Insurgencies Do Not Follow Democratic Ideals

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Aug 23, 2011 at 17:01

In Dr. Pipes' post of May 19^th, one of the myriad writings of his that address the concerns the west should be wary of on the advancing onslaught of Islamic ideology that permeates just about every discussion on the Middle East, concerning the position that few understand about the posture the American Administrative Executive maintains, he states: 'That departure is not for the better; one line sums up Obama's mistake, where he declares that "The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel … must act boldly to advance a lasting peace." Note how he demands that Israel alone "must act boldly," code words for making concessions to enemies sworn to eliminate the Jewish state.'

This was a commentary on the topic, "Obama's Failed Middle East Speech,' a deftly crafted observation which speaks to the underlying issues now being appraised with differing attitudes long ago raised, but still unresolved, just as the participants of the forum here reflect. But therein lays the dilemma, did the American Chief Executive actually misspeak; or should there be more concern that what was spoken was more to the point of certain ambitions in the Middle East than nominally recognized.

While there still seems to be a desire by some to marginalize certain aspects of the Libyan overthrow as just another in a series of Middle Eastern principalities' reach for 'democracy,' it is yet to be seen or effectively demonstrated how democratic reform and Muslim sensibilities in a societal setting can be reconciled except that certain tenets of Islamic law be relaxed, something most fundamentalist Muslims say is antithetical to the true practice of Islam. The reconciliation cannot be seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, or in the potential settlement of tensions and murder in Syria. Turkey comes closest, but seriously, Islam is still ruling the heart there.

So what is thought about how the American Chief Executive perceives these things? Let his own position and statement of his views be the guide, irrespective of historical assertions of religious or current political views. Does he resort to his upbringing to guide him, following teachings of his youth, or do we see a more western approach to his dealings with Muslim countries and a defining sense that democracy is the goal to be achieved in places like Tunisia, Egypt, and others. But as can be seen, asserting and inserting American style democracy is not the intent. It is apparent that such change cannot be effectively implemented if the powers that replace the previous governing entities are not so inclined, as can be seen in Egypt, for example.

As for modeling democracy in the Middle East, Hanifa Deen is correct that Israel is NOT the model the rest of the Middle East seeks: just the opposite. If anything, the use of seeking democratic reforms in these cases is a mere tool of controlling power, of taking power from a potentate-style government such as M. Qaddafi's and reconfiguring it to obtain a style of government more in tune with the underlying desires of a different sort, whatever that desire might be. In the case of Islamically influenced ambitions, one can draw their own conclusion. But definitively, an Israeli model is not going to cut it for those who seek redress under the auspices of a 'Palestinian' driven agenda.

The forum presented here, not being able to make an acceptable valid point against the opposing point of view, actually resorts to the fall back position of taking aim against the character of any that dissent, and prove the actual point that discussion of Middle Eastern circumstances will not resolve Middle Eastern crisis issues. Resolution of those issues is coming, but pedantic observations aside, there seems to be little understanding by some that how it will be played out is not readily evident except one understands why it is supposed to happen the way it will.

In reviewing the commentaries of the participants, the inclination of this reader was to go back to the observation made May 19^th, to understand that all of what is happening in the Arab upheavals is following a plan; and if one thinks it is a plan not to be followed by American interests, then one did not understand the speech. It is not an American democratic model to be imposed in the Middle East either. What is expected by certain powers that be is a different model of governance to be followed in the Middle East; and that is what the speech was all about.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".