While some are talking loudly and long about cutting government spending, it is doubtful they will discuss cuts in a $40-billion-plus annual "intelligence" budget. This, despite the fact that our intelligence services and our far-flung diplomatic network failed to foresee the historic upheaval now underway throughout the Western end of the Muslim world.
There is at least an even chance that we are now entering a rare cycle of history that may take 20 to 30 years to resolve itself, with autocracies giving way to fragile democracies that in turn will evolve into radical fundamentalist regimes (think Iran), and possible civil wars. For the world's greatest superpower, this is a quandary. It is an even greater quandary when that superpower depends for a quarter of its oil imports on supplies from that region.
From the beginning of the Cold War, we adopted a policy (some called it political realism; I call it unprincipled expediency) described as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Thus, regardless of how repressive and anti-democratic a potentate might be, if he were anti-communist, he was our friend. We gave dozens of these types a lot of money and political support even though it was used to build up security services that locked up and tortured anyone who quoted our Declaration of Independence in the national square.
Curiously, we failed to notice that everyday people in these countries remember these things. Then when they summon the courage to take to the streets and demand freedom, we express surprise that they do not like us and reject our embrace. This has happened in country after country and now in a vital region that encompasses a billion and a half people.
If we believe what we claim to believe, and if we truly mean to stand on the principles embodied in our Constitution, we are going to have to do better than this. That is if we truly want to stay in the vanguard of history and not try to merely catch up to it as it disappears over the horizon and leaves us behind.
Visit Senator Hart's blog at www.mattersofprinciple.com.
Follow Gary Hart on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gary__hart
They want freedom!
...unless, unless they are not allowed to develop in their own physical economic interests.
Democracy, in of itself, does not safeguard against radical fundamentalists, only a decent standard-of-living for all its citizens can do that.
Take for example, Kissinger's memorandum 200, a foreign policy which in principle, is still in play.
It basicly says that in order for Western countries to maintain their standard-of-living, they must destroy any improvements in the standard-of-living in Africa, through impossible debt and lack of development.
The idea being that, if African countries were to ever take an interest in their own raw materials, manufacturing, and food resources, then they would shun all policies that would otherwise make them "export" countries for oil, etc.
It's a cruel policy and those who crafted it also know that it's these policies that breed radicalism, not democracy.
So if we want to stop terrorism and a more stable world at peace, then Western countries are going to have to stop their consumer-shopping-lifestyles, focus on creating your own energy, instead of importing oil from others, and cooperate with other nations in "fair trade", not "free trade".
And like a good neighbor, these countries in the Middle East, N. Africa and elsewhere will be there for us.
Of the 15 policy recommendations made by Memo200, only one (labelled in the original the "alternate view", as in "not the recommended policy") even hints at "harsher" measures - Finding 37.
Findings 1-25 are findings of fact, 26-36 are what I would call "good" recommendations (for instance, limiting population growth via encouraging female education and workforce participation in the Third World (30(d)), increasing the living standards among the poorest to slow population growth (30(d)), encouraging worldwide political and popular commitment to slowing population growth (30(e)), endorsing and strengthening the World Population Plan of 1974 (31), provide data on population growth projections to governments whih may not have had the time & resources to compile it themselves (32(b)), providing training in economics with focus on demographic economics (32(c)), assure assistance in a variety of demographic areas to Third World leaders (32(e,f)), taking care to integrate Third World leaders & governments into the program at all levels (33), emphasising the rights of the individual (34) and encourage US popular participation and approval for funding of all of these efforts (36)) and 37 is the one that everyone objected to, even though it's labelled the 'alternate' (not recommended) view.
In short, the Schiller Institute's "analysis" of the memo is biased, inaccurate and simply wrong on the facts.
To even approach the topic of population by suggesting a "problem" with "overpopulated regions" is to imply, whether quantifying yourself or not, that Westerners must win the competition over resources.
Nobody but nobody has to 'compete' for resources because the earth provides an over abundance to make a transition to creating new resources that may be depleted by development.
Just look at the policies to date and it represents the so-called 'alternate view' you speak of.
We know it's Wall Street/City of London that lobbys our government to implement foreign policies of under-development and uses the IMF/World Bank to enforce them.
We've known that for years.
Whether you agree with Kissinger's memorandum 200 or not, if you want to see peace and not radical fundamentalists take over, then you have to agree that development is key.
Presidents need to stop acting like 'world leaders' and focus on being national leaders, the only place they have legitimacy. The President is not a leader to the world, he is a dictator
The strongest force in Egypt remains the military, which, unlike it's counterpart in the Iranian revolution, seems determined to maintain it's viability as the national political landscape changes. Observers should not underestimate the power of "extra-bureaucratic" relationships between senior officers of the US and Egyptian military elite. Many of these officers have trained together and developed friendships that have helped the forge, in part, the political philosophies of the largely US equipped Egyptian military. There should exist no doubts about the occurrence of late night calls between the senior level US officers and there Egyptian counterparts urging restraint and offering sage advice during these tumultuous days.
There is every reason to hope and be cautiously optimistic that the Egyptian military will have the necessary skills and patience to shepherd that nation into some semblance of a real parliamentary democracy and that the presence of a genuine semi-secular democratic Egypt in the region will be a real force in bringing of the rest of the Middle East along the same path.
The problem is that a fast removal of Mubarak leaves a power vacuum, and little time for pro-western, democratic forces to coalesce and be ready for a general election. Based on the news coverage so far, the Muslim Brotherhood seems the loudest and most organized of the opposition - not a good sign for the forces of liberty and democracy.
The wisest move is a coordinated, smooth and publicy announced plan to transition away from autocratic rule and towards free, fair and open elections.
Unfortunately, even a free and fair election may bring the Brotherhood to power. If that happens, it's very likely to take Egypt down a darker path than it's been on.
Mr Hart is taking Monday-morning quarterbacking to a pompous extreme though when sniffing about the regimes the US supported in the past during the Cold War. What were the democratic regime alternatives the US had to support in those times?
Democracy has been widespread in the West mainly since WW2, and only recently in some 3rd world countries. There's just not been a long standing tradition of democratically elected governments in most of the world.
In democracies, the failed party is (theoretically) replaced. The US and Israel took the low road. Did not even give Hamas a chance to fail. Did not give Hamas a chance to show just how shoddy they could be.
No. Instead, we welcomed free elections in Gaza. And, as soon as we did not get the expected results... we turned our backs on our own principles. Hypocrisy at its finest. Only the chosen few are good enough to lead, according to us. Sounds like an autocracy.
The Emperor has no clothes.
The two men swapped victories in the primaries, with Hart getting exposure as a candidate with "new ideas" and Mondale rallying the party establishment to his side.[3] The two men fought to a draw in the Super Tuesday, with Hart winning states in the West, Florida, and New England. Mondale fought back and began ridiculing Hart's campaign platform. The most famous television moment of the campaign was during a debate when he mocked Hart's "new ideas" by quoting a line from a popular Wendy's television commercial at the time: "Where's the beef?". Hart's campaign could not effectively counter this remark, and when he ran negative TV commercials against Mondale in the Illinois primary, his appeal as a new kind of Democrat never entirely recovered.
Is there any wonder that our government is viewed so negatively in so many areas of the world?
This revolution is mainly about the right of the people in these countries to determine their own destinies. The more we interfere, the more likely we are to find an outcome that we find objectionable.
Now is the time for the leaders of the relatively modern Arab states to provide example. Jordan--with its unique place in both geography and history--comes to mind.