Mr. Bush's focus on democratizing Iraq was similarly mistaken conceptually for the reasons that Lawrence Auster discusses:
A key though unstated assumption of President Bush’s Muslim Democracy Project is that the Muslims will give up Islam, since Islam and liberal democracy are mutually exclusive. If this utopian requirement—that the Muslims must renounce Islam for democratization to happen—had been stated plainly from the start, the impossibility of the Democracy Project would have been clear to everyone, and we would have been spared a lot of lies and nonsense over the last three years, and thousands of American soldiers would have been spared their lives and limbs."We've blogged about the Sharia Enjoyment Strategy (SES), which involves a supreme indifference to what Muslims want to do with their vote when they can elect Wahhabis and Salafists. It also allows us to see how it plays out when Muslim voters get to experience their hearts' supreme joy: life under the sharia. It takes a while to play out but our de facto SES vis-a-vis Iran, Afghanistan, the entity next to The Zionist Entity, and Algeria seems to have bred a lot of Muslims who chafe at being governed by such vicious and inferior men. In Afghanistan Muslims were positively giddy at being to shave their beards and listen to music again. The younger generations in Iran seem to want to enjoy what modern life has to offer free of the baleful influence of backdesert mullahs.
Mr. Bush seems positively tone deaf when it comes to the nature of Islam, let alone to Saudi Arabia, border control, and wild spending quite at odds with supposedly GOP policies of fiscal restraint (mild increases in spending versus crazed increases in spending).
Why does a man with generally good instincts fail to connect the dots?
Is Bush about to give up the central goal of his Mideast policy?" By Lawrence Auster, View from the Right, 10/17/06.
3 comments:
President Bush's own piety, and his desire to see the good in others, have caused him to grant excessive deference to Islam, precisely because of the overt piety of its highest-profile devotees. He seems to feel that religious people, regardless of their particular beliefs, should support one another. He could snap out of it, but the prospects for his doing so while still in office are poor.
You do realize that Muslims were the first to organize a democratic state, right?
When European royalty was beheading the poor and living side by side with their unflushable crap holes, Muslims organized a democracy. That then spread.
Abu Bakr Al-Siddeeg was the first Khaleefa after the Prophet Mohammad. He was, as all four, was elected.
Francis there's some truth to what you say. The threat from Islam is so peculiar and it comes cloaked in the mantle of "religion" which has guaranteed a great deal of deference on the part of American political leaders in the past. Our own awakening to the Islamic threat has been embarrassingly slow and we can hardly criticize others for being equally deficient.
WOM, thank you for your comment. We have responded to it at length in the post immediately after this one.
Post a Comment