill Col. Gadhafi, its former strongman and American ally, or to weaken his defenses until he surrendered. It was unlawful because he used the CIA to fight a war. It was deceptive because he lied about no boots on the ground ("boots" referring to troops, rather than intelligence agents with military hardware). It was unconstitutional because under the Constitution, only Congress may declare war on another country. This was an act of war on a legitimate government, one that then-President George W. Bush and then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair praised a few years earlier as a partner in the war against terror, and one that posed no threat whatsoever to American freedom.

Now we know that some of the very same people the U.S. fought—and supposedly defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq—were part of the coalition of violent militias that ousted Gadhafi with the help of American bombs. And the government they wrought is too weak to protect our diplomats and our real estate there from them. And so they attacked our unguarded consulate in Benghazi and killed our ambassador, and so far they have gotten away with it.

Does anyone really believe the nonsense from the Obama administration that the recent killings of Americans and others and the destruction in the Arab world are about a 15-minute grade-C movie trailer with dubbed voices and terrible acting and no plot or message? Or is the violence about the opportunity of those Bush and Obama trusted to run new governments to vent their hatred?

Is it not more likely that when the West supported toppling Arab strongmen, the rioters in the streets saw that as a signal to express hatred toward the meddling West? Might Obama's drones, which have fallen all over the Middle East killing innocents in schools and hospitals, at weddings and funerals, and demolishing mosques and homes, be coming back to haunt him?

The Arab Spring has become the Western Winter, brought about by two American presidents who thought they could kill without moral justification or painful consequence. We should come home from these barbaric places and leave them alone. We should trade with them, since they want to buy our iPads and washing machines and blue jeans, but let them run their own governments.

NEXT: NFL Referees Coming Back to Work Tonight

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hey, if this democracy crap is so great, how come we don’t have it in America.

    Arab Spring has become the Western Winter

    So I guess the Samoan SWAT Summer and Aboriginal Autumn just didn’t happen, eh, Judge?

    1. We’re into Freeloading Fall in the US. Mittens tells me 47% of the populave LOVES this season…

      1. Is it still bad to wear white after Labour-is-for-the-Labour-Class Day?

        1. Not if you’re racist, straight up

        2. Is it still bad to wear white after Labour-is-for-the-Labour-Class Day?

          Now that we don’t have the old-style, smokey coal-burning furnaces in homes and businesses, not wearing white during the heating season is a largely obsolete idea.

  2. Also, calling Innocense of Islam Grade C is insulting to Grade C movies out there. I mean come on the production values, acting and plot of Atlas Shrugged Pts 1 2 are almost 30% better than IoI.

  3. “(CNN) — More than two weeks after four Americans — including the U.S. ambassador to Libya — were killed in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, FBI agents have not yet been granted access to investigate in the eastern Libyan city, and the crime scene has not been secured, sources said.
    ‘They’ve gotten as far as Tripoli now, but they’ve never gotten to Benghazi,’ CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend said Wednesday, citing senior law enforcement officials.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/…..?hpt=hp_t3

    Why would it take more than 15 days for the FBI to get to a city their supposed to be investigating?

    1. oops…they’re

    2. Cause it’s in another country, who won’t let them in?

      1. “Cause it’s in another country, who won’t let them in?”

        If only Gadhafi had said “Hey, this is another country and you can’t come in” he’d still be there.

    3. Because the Libyans know that we’re still going to gavage money down their gullets regardless of any action they take? Because we have no foreign policy whatsoever? Because there will be zero repercussions for treating the FBI agents however the hell they want to? Because they get to tell their populace that they can stand up to the US devils, and they’re not afraid to do so?

      I could go on for a while longer…

  4. “we have been reminded that democracy is more than the result of a majority vote. It is respect for the rule of law ”

    that’s right. preach it, judge!

    Rule of law is where it’s at, and evasion and simpering cowardly retreat from that principle is always the refuge of the scoundrel. Heartening also that Judge Napolitano, a defender of democracy and true freedom largely got his start and his national exposure from Fox News. The “progressives” can run around spewing about “faux news”, and even call for reinstatement of the “fairness doctrine” (barf), but without Fox, we wouldn’t be seeing Judge Napolitano on tv. god knows, MSNBC, CNN or the three networks refuse to entertain any true libertarian voices, instead pushing the constant refrain of the dual party/dual ideology system, a system where both sides can ultimately place freedom and rule of law on the back burner, while promoting statism, and that government is the solution to either “side’s” problem du jour. Whatever that may be, rest assured, for the two major parties, far too often it’s only govt. that can fix it.

    1. Let’s not forget John Stossel as well. Another gret Libertarian voice on Fox News.

    2. Rule of law is where it’s at…

      Only if the law is respectable. And this comes from the last part of your quote above that got cut off and recognition of the inalienable rights of the individual.

      No society can exist if respect for the law does not to some extent prevail; but the surest way to have the laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality are in contradiction, the citizen finds himself in the cruel dilemma of either losing his moral sense or of losing respect for the law, two evils of which one is as great as the other, and between which it is difficult to choose. Bastiat

    3. The guy behind LionelMedia.com broadcasts to several million people in NYC and on cable/dish. WPIX is “the only major NYC TV station that is not network-owned.” Pretty hilarious. 10pm EST daily.

      He’s writing in Ron Paul this year (but since he lives in NYC obviously the ecVotes will be going to Obama).

  5. let them run their own governments.

    “But, but, stonings for adultery! But, but, female genital mutilation! How can we just stand idly by?”

  6. Does anyone really believe the nonsense from the Obama administration that the recent killings of Americans and others and the destruction in the Arab world are about a 15-minute grade-C movie trailer with dubbed voices and terrible acting and no plot or message?

    Why does every journalist and pundit feel the need to preface discussion of Innocence of Muslims with a 30-second cinematography critique?

    Is it not more likely that when the West supported toppling Arab strongmen, the rioters in the streets saw that as a signal to express hatred toward the meddling West?

    Not that I don’t agree with you on non-interventionism; however, if you’re going to use Occam’s Razor, you have to take into account that these massive, world-wide riots only started after the Muslim world became aware of this video. The fact is that many in the West have a hard time believing that cultures exist where blasphemy is considered a greater outrage than tyranny.

    1. The fact is that many in the West have a hard time believing that cultures exist where blasphemy is considered a greater outrage than tyranny.

      Also, many in the West have a hard time believing that cultures exist where honor is considered a greater virtue than truth.

      1. Also, many in the West have a hard time believing that cultures exist where honor is considered a greater virtue than truth.

        Indeed. One year in Asia will disabuse any Westerner of that notion.

        1. and one night in bangkok will make a hard man humble. not much between despair and ecstacy

    2. [cont]
      Indeed, the riots could have started at the onset of the Syrian civil war and against Chinese and Russian support (“meddling”) for Assad. But they didn’t. The riots could have started after the assassination of Osama bin Laden. But they didn’t.

      The signs the protesters carry don’t reference ‘Western interventionism’; the signs read “Death to those who insult the Prophet,” etc. Isn’t it a bit arrogant to imply that these mobs aren’t sophisticated enough to express what they really mean (Yes, on the surface it’s about blasphemy, but really it’s about…..)?

      The fact is, that while many in the West are concerned, rightly, about the extrajudicial killings in Pakistan, via drones, in much of the world, life is cheap. An Indonesian peasant really doesn’t possess the desire to get all worked up about someone killed in a country 1000s of miles away. However, blaspheming Mohammed, is an outrage that is trans-cultural and transnational in the Muslim world. That such a fact is embarrassing to us in the post-Enlightenment West makes no difference.

      1. They did start on 9/11, though.

        1. Which is about when the Arabic dub of the trailer was uploaded to Youtube.

          1. Pretty neat coincidence

    3. It’s a strange little quirk and it’s gotten picked up by everyone – I heard from some cow-orkers having coffee. Being a feak libertarian and naturally contrarian, I’ve been praising its subtle humor and incisive dialogue. I compare it ‘Dogma’.

      Kevin Smith, step aside – here comes Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, new King of Blasphemy!

      1. “I heard from some cow-orkers having coffee.”

        If that “-” was intentionally misplaced, I commend you.

    4. if you’re going to use Occam’s Razor, you have to take into account that these massive, world-wide riots only started after the Muslim world became aware of this video.

      Think you just confused the post-hoc fallacy with Occam’s razor. A months-old video sparked unplanned, unorganized riots that by sheer coincidence happened on September 11th and resulted in a an assault on the American embassy and safe house that resulted in the killing of high level American officials? Uh huh.

      1. I have been taking this same stance, since the timing is obviously quite suspicious. However, there is a comment earlier in a different subthreat by HeroicMulatto that claims the *arabic* dubbed version of the video was uploaded on ‘about’ 9/11. That might actually make more sense, right? Unless, by ‘about’ he means two months ago not three months ago. But if the arabic version was uploaded on 9/9 or 9/10, then the riots on 9/11 may really be just co-inky-dink. Does anybody know what exact date the arabic version was uploaded?

        p.s. I still say defend freedom of speech to the death, no matter how big of a mob is rioting about perceived insults. We must *not* negotiate that.

        But, in terms of figuring out what is going on here, i.e. whether the mob violence really just stems from that one video, or if the video was just a convenient excuse for terrorists to *incite* a riot, as a cover for their premediated invasion of the embassy and assassination of the ambassador. The difference is important, eh?

  7. Should the president alone be able to help depose a foreign leader without the consensus of the American people or their elected representatives in Congress?

    I will go further and state that unless there is a declaration of war, it does not matter what the Congress or the American people want; the president should not be able to topple (or prop up) any foreign leader.

  8. In Eastern Europe the people overthrew the governments themselves and rid themselves of the Soviet Union having oversight over their governments. In a lot of the Arab countries, they may have changed governments but they still are essentially US puppets, until the US completely stops trying to interfere in these countries affairs there will never be a spring.

  9. And the government they wrought is too weak to protect our diplomats and our real estate there from them.

    And apparently so are we.

  10. The Arab Spring has become the Western Winter, brought about by two American presidents who thought they could kill without moral justification or painful consequence.

    Wow that’s Chapman-level stupid right there.

  11. None of this would be happening if we would just elect a President whose whole foreign policy strategy was based on Muslim outreach and the repudiation of all of George W. Bush’s policies that caused the Muslims to hate us.

  12. The commentary on Libya is pretty dumb and selective, at least the part about the ambassador being killed. Napolitano neglects to mention the 30,000 strong “mobs in the street” that literally evicted the suspected Islamist militants involved in the murder from Benghazi.

    1. Napolitano neglects to mention the 30,000 strong “mobs in the street” that literally evicted the suspected Islamist militants involved in the murder from Benghazi.

      Because it matters?

      “Hey guys, nevermind, they really DO like us! Our intervention WAS justified! Libya really IS just like us! All of the moral cliches that swell us with pride in our effort are true!”

  13. Everything is destroyed by the anti-Islamic film but it will continue once again I am sure.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.