The Bosque Boys

A few years ago (perhaps A Waco Farmer remembers exactly when), Tamim Ansary spoke at McLennan Community College in Waco, Texas. Just this past week I finally read his important book West of Kabul, East of New York : an Afghan American Story . I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Afghanistan, Islam, Americanization, and the current war with Radical Islam.

Mr. Ansary was born and raised in the old Afghanistan--before the communists, before the Soviets, before the Taliban. He moved to America as a young man, eventually becoming a writer and editor. He is uniquely positioned to help Americans understand how a person can love a traditional Islamic culture, even though the author no longer fits into that setting. He also helps the reader to distinguish between the relaxed Islam of traditional Afghanistan, and the harsh, militant Islam of the Taliban. In addition, he has provocative thoughts on the unintended consequences of westernization that helped lead to communism in Afghanistan, and then to the emergence of the Taliban in the context of the Soviet invasion.

On the personal level of the author, his is another fascinating story of Americanization and modernization, from the walled compounds of the old country to the open society of San Francisco, USA. His siblings also came to America: his sister becoming completely Americanized, his brother finding meaning in radical Islam, and he himself trying to understand himself as Afghan American.

I have expressed before my understanding that the current conflict between the West and Islam must be understood in the context of the nearly 1400 year-long conflict that has waxed and waned since the beginning of Islam. And, on the difficulty and perhaps impossibility of coming to a reasonable compromise of coexistance with any form of Islam that takes Muhammad and the Quran seriously. read here and here and here and here and here and here. Joseph Farah in this article makes the same points. Link from Jihadwatch.

I have not commented on the current conflict so far, because I have nothing really to add to what others are saying. But, this article from Der Spiegel says what I think so well, that I want to link to it. What he said. (The article is in English) Link from Jihadwatch.

It strikes me that many of my recent comments in re "democracy" and American foreign policy carried a certain scornful dismissiveness. While I stand by my substantive analysis, I probably offered them in a misleading tone. Perhaps a few caveats and some nuance would be helpful.

What of democracy?

One problem: we are generally imprecise in our language. What we enjoy today in the United States (and often call "democracy") is a hybrid of republicanism (self determination through representative government) and democracy (popular sovereignty, rule by the people). In our system, power is invested in all the citizens--but generally exercised by a professional and learned political class. More importantly, for us, "democracy" has also become shorthand for a national culture of market-oriented economics, individual rights and equality of opportunity.

An aside: James Madison et al viewed raw democracy as "mob rule" and a recipe for disorder. While the framers of our constitution adamantly believed in government of the people and for the people, they were quite cautious concerning government by the people. The founders would not be surprised by the current tumult in the Middle East. They would have seen clearly the potential calamitous problem with democracy in that region: radical elements might use elections to take control of government and install themselves as dangerous but "legitimate" states.

For Americans, the Age of Jackson brought the beginning of a change in attitude, and within a generation, all elements of the American political system embraced the rhetoric of "democratic" government. Republican virtue, which idealized an elite class of statesman divested of their own self interest (disinterested), gave way to the "Democracy," which seized on an increasingly broadly distributed franchise and advocated, in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, "self interest rightly understood."

In the decades that followed the War of 1812, the American democracy became inextricably coupled with the Market Revolution and forever linked with self improvement and free labor as a means of social mobility. In essence, the American Dream became not just political freedom, as defined in the Declaration of Independence or Bill or Rights, but economic opportunity as well.

Our calls for "democracy" in the Middle East are not necessarily demanding one-person-one-vote government. We are actually endorsing a broader, loosely defined idea of self-determination, which includes individual empowerment and a personal investment in stability among the people of the region. In our shorthand, democracy means a modern, educated, connected society in which the citizenry rightly understand their self interest--and act accordingly.

I have indicated that the subtext of this plan for "democracy" in the Middle East includes introducing Muslims to the pleasures of consumerism. Economic self interest, "rightly understood," is a key component within peaceful societies based on government by the people in the modern world.

This is not a new idea. In the midst of WWII, the Allies (USA, Great Britain & USSR) all agreed on "pastoralization" for post-war Germany. That is, the German nation was to be dismantled and de-industrialized and remade into an agrarian state, deprived of its status as a world power and forever defanged as a war-making threat.

But by the end of the war, the United States backed out of the gentleman's agreement. The United States opted for rebuilding and re-industrializing the defeated German nation in order to create a powerful democratic partner and strategic ally in a crucial part of the world. A few years later, after the "loss of China," the United States pursued the same policy in re Japan. As we know, these gambits paid handsome dividends.

Were these initiatives altruistic (giving the gift of freedom to our vanquished foes)? Or opportunistic (creating a lucrative economic partnership)? Or strategic? The answer is most likely "Yes." None of those explanations are mutually exclusive.

When we speak of "spreading democracy," generally, we are not cynically covering our ugly American imperial bent. Most of us genuinely believe in the superiority of our system of government and our way of life. We sincerely believe in the "greatness" of our system, and we want to share it with the "less fortunate." Would we like to make a buck and achieve our own security in the process? Absolutely.

Nevertheless, the initiative to remake the Middle East, however wrong-headed it may prove to be, is based on good intentions, national pride and a specific set of successes in our not-too-distant past.

For the record, I am not completely cynical about the power of democracy.

This article from Jihadwatch. Under Islamic law one who converts from Islam is liable to the death penalty. Perhaps this recent crackdown in Egypt supports what I've written earlier on the current threat to Islam from evangelical Christianity. As I've pointed out before, we are seeing Muslims convert to Christianity now at a rate unseen before in history.

What is it with Bush 41 & Bush 43 when it comes to China? Why does the Chinese government get basically a free pass on almost everything? See this latest on our China relations. Link from Drudge.

It seems a common assumption by the Adminstration and its supporters that democratic governments are peaceful governments; once most of the world's nations are democracies then we will live in a time of peace and harmony, the lions will lie down with the lambs, swords will be beaten into plowshares, the millenium will have arrived through our efforts at spreading democracy.

Now, I do not think the U.S. should spread dictatorship; and I think that God favors liberty over tyranny or license. But I challenge the thesis that democratic governments necessarily will be peaceful governments for the following reasons:

» Read More

Interesting to eavesdrop on the President and the Prime Minister today at the G-8, as they engage in a friendly discussion of the mundane, the personal and the monumental.

For the record: I agree completely with the President's candid assessment of the current Middle East crisis.

The Washington Post has the video and the transcript.

After talking about travel plans, sweaters, trade resolutions and G-8 stagecraft, the conversation turns to Lebanon, Hezbollah, Syria and the UN. Here is the best exchange of the conversation (which includes one vulgarity):

Bush: "What about Kofi? That seems odd. I don't like the sequence of it. His attitude is basically ceasefire and [then] everything else happens. You know what I'm saying?"

Sort of, Blair seems to say. They agree on moving the "process" along, and Blair agrees that sending Condi will set the right tone.

Bush (evidently still peeved at Kofi): "See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over."

Blair : "Who, Syria?"

Bush : "Right."

Blair : "I think this is all part of the same thing. What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way, he's [inaudible ] . That's what this whole thing's about. It's the same with Iran."

Bush : "I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen. We're not blaming Israel. We're not blaming the Lebanese government."

This morning I heard ABC radio make two significant errors in their framing of the current Mideast war. First, the only casualities they mentioned were those of Lebanese civilians. True, Lebanese civilians have been killed by Israeli action. But, no mention was made of Israeli civilian casualties. And, more significantly, no mention was made that the reason for Lebanese civilian casualties is that Hezbollah (and Hamas in their areas) deliberately place themselves within civilian populations in order to impede Israeli retaliation. The moral onus should be on Hezbollah for civilian casualities. Second, the report concluded with the comment that the current warfare is a setback for the Bush Administration Middle Eastern policy. True, but wrong. The current fighting is a setback for us, the U.S. It is a setback for the Middle East. Bad framing of the situation on both counts.

Israel has tried very hard recently to appease its enemies. It pulled out of Gaza and forcibly removed Jewish settlers there and in other places. In return Israel is now under increasingly heavy attack on two fronts: from Gaza and from Lebanon. For years many in the West have believed the Palestinian statements to the effect that 'give us back the land seized in 67 and we'll be at peace,' while ignoring their domestic propaganda calling for the utter destruction of Israel. Now the mask is off the Palestinian leadership, and a large segment of Palestinians themselves. They were given land and in return have given back war. Let's not have any more calls for Israel to show restraint. They have an enemy that cannot be appeased or reasoned with, only defeated.