Gaddafiphilia
Two years on, we speak of the Arab rebellions in a manner we never did of the fall of communist dictatorships. A quarter century ago, it was only cranks who bemoaned the end of the communist tyrannies in Europe. There was chaos aplenty in those post-communist societies and vengeful nationalist feuds; those captive nations weren’t exactly models of liberalism. In Yugoslavia, a veritable prison of contending nationalisms, the fall of the state that Josip Broz Tito held together by guile and fear, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder, had put on display the pitfalls of “liberty” after decades of repression. And still, faith in the new history was to carry the day.
That moment in freedom’s advance was markedly different from the easy disenchantment with the Arab rebellions. Those had been dubbed an Arab Spring, and it was the laziest of things to announce scorching summers and an Islamist winter. The Arab dictatorships had been given decades of patience and indulgence, but patience was not to be extended to the new rebellions: these were to become orphans in the court of American opinion. American liberalism had turned surly toward the possibilities of freedom in distant, difficult lands. If George W. Bush’s “diplomacy of freedom,” tethered to the Iraq War, had maintained that freedom can stick on Arab and Muslim soil, liberalism ridiculed that hopefulness. This was a new twist in the evolution of American liberalism. In contrast to its European counterpart, American liberalism had tended to be hopeful about liberty’s prospects abroad. This was no longer the case. The Arab Awakening would find very few liberal promoters.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Incoming.
Count to 10 on January 28, 2013 at 8:19 PM
Religious fanaticism does not a free people tolerate.
John the Libertarian on January 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM
It’s not nostalgia, just recognition that he was the less worse option.
rbj on January 28, 2013 at 8:37 PM
Mr. Ajami, I think it is the filthy faith of Islam at the bottom, middle and top of all your problems. It robs you of humanity and common sense and leaves you poor in spirit, mind and industry. Islam is for dangerous losers who seem to go about blackening their own image and whining about why no one loves or respects their rabid ways.
BL@KBIRD on January 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM
The problem with Mr Ajami’s analysis and, indeed, Wilsonian/Bush/Obama foreign policy is that the foremost concern for a country in the formulation of its foreign policy should always be what is in its best interests. Yes, that sounds harsh. Yes, that sounds “imperialistic,” but make no mistake, I argue not for empires.
“Spreading democracy around the world” nor “making the world safe for democracy” should never be our objective.
The Lypskynka of Libya was a despotic, evil murderer of Americans. That is UNEQUIVOCALLY true. Yet, he also kept Islamism suppressed in Libya, a country with a great deal of oil wealth.
The question should not, cannot be “Are the Libyans better off because we intervened?” It must be “Are we better off for having done so, especially since we went in for French, British and Italian oil supplies, not the threat of slaughter of innocents in Benghazi, as we were told?” Besides, even if the slaughter basis had been the reason, does that not require more of us in the ME? Doesn’t it mean that we have a R2P in Syria?
What was our national security interest? That is the only question.
Mubarak in Egypt was a dictatorial POS. No doubt about it. But, are we better off with Morsi? Are Egyptians, who are being killed by MB snipers? Are Coptic Christians? Is Israel?
Radical Past: Former Associate Calls Morsi a ‘Master of Disguise’
M2RB: Lady GaGa
Egyptian Press Confirms Washington Infiltrated By Islamists
Can ANYONE honestly argue that the US is better off more than 3 decades after Carter’s meddling in Iran that led to the overthrow of the Shah, who was also a despot, but replaced with an oppressive, theocratic regime that is now full of members of the Hojjatieh Mahdatieh Society?
Resist We Much on January 28, 2013 at 9:13 PM