The Burning Bush doctrine and the Palestinian election

With George's 2006 State of the Union Address three days away, this is a good time in general to reflect upon his 2005 State of the Union Address. Given the results of this week's Palestinian election, such reflection is even more relevant.

I wrote a series of posts (gosh, what a surprise) about the grand foreign policy dream in Bush's 2005 SOTU, namely the spreading of democracy across the globe, a/k/a the Burning Bush doctrine. In my first post on the matter, I had a section entitled "The 'be careful what you ask for' problem," and I said the following:

Bush says he wants to establish democracy in the entire world, but a true democracy could very well result in a government "by the people and of the people" that is anti-American. Would that help protect this country? Would that fulfill what Bush his ownself has described as his most solemn duty?

While I feel my observation and concerns are still accurate and valid, it is not like I was some sort of genius in stating them, as they came straight from the head office of the Department of the Bloody Obvious.

And now the Palestinians--through a democratic vote--have spoken and the majority has voted for Hamas, a group that is in part a terrorist organization. Moreover, Hamas is strongly anti-American, refuses to recognize Israel as a legitimate sovereign nation, and has as its major policy goal the destruction of Israel.

But, hey--no worries. Freedom is on the march in the Middle East.

Things might work out in Israel and Palestine. I think there is a possibility that Hamas--now that it is part of the system--will have to move more toward the center. There is also a possibility that will never happen. Similar scenarios are possible everywhere else in the Middle East (and beyond), including Iraq. Indeed, such scenarios have to a degree already occurred. As stated in a report on "All Things Considered" on January 27, 2006,

[R]ecent Mid East elections haven’t quite turned out as the administration hoped. In Iraq, the winner in December’s election was an Islamist Shiite alliance rather than a secular group friendly to the U.S. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood made a strong showing in December, and this week Hamas won.

The potential problem with an Islamist Shiite alliance having power in Iraq is that it has very close ties with Iran--you know, the country next to Iraq with the Islamist theocracy that is very anti-American. A December 23, 2005, BBC report explains that the Muslim Brotherhood "Wants to create a state governed by Islamic law." The following excerpts from that report should give you some idea of why power for them presents potential problems for us.

The leader of Egypt's opposition Muslim Brotherhood (Mohammed Mahdi Akef) has joined Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in calling the Nazi Holocaust a "myth".

*******

Mr Akef's remarks came only weeks after his group won a record 19% of seats in Egypt's parliamentary elections.

*******

"Western democracies have criticised all those who adopt a view different from that of the people of Zion about the myth of the Holocaust," he wrote on the group's website.

Mr Akef said he wanted to "expose the false American rule which has become a nightmare of a new world order."

One problem America faces, thanks to good ol' George and his stated "solemn duty to spread liberty and democracy," is that once democratic processes produce results, we cannot then turn around and reject those results. To do so would be blatant hypocrisy in the eyes of the people of those countries, and that would further damage our standing in the world. Another problem is that our actions in Iraq have greatly damaged our standing among the Middle East nations. Regardless of whether one thinks that is justified or not, that is a fact. Consequently, the chances of anti-American groups gaining power and possibly control in Middle East countries has increased.

Yippy skippy.

Idealism is basically good and necessary, but when it is devoid of a relation to pragmatic reality, it can be foolish, reckless, and dangerous. As I have explained before, the Burning Bush doctrine doesn't even know Pragmatic Reality's zip code. And now, that lack of reality (going back to the run up to the Iraq war) is not exactly working out to our advantage.



ADDITIONAL READING: Here are the links to my series on the Burning Bush doctrine:

• America's new calling
• An update on "America's calling"
• Political buffoonery (another update on "America's calling")
• Rice's "Welcome remarks" in light of Bush's press conference
• The inspiration for the Burning Bush doctrine shows one of its shortcomings

Also, there is a discussion of idealism without realism in Brent Scowcroft speaks out--Part 2 in the section entitled "Scowcroft's realism v. the neocons' delusion."