The Real Muslim Problem: A "Poverty of Dignity" Posted by Shadi Hamid

This plaintive, almost despairing piece by author Murad Kalam must be read by all those who care about the woeful state of not just the Arab world but of “Islam” itself. It reminds me of my own experiences living in Egypt and Jordan, where I would so quickly become disillusioned by the casual, rank hypocrisy, the jaded fatalism, the fevered willingness to blame internal problems on external, often nefarious, forces.

To see the Arab and Muslim world, is to see, in the most stark of fashion, how a great civilization – one that once led the word in science, medicine, and philosophy – could centuries later have fallen into an ever descending spiral. This is one of the great tragedies of our time. In looking for explanations, it is only too easy to fall back on the facile tropes of cultural determinism and Islamic essentialism. One wishes it could be so simple, that complex realities could be reduced into something more palpable.

Yes, lack of democracy, as I’ve often argued, has a lot to do with it. When people don’t have peaceful, legitimate means to express their grievances, they often express themselves in violent, dangerous ways. But it is not that simple, otherwise how would one account for British-born terrorists who grew up in a democracy but still blew themselves up, killing their fellow citizens ? We need to look at what Thomas Friedman calls the “poverty of dignity” to get the bigger picture.

The Persians Posted by Michael Signer

Earlier this week, I went and saw a production of a play that's drawing a lot of attention inside the Beltway these days -- Aeschylus' The Persians, being shown at the venerable Shakespeare Theatre.  The play is drawing a lot of attention (and was sold out on a Sunday night) for its dark comparison of the decline of the Persian empire at the hands of the scrappy, crafty rebelliousness of the Athenians. 

While it's a provocative comparison, and a beautifully staged one (I never would have thought that an expanse of bright red sand could be put to such extraordinarily apt use on a stage), I think the production reveals as many problems in the contemporary mindset about Iraq as it does about problems in Iraq itself.

Dumb on Purpose: Our Nuclear Predicament Posted by Lorelei Kelly

The fact that the Bush administration is even mentioning nuclear options in dealing with Iran is only partly the last stand of the Neo-Cons. Likewise, it is caused by something more than a president whose political base is buckling up for their apocolyptic joyride. No, our predicament is deeper than that. It is a product of a conservative philosophy that has purposefully broken our open and fact based democratic government. Today’s bad dream of policy options toward Iran is not an accident, but an outcome.

In a democracy that works well, government cares for the institutional memory of big, important public interest issues—like the dangers of nuclear weapons. And long serving bureaucrats provide the steady ballast that keeps the government moving toward objective common goods—like reducing such dangers. That way, government weathers the storm of deviant Executives and keeps the public interest intact. The conservatives in power today are of a breed that does not believe in government virtue nor common goods. Katrina-style government is the result of our failure to maintain a dedicated federal staff for community disaster relief. The Bush Administration’s ability to threaten the nuclear option with little articulate resistance is at least partly because--for decades--conservatives have marginalized or destroyed our government’s ability to pursue arms control. Here are three examples:

Public Diplomacy: Equal Opportunity Rudeness? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

It's great to see progressive leaders stirring up debate and action on Iraq policy.  By my count, the supplemental appropriation for Iraq, Katrina, etc now moving through Congress (HR 4939, the one President Bush has threatened to veto) has seven potential Iraq amendments, from cutting off funding for anything that looks like a permanent base (Biden) to forcing the war to be funded through regular appropriations, not back-door supplementals (Byrd) to paying for the war by revoking tax deductions for top earners(Biden again).  (A handy compendium of the amendments, along with many more on homeland security, non-proliferation and other topics can be found here.)

But if progressives are going to take the lead in bashing the Administration for alienating the rest of the world in general, and the Arab world in particular, then we gotta practice what we preach when we talk about the Iraqis, no matter how crazy they are driving us.  That means you, John Kerry:  "they [Iraqis] only respond to pressure."  That means you, Carl Levin:  "There's been too much dawdling..." (transcript of the Levin-Collins-Reed press conference this week, which I haven't found online).  And Ken Pollack's commentary on Iraqi government corruption, though I'm sure it is all true, also edges close to this line.

What, exactly, is my problem here?  One, if we want Iraqis and other folks to see America as a differentiated society, not all Fox-news-watching black-and-white culture warriors, we need to talk the talk.  And two, those progressives who want Americans to see Iraqis as people still worthy of our investment of blood and treasure ought to talk about them as worthy partners, not annoying toddlers.  If our leaders think Iraqis are unworthy and annoying, the American people are going to figure, there's an easy fix for that -- let 'em fend for themselves.

(A note on toddlers -- and grownups -- if mine hears me say too many times that he "only responds to pressure" [or ice cream] then guess what?  That is all he will respond to.  In addition to being bad public diplomacy, this stuff is a self-fulfilling prophecy.)   

And yes, before you start whining, it is perfectly possible to talk about corruption, narrow-minded partisanship, and presumption on US security forces without sounding so condescending.  It just takes a little more thought.

4.27:  and who can blame Iraqis for "dawdling" if the price for entry into the government is the deaths of your siblings?

Running out of time with Iran Posted by Derek Chollet

How far will United States go to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?  In Washington and key capitals around the world, politicians and policymakers are focusing closely on this difficult question.  The recent frenzy of press reports about Bush Administration’s secret planning for a military attack on Iran lead many to fear that we have entered the grim and sobering endgame. 

Reaching this point was not necessarily inevitable.  For most of the 34 months since arms inspectors blew the whistle on Iran, exposing its efforts to develop nuclear technology secretly in violation of its international commitments, Washington’s approach has been shockingly bumbled and confused.  Only recently has the Bush Administration pursued the kind of strong and serious diplomatic approach the threat required months ago, working with key European allies to pressure Iran within the United Nations Security Council.

But in Tehran, the hard-line mullahs and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad show little sign that they are interested in bargaining for anything less than an independent nuclear capability.  They are on a collision course with the rest of the world – and rather than sensing trouble, they seem to relish the situation.

The Distinctly French Love for Dictators Posted by Shadi Hamid

On Friday, French President Jacques Chirac completed a two-day official visit to Cairo for talks with his Egyptian counterpart, President Hosni Mubarak (indeed, two men of great moral stature).

Of course, Chirac was fully aware of leading opposition figure Ayman Nour’s continued incarceration and his deteriorating health (see my previous post for background). So you’d think Mr. Chirac would take the opportunity to at least mention the Nour case, feign some concern, say anything, just a word, even pretend. Instead, we are given a predictably wondrous piece of cynical posturing cloaked in the language of cultural relativism (from Le Monde, translated by The Arabist):

As for internal developments in Egypt, France does not endorse, here as elsewhere in the Arab world, the more aggressive discourse of the United States on the topic of democratization, but instead prefers to stress the fact that “reforms must be conducted by each at his own rhythm.” Mr. Chirac, his spokesman said, intends to “affirm France’s support for the political and economic modernization undertaken by Egypt.”

France is a model example of the complete and utter absence of moral rectitude that has come to define certain segments of the European political elite. France, however, has dutifully earned its right to be singled out as a country notorious for its careful and remarkably consistent indulgence of dictators. One must mention its blatant, unapologetic support for the Algerian military coup of 1991 (civil war and 100,000 lives lost would be the result). Or its unqualified support for possibly the worst of the Arab dictators - Tunisia’s Ben Ali - who still manages to command healthy 95% majorities in his country’s well-orchestrated charades of inimitable window dressing. Or its relative indifference to the massacre of Bosnian Muslims under Milosevic (but, of course, that's not just France). For his part, Chirac, with this latest trip, has yet again proven himself the perfect representation of the unfortunate surplus of Scrowcroftian automatons which have relentlessly pledged their dedication to making the Middle East into the ultimate autocrat-ridden powder keg, a kind of messy playground for the world’s most egregious tyrants.

Silence. The high cost of a carefully constructed Faustian bargain.

10 Foreign Policy Questions Progressives Ought to Be Thinking About How to Answer Posted by Suzanne Nossel

After a series of meetings and discussions this past week on questions of progressive strategy thinking beyond 2006 and toward 2008, here are 10 questions progressives ought to be thinking hard about how to answer.  I have left out issues - like China, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East Peace Process, Iraq and more - - upon which I sense relative consensus among progressive ranks.  These are issues that either divide us or on which we have no clear answers at all:

1.  Should the US Military Be Enlarged? - The Center for American Progress and Hillary Clinton say yes, citing our current predicament in Iraq as Exhibit A.  Others believe if we forswear unilateral invasions and can reorient the armed forces to be better able to handle challenges like post-conflict reconstruction, we won't need more personnel. 

2.  Is the Fight Against Terror the #1 priority or simply a top priority? - Progressives are in general agreement that the fight against terror will be a centerpiece of our foreign policy for years to come, and that the battle needs to be waged more broadly and effectively than it has in the past 5 years.  But is combating terror the foremost objective?  Has the emphasis on terror led us to overlook or neglect other issues?

3.  What is our position on free trade?  I am troubled that coming up on six years after the Democrats first lost the White House, progressives have yet to arrive at a broadly accepted position in the debate over protectionism versus free trade.   Surely the answer lies with an enlightened free trade, paired with systematic measures to temper its ill effects both at home and abroad.  But the details remain unresolved and badly needed consensus is still elusive.

4.  What are the primary lessons of Iraq for American foreign policy?  Iraq was not decisive in the 2002 elections or the 2004 elections.  Nor will it be in 2006 or 2008.  As the debacle of the lead-up to the war begins to fade from the headlines, the big remaining question will be where does Iraq leave us and what's next.  Though the fat lady has not yet sung in Baghdad progressives need to begin to think in terms of a post-Iraq foreign policy.

5.  How should the US promote democracy around the world?  Most progressives seem to agree that despite the disastrous results of the Bush Administration's purported press for democracy in the Middle East, we ought not throw the baby out with the bath water and abandon an agenda of trying to advance democracy globally.  We agree that Bush went about it the wrong way, but need to build consensus on what the right approach will look like.

6.  What will we do to revive global nuclear non-proliferation?  Progressives need to put forward a clear set of proposals for restriking the broken bargain of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, relatedly, for responding to rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea's.  Talking tough on WMD and then advocating little more specific than direct talks with rash and unreliable regimes cannot be the answer.

7.  How will we deal with global development and poverty?  While progressives have traditionally paid more attention to these issues, it was conservatives who enacted the Millennium Challenge Account which, at least on paper, is probably the biggest policy innovation to occur in this arena in decades.  When progressives seek to rebuild global support for American leadership and policy priorities like WMD and terrorism, other countries will demand answers to this question.

8.  What are our big new ideas?  We didn't have any memorable ones in 2004 and cannot afford a similar void again.  My favorite is still the Stabilization Corps. 

9.  What More Needs to Be Done to Straighten Out the Gathering and Use of Intelligence?  A raft of questions are emerging over whether the creation of the post of Director of National Intelligence is serving the coordination function the 9/11 Commission envisioned, or has instead become yet another bureaucratic layer protecting the Pentagon's vast intelligence budget and operation from scrutiny.  Progressives need to assert a position.

10.  What needs to be done to shore up American superpowerdom?  My own view is that this will be the central question of the post-Iraq era, and that the answers are manifold and of vital importance.