Al-Jazeerah History  
	 
	
	
	Archives  
	 
	
	
	Mission & Name   
	 
	
	
	
	Conflict Terminology   
	 
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	
	Gaza Holocaust   
	 
	
	Gulf War   
	 
	
	Isdood  
	 
	
	Islam   
	 
	
	News   
	 
	
	
	News Photos 
	  
	 
	
	
	Opinion 
	
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)   
	 
	
	www.aljazeerah.info
	  
      
       
      
        
        
     | 
     | 
    
       
      Arabs Give US Neo-Cons a Reality Check
	 
	By James Zogby 
	Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, April 18, 2011 
	
		
			    | 
		 
	 
	While much of what has come to be known as “the Arab Spring” remains a 
	work in progress, there can be no doubt that a new dynamic has been 
	unleashed across the region – one that will have a profound impact as it 
	continues to play out in the years to come. 
  What is most important 
	to recognize is the fact that the developments that have unfolded since 
	Tunisia have all been generated internally, putting to rest the patronizing 
	mythology of the neo-conservatives and their ilk, who had long maintained 
	that change could only come to the Arab World if induced by external (that 
	is, Western) pressure. This was the view, for example, promulgated by 
	Bernard Lewis, who once wrote that in the past change had only occurred in 
	the "stagnant Middle East" when it had been "initiated by past European 
	rulers". This theme was echoed more recently by Danielle Pletka of the 
	American Enterprise Institute when she argued that if change were to come to 
	the contemporary Arab World, "the West must hold open the door" and apply 
	needed "outside pressure".   For some in the Bush Administration, that 
	was to be the role of the Iraq war. As it was envisioned (more as an 
	apocalyptic fantasy, than a war), the U.S.-led invasion would not only 
	topple the dictator ushering in a new democracy, it would also shock and 
	shake up the region. Out of the ensuing chaos, they projected that a "new 
	order" would be born - a view enthusiastically supported by the New York 
	Times' Tom Friedman who had long described the Arab World as an "ossified 
	region" and who, therefore, congratulated the Bush Administration for using 
	the war to blast "a hole in the wall of Arab autocracy". And it was this 
	same mind-set that caused then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and 
	National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice to wax poetic about the “passing 
	of old orders” in the aftermath of the war.       
  
	Neo-conservatives similarly projected that Israel's punishing blows against 
	Gaza and Lebanon would play a transformative role, leading Rice to 
	cavalierly dismiss the horrible devastation left in the wake of Israel's 
	2006 onslaught in Lebanon as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East".
  
	These views, of course, were not only profoundly insensitive, they were dead 
	wrong. Contrary to the Bush Administration's ideologically inspired 
	projections, the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Israel's war on its 
	neighbors did not lead to democracy or even to progressive change. Instead, 
	what was left in the wake of each of these conflicts was death and 
	destruction, bitterness and suffering, and a deepened sectarian divide, 
	coupled with a spreading of extremist fervor and intensified regional 
	tension. Arab populations became roiled, Arab governments that had been 
	making even modest moves toward change, pulled back and, overall, the region 
	became more repressive and less free.
  The movements that started in 
	Tunisia and spread to Egypt and beyond, on the other hand, are far more 
	deserving of the "birth pangs" designation. They have been inspirational - 
	creating a new pride amongst publics who had long felt deflated and 
	powerless to make change. They have been contagious - with tactics and 
	slogans being copied or adapted to local settings, despite each country’s 
	unique characteristics. And they have been purely Arab and, it bears 
	repeating, self-generated. There were no would be "Lawrences" or "Rumsfelds" 
	at work in any of these uprisings fashioning themselves as the shapers of 
	the Arab's destiny.
  To be sure, circumstances differed from place to 
	place - Egypt is not Tunisia, nor can Yemen or Bahrain or Syria be seen as 
	cast from the same mold. There were some common characteristics, but what 
	inspired these revolts in each case were unique to each country. 
  
	Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore the fact that what started in 
	Tunis, and came to fruition in Egypt, has ignited a new sense of empowerment 
	and possibility across the Arab World. And as young people have moved to 
	non-violent protest and been met with violence, it has only hardened their 
	resolve to demand change.
  The story is far from over. Egypt and 
	Tunisia remain unfinished, while the movements for change in Yemen, Bahrain 
	and Syria have been frustrated by obstinacy and miscalculation. And Libya, 
	for its part, has taken a detour - with the role of NATO now fundamentally 
	altering the course of this revolt, turning it into something quite 
	different than "the Arab Spring". But even in this unsettled and uncertain 
	state, there is a new spirit in evidence across the region. Even in 
	governments where there is no demand for change, or where majorities are 
	satisfied with their current circumstances, the dynamic of this region-wide 
	revolt can be felt. Arabs have been inspired and imbued with a new sense of 
	pride, governments will listen more carefully to citizen needs, and change 
	will occur.       
  The path forward will have its obstacles and there 
	will be setbacks, but the journey will continue. And when the history of 
	this seminal period is written what will be noted is that the movements that 
	launched it all and carried it through were started by Arabs, who took steps 
	by themselves to create their own futures.    
       
       
       | 
     | 
     
      
      
      
      
     |