« A Democrat Who Does Want to Be President | Main | I Agree! »
Freedom Marching Around
Totally beneath the radar screen of the American media there's been an upsurge in political conflict in Jordan that you can read all about at Abu Aardvark's place. Most recently, Jordan's normally complacent parliament is saying "no" to the main source of controversy -- a draft law that would prohibit Jordanian professional associations from engaging in political activity and essentially gut civil society.
I don't actually think the Iraq War deserves credit for this, but I would be happy to pretend to believe that it does if that's what it would take to get hawks -- and especially conservative American politicians -- to pay attention to this and support the professional associations. It bugs me when Bush claims credit for positive developments that he doesn't really deserve credit for, but it bugs me more when Bush misses opportunities to even try. Ultimately, retrospective validation of the war in the eyes of the public (or of history) would be a small price to pay in exchange for a future of democratic reform. Jordan, unlike Syria, is a country over which the United States has a lot of leverage. In general, it's much easier to persuade your allies to do what you want (especially when the power relationship is as assymetrical as it is in the US-Jordanian case) than it is to persuade your adversaries. Bush should get on this case. So should his liberal critics. So should his hawkish fans. Opporunity is knocking.
March 9, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834276fdd53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Freedom Marching Around:
» Music Portal Website from Music/ audio / mp3 resources
Most MP3 portals have overcome this by using a combination of user registration, pre-authorisation and transaction batching or polling... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 26, 2006 7:16:16 PM
» For Elderly, Extra Pounds May Lower Mortality Rates from in their 80s
overweight by BMI standards (25 to 29.9 range) had lower mortality rates than those who were in the normal [Read More]
Tracked on May 23, 2006 8:58:05 AM
» Pistons Focus on 'LeBron Rules' from prepare themselves
mentally for something they have no control over -- how the referees officiate LeBron James, writes Chris McCosky of [Read More]
Tracked on May 27, 2006 11:53:12 PM
» India - Citizens of Gujarat condemn Violence in Baroda from citizens of Gujarat
concerned citizens of Gujarat are once again shocked at the current happenings in Baroda... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 6, 2006 2:48:36 PM
» Five Foods To Fear from like junk food.
may not seem like junk food. But nutritionists say these products are almost as bad for you as candy bars or soda [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 11, 2006 8:37:00 PM
» Grizzlies Sign Rookie Free Agent Kinsey from Operations Jerry
President of Basketball Operations Jerry West announced today that the team has signed a contract with rookie free agent guard Tarence Kinsey. [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 24, 2006 1:16:51 PM
» Peaks And Troughs Of Dengue Epidemics Explained By UGA Study from potentially deadly
and range of the potentially deadly mosquito-borne illness increasing, understanding the [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 8, 2006 3:07:18 AM
» LaSalle and ConnectYourCare Offer Consumer Directed Healthcare Account Administration Platform from Accounts, Health
Flexible Spending Accounts, Health Reimbursement Arrangements, and Health Savings Accounts. (PRWEB Aug 8, 2006)
[Read More]
Tracked on Aug 14, 2006 9:56:10 AM
Comments
Hear, Hear. "Beneath the radar screen" says it all, sadly.
Posted by: Wrye | Mar 9, 2005 12:25:28 PM
that's what it would take to get hawks -- and especially conservative American politicians -- to pay attention to this
Well, it would be helpful for our paying attention if there were some indication from somewhere in the media that this was taking place. Give me a credible source for the information (obviously not alJazeera) and I'm happy to trumpet it. But it's not like this is on CNN or in the NYT.
We don't learn about things by osmosis, you know. I have to be aware of information before deciding whether to pay attention to it.
Heck, same goes for Bush - and, BTW, how does Matthew know that Bush is "miss[ing] opportunities to even try" to do something about Jordan? Are the only things that Bush does visible on FoxNews? Might there be things going on we don't know about? I have no idea, but I bet that Matthew doesn't either. Yet he feels free to claim that Bush is "miss[ing] opportunities to even try" to do something about Jordan...
Posted by: Al | Mar 9, 2005 12:32:58 PM
Here you go, Al. Warning: literacy required.
Posted by: praktike | Mar 9, 2005 12:58:31 PM
Matt - especially since King Abdullah is due to visit Washington next week. Might be a good time to bring Jordan up on to the radar.
Posted by: the aardvark | Mar 9, 2005 1:06:04 PM
Abdullah is a nice guy, one of my favorite kings. Fuck the unions.
Posted by: abb1 | Mar 9, 2005 1:18:41 PM
"It bugs me when Bush claims credit for positive developments that he doesn't really deserve credit for"
Like what?
Afghanistan?
Iraqi Elections?
Lybia disarming?
Isolating Arafat until he died as setting the stage for Israelis and Palestinians going to the negotiations table?
Stirrings in Egypt?
Stirrings in Saudi Arabia?
(More than) Stirrings in Lebanon?
President Bush doesn't deserve some credit for these? (And no I’m not saying that any of these matters is a done deal).
I have a feeling that if democracy does spread throughout the middle east, like I believe that it will, I am going to have to spend another 15 years listening to liberal try to explain that it “really” had nothing to do with President Bush - Redux of “The fall of the USSR “really” didn’t have anything to do with President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher.”
You guys are sooo predictable.
Posted by: MJ | Mar 9, 2005 1:55:15 PM
Bush will deserve some credit, as did Reagan. But don't go overboard. Arafat dying and Hairi (sp) being assasinated were very important.
To take it back 15 years, Reagan doesn't "end" the Cold War if Gorbachev isn't around. Reagan deserves credit, but his role was hardly singular. Same goes for Bush.
Ben P
Posted by: Ben P | Mar 9, 2005 2:13:09 PM
Arafat dying and Hairi (sp) being assasinated were very important.
So? Who do you think killed them?
Posted by: abb1 | Mar 9, 2005 2:20:00 PM
Scoop!! Bush killed Arafat and Hairi (sp)! With his boring rhetoric?
The simple reason no attention is given to happenings in Jordan is that Jordan and its king do pretty much whatever we, the US, ask them to do. Any change at all there would be very likely to be a change we wouldn't like at all. So, our news media, which only reports from White House press releases, just ignores Jordan.
Posted by: Vaughn Hopkins | Mar 9, 2005 2:37:34 PM
Ben,
Straw-man argument. No one is saying the president is "singularly" responsible for everything that is in motion, nor does anyone serious say Reagan and Thatcher were "singularly" responsible for the collapse of the USSR. But you have to put your head in the sand to not see Regan and Thatcher as catalysts for what happened in 1989 and Bush as a similar type of catalyst in the potential reformation of the middle east, 2003-present. (Although again, there could be many starts and stops in the middle east and this is only the very beginning of a long road).
My point is that you have to be kidding (like the author of this site) when you say that the transpiring events over there aren't directly connected to Bush and Blair's actions in the last several years. All the credit? No way. Some recognition that likely none of this would be happening without the US role, as defined by this administration's policies? It seems inescapable to me.
My second point, HOWEVER, is that it is like "Groundhog Day" watching all of the same people who called Reagan a dunce and a cowboy for his (and Thatcher's) rhetoric and policies toward the Soviets, once again recycling the same arguments and protests against Bush: He's just lucky; It would have happened anyway; There were other ways the same thing could have been accomplished blah blah blah...
In a few years, the story (I believe) will be told about how important a catalyst the Iraqi elections and the Presidents 2005 Inaugural Address were in sparking the fire of democracy throughout the middle east. (AND NO I AM NOT DECLARING VICTORY FOR DEMOCRACY - I'm just optimistic that real change is beginning to happen).
Posted by: MJ | Mar 9, 2005 2:43:22 PM
I don't actually think the Iraq War deserves credit for this...It bugs me when Bush claims credit for positive developments that he doesn't really deserve credit for
MJ, you called out MY for being wrong on the above point, so you should state what the Iraq War has to do with parliamentry proceedings in Jordan before you making a sweeping claim about MY.
MY gives credit where credit due plenty of times, which is the whole point of this blog entry, that Bush doesn't act on things he could get much deserved credit on.
Posted by: Adrock | Mar 9, 2005 2:55:35 PM
Adrock,
My point (Jordan excluded because A) MY is probably right B) I don't know enogh about it to argue even if he was wrong) is that I don't understand what "positive developments that he (Bush)doesn't really deserve credit for" MY is talking about?
I believe President Bush DOES deserve at least partial credit for everything else going on over in the middle east right now, that Iraq and Afghanistan have set these things in motion.
Unless you too are of the school of thought that the recent events in Libia, Egypt, Israeli-Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan are all happening by coincidence: Doesn't President Bush deserve some credit for this noticable change of tempature in the middle east? If not, to what to you attribute it to?
Posted by: MJ | Mar 9, 2005 3:27:50 PM
Certainly. Him poisoning Mr. Palestine and blowing up Mr. Hariri was a stroke of genius. And murdering 100,000 Iraqis (and counting) is a beautiful thing too.
Posted by: abb1 | Mar 9, 2005 3:40:52 PM
abb1 for DNC Chair!
Posted by: MJ | Mar 9, 2005 4:32:44 PM
MJ
Too early to tell, but perhaps Bush will deservedly get some credit if things go well in the Middle East. Will you also give credit to Bush for Iran and N Korea's fastrack development of nucular weapons?
Posted by: Mark | Mar 9, 2005 4:53:13 PM
The issue isn't Bush. The issue is whether it's a good idea to have popular rule in the Middle East.
Yglesias has decided it is a good idea, even though he knows that a totalitarian illiberal movement will benefit from it. The Bush fanatics just desperately want anything that could be good for their guy, even if it benefits the same folks they all got on the Internet to rant about in the firs place.
The problem with Yglesianism is summed up in the phrase "one man, one vote, once." I just know too many people who saw relatives killed and their entire culture medievalized when the Pahlavis went down to think this is a good idea.
The US should not try to democratize the Middle East. It should try to reduce its investment in any particular regime form.
Posted by: Gareth | Mar 9, 2005 4:59:11 PM
Mark,
Let me see if I understand your point on N. Korea: Clinton (via Jimmy Carter) signs an agreement with North Korea to suspend nuclear development. North Korea admits (less than a week after carter wins the nobel peace prize) that they violated the agreement the whole time and announce in 2002 that they have made nuclear weapons.
THIS, THIS IS GEORGE W. BUSH'S FAULT!!!
Very persuasive.
As to Iran: Because I believe that one way or another, through our military intervention, Israel's intervention, or because the mullah's will be driven from power by a democratic movement and/or military intervention and/or international pressure before they can complete them; it is way too soon to give the president any credit or blame.
Posted by: MJ | Mar 9, 2005 5:18:12 PM
Let me see if I understand your point on N. Korea: Clinton (via Jimmy Carter) signs an agreement with North Korea to suspend nuclear development. North Korea admits (less than a week after carter wins the nobel peace prize) that they violated the agreement the whole time and announce in 2002 that they have made nuclear weapons.
THIS, THIS IS GEORGE W. BUSH'S FAULT!!!
Such bullshit. With North Korea the signs were all there during the run-up to the Iraq War. But Bush thought it was more important to illegally invade Iraq. Why? Beats me. Probably because that's where the oil is.
Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Mar 9, 2005 8:44:50 PM
I second Mark's nomination of abb1.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Mar 9, 2005 9:25:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
