Unbeknownst to him, my dear friend John has inspired me to start this thing. Not sure why. Guess I just have some 'stuff' to get out. I'll post sporadically, as I feel I've something to say. I may not be profound, I may not be deep, but I'm hoping this'll be cathartic. I feel the urge to purge.
As I watched with the rest of the world as Egypt erupted like ancient Santorini, a thought occurred to me.
There were many reasons given for going to war with Iraq: WMD, links to terrorism, human rights violations by a brutal dictator, to bring democracy to the Middle East. That was the one we finally settled on. Democracy. Yeah, that's the ticket. George W. Bush said,"The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."
But now, the political pundits on the right are decrying the revolution in Egypt (and elsewhere). They fear - and possibly rightly so - a Muslim caliph or the Muslim Brotherhood taking power. But I ask you this: If a country is over 80% Muslim, what sort of leadership do you think the populace might elect? Put another way, do you suppose Barak Obama could have ever been elected in the United States if he hadn't proclaimed his Christianity? What, exactly, did we think democracy in the Middle East might look like?
So, shouldn't the right be proclaiming victory? Isn't this EXACTLY what they said would happen?
It's cathartic isn't it?
ReplyDeleteBTW from the NY Times 1979: "Despite the turbulence, many non-religious Iranians talk of this period as "Islam's finest hour." Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on non-violent tactics. Iran may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country. If this is true, then indeed the exotic Ayatollah may yet convince the world that "politics is the opiate of the people.""
ReplyDelete