Gurdur

Arab secularism has a history dating back to the 1940's.
Some of the far-reaching campaigns to secularize Arab countires include the formation of the Ba'athist parties in countries like Syria or Iraq, the halfway secular regimes in Algeria and Tunisia, and of course the crowning success and inspiration to others that Nasser represented, especially when the British and French were forced to withdraw their invading forces from the Suez Canal in 1956.

The real crowning success on a moral plane, though one hardly noticed by many, was of course represented by Anwar Sadat and his trip to Israel to declare a peace treaty, combined with his efforts to continue raising the standard of living in Egypt.

While the excesses and oftmals budding totalitarianism of some offshoots of Arab secularism --- such as the Ba'athist regimes in Syria or Iraq --- cannotbe denied, it also cannot be denied they functioned as a counterweight to militant Islamic fundamentalism (especially in countries like Algeria and Egypt, with their undeclared wars against Islamic terrorists and revolutionaries), and also as a force for gradual modernization of Arab societies.

All this is now being destroyed slowly.
The failure of Iraq's secular regime means now the only potent forces inside Iraq are either ethnic (Shi'ite, Kurdish) or militant fundamentalist Islamic (including among the Shi'ites).

Syria's secular regime is now sidelined and probably will also soon be destroyed by the USA.

Grinding poverty, governmental oppression and ethnic unrest in Algeria mean that all protest is now channelled through the Islamic revolutionaries.

Tunisia is now facing great fundamentalist Islamic unrest.
Egypt has been sidelined and rendered insignificant by grinding poverty, endemic corruption, and the murders of Egypt's Sadat and Israel's Rabin, and the intransignance and poverty of imagination of Arafat, Hamas, Nethanyu and Sharon.
Libya has been rendered ridiculous and insignificant.

The USA neo-con admin want to force through a privatisation of the occupied Iraqi industries, with the plums going to American firms. All the shots will be publically called by the USA admin, all decisions over Iraq will be made publically by the USA --- to add very consequence-rich insult to injury.
This echoes what happened in Iran under the Shah. till the then Iranian admin were seen as nothing more than oppressive puppets of USA and British neocolonialism ---- leading to the revolution that overthrew the Shah's regime.

This all means that the only real force for change and empowerment that the Arab masses will now see is militant Islamic fundamentalism.

Unlike the Arab secular alternatives, militant Islam is not affected by failure, nor does its prestige hang upon success to any marked degree.


This means the USA is now laying the groundwork for a huge wave of militant Islamic fundamentalism --- also happening in the non-Arab Turkey.

Congratulations, USA.

:banghead:

Gurdur

Supporting evidence:

Machiavelli

Interesting perspective Gurdur.

And what's going to make it all the more bitter for America is that if our current goals are reached, they will likely institute this Islamic fundamentalism through the democratic process we install.

But I have my doubts about democracy in Arab nations. It doesn't appear that they subscribe to it. After all, 300 men with Kalashnikovs are more powerful than 3000 unarmed voters. Are those 300 willing to give up their power without someone there to make sure they do?

Jane Bovary

This means the USA is now laying the groundwork for a huge wave of militant Islamic fundamentalism ---

From the frying-pan into the fire...

Thor Q. Mada

100% correct Gurdur. Religion will take-over now. Already there are voices in Iraq to make it an Islamic republic with laws based on the Koran.

Ruy Lopez

Very astute Gurdur. But I'm not surprised because fundamentalism or similar types of thinking still seem to be on the rise in the US, where I am, in Israel and in Islamic nations.

Religious historian, (can't remember her name), who wrote "Battle for God" and "History of God" noted this trend though she was starting to think the Clinton era could have turned it back. Apparently not. Clinton was just a temporary breath of fresh air.

Democracy in Iraq? Forget it. It's not in US interest. It's the habitual lying of political leaders through media that keeps people ignorant and prone to the fundamentalist message.

Gurdur

Coming from a name like "Machiavelli", this is a high compliment.

Fundamentalist Moslems are now legally in power in Tukey through the democratic process.

Given a halfway decent chance and fair elections, they would now be in power in Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt as well.
You seem to be making the mistake of equating secularism --- as talked about in my OP --- with democracy.
They are not synonymous, and neither implies nor necessitates the other.
I dunno; you'll find more than 300 with Kalashnikovs inside the USA or Germany, yet the USA and Germany are still democracies.

Leastaways, the USA is still a democracy at the moment.

Gurdur

Karen Armstrong.

An excellent author, researcher, analyst and commentator.

leonarde

Partial post:Notice the use of passive voice here: everything just happens to Arab countries. They have no responsibility for their own fates. Years and decades after they were given independence by European powers, it is still the fault of the West (here the US) that there is "grinding poverty, endemic corruption" etc. Why exactly in the case of, say, Tunisia is it "facing great fundamentalist unrest"? I don't agree that Egypt has been "sidelined and rendered insignificant" but if it were true, wouldn't the responsibility rest primarily with Mubarak and company? Libya has "been rendered ridiculous and insignificant" but that has to do with Qadaffi's rule. "Secularism" doesn't necessarily translate into wise rule.

The trick here is in the selective emphasis on "secularism". Stalin's Soviet Union and Pol Pot's Cambodia were certainly more than a little secular. That doesn't mean that they were better than the more religious, more traditional regimes that they replaced. Quite the reverse.

But the failure of the Baathist regime has to do with what that regime did in Iraq from 1968 to 2003. Not with the US and UK.
If a secular regime again prevails and prospers in Iraq, it will be because of decisions taken by the Iraqis themselves .

Cheers!

Machiavelli

I was just thinking that much of the justification for this is to provide freedom and democracy to the oppressed people of Iraq, and then supposedly everything will be A-OK. Democracy will be and excellent medium for rapid growth of the fundamentalist control you're describing. I'm not so sure our interests will fare very well in that situation.

If there is anything our government is good at, it's making sure it has the upper hand. We have our homegrown pre-emptive strikes too ya know...