The question for me is, should we be "refashioning" the middle east? IMO, no way. Why do we have get American boys killed for "refashioning"? This is not a conservative ideal at all. Bush himself said immediately after 9/11 that we're "not into nation-building."
He was right. Then.
Since you've done a nice job at summarizing his points, it only makes sense to assess them in turn:
* Inconsequential al Qaeda attacks (see London, Bali) -- Iraqis are now more active in Al Qaeda than they were before, which is not a good sign. Moreover, it could be said that all the attacks prior to 9/11 were relatively "inconsequential" in comparison. They now have parts of Iraq to operate out of, and a whole host of new recruits. They might be scattered right now, but they may just be biding their time.
* Pressure on Syria -- Syria, at least allegedly, assassinated a former Lebanese PM while we were in Iraq. It is suspected that they continue to support the Iraqi insurgency. Far from pressured, there is some evidence that they have been encouraged and emboldened by the fact that we are so bogged down in Iraq.
* Post-Arafat Palestinian Authority -- Arafat's death was important, yes, but not really related to US action in any way. Today's developments were encouraging, and hopefully Rice and continue to work the diplomatic route effectively.
* Election in Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- Positive signs, but cannot be directly linked to US actions. They have a good ways to go in both countries, and the US has continually supported the status quo in Egypt.
* Ellen Johnson-Sirlea in Liberia -- Again, encouraging (at least tentatively), though the links to US actions are unclear.
I will credit US action with pressuring Libya to give up its WMD program, one he forgot. However, when assessing the whole picture, net gains are notably hard to find.
Wow, Hube, now here is a rare moment in the universe. You took the words right out of my mouth!
I agree w/ Hube completely but will add my twist. Refashioning regions of the world is an offensive notion. It says in effect that people are not entitled to make their own destinies and it makes a mockery of the notion of national sovereignty, which is not only an inherently worthwhile notion but is the basis for good international relations.
I'm surprised that Uriah Kriegel cited the Eygptian election since it was widely regarded as fraudulent. It's hardly progress to have fradulent elections since the elections merely create the pretense of democracy. It's harder to overcome the pretense of rights to gain real rights than it is to win rights where there is no doubt that none exist.
He did acknowledge the rigged-ness of the Egyptian elections in his column. I am not I agree with Kriegal 100%. I agree that US influence in the world is generally positive, and in some cases (Afghanistan, Iraq) the military can be untilized to push things forward, but some of his claims jump a little too far.
Commenting by HaloScan
