Home > General > Darkness Well Before Dawn

Darkness Well Before Dawn

January 26th, 2006

Sometimes things have to get worse, much worse, before they get better. Disaster, war, famine, oppression, murder, hatred, recrimination – often these things are clarion calls to men and women of good faith, waking them up to the threat in their midst, urging them to take action. Sometimes it’s the klaxon of the fire station – too late to prevent the fire, but maybe early enough to save the neighborhood. Sometimes we sleep through the siren, and it’s reduced to an ugly trumpet for the four horsemen. Other times, it’s a wakeup call and we respond.

I still hold out hope that we have time to respond to that siren we hear wailing right now. If I hear its message correctly, it’s warning about the suicidal tendencies in western culture, and about the threat of Islamacist radicalism. Few people seem to have the same understanding of it. But increasingly, it seems that folks in the west hear it, and are responding.

But first, things have to get bad.

Mike notes the significance of Hamas’ big electoral victory in Palestine. I’m pessimistic about the short term prospects of the Hamas government. How does one negotiate with somebody, whose opening demand is your destruction, and the scattering of your ashes across the desert? Does one offer one’s amputated leg as a sign of good faith? But on the other side, this is the second election the Palestinians have enjoyed. If we are indeed backing democracy, building up a habit in Arab culture of being able to go to the polls and throw the bums out, may be worth something. Even life under Islamacist lunatics may not be the worst thing that can happen to the Palestinians. Bloodshed and tyranny aside, if they indeed manage to go to the polls in a few years and throw the bums out, a bad experience with Islamacist rulers may be just the thing they need to change their mind on on these notions of Sharia rule and premanent religious warfare. This “worse before it gets better” paradox seems to be in operation in Iraq, where the people are sick of the Mullahs, and striving to build up critical mass toward a democratic revolution. It has worked in Afghanistan, where a people once thought ungovernable appear to be reconciling western democracy and plurality with strong Muslim faith and traditional tribal self-governing habits. Similarly, Muslim Brotherhood gains in Egypt may not be a bad thing, so long as the people get a taste of exactly what the clerics have in mind for them. You see, it’s not about whether this election has a result we like; it’s about whether there’s another election a few years down the road where the people get to reconsider. That’s the best we can hope for, if we really believe in self governance, and it’s a good strategy in the long run because few people will keep electing an oppressive warmongering tyrant to office.

Things do indeed have to get bad first before those in a deep slumber can be stirred. I believe that the French Arab riots combined with Iran’s crazed threats have served as a wakeup call to the French political classes, who at long last are shedding a bit of the post modernist moss and returning to their cultural roots. France under Chirac is standing surprisingly tall right now. But it took weeks of riots and an internal political crisis to make them wake up, however briefly, from their slumber. Will they remain awake, or will they settle back into their dreams of the end of history? It’s hard to say right now. One danger is that instead of waking up, when we hear the alarm clock, we swat at it, give the appearance of waking up for a moment, then go back to sleep. The difficulty with this is that the next time, it’s much harder to wake us up. We’ve already shut off the alarm, and passed the time when we should have been wide awak.

The same thing goes for Iraq. People were moaning a few weeks ago about how it was going to be a mullah-ocracy because the Shiites had such a strong showing. Well, it turns out that the Shiite religious parties are strongly represented, but not well enough to have a controlling majority. So they have had to form a coalition government with secular parties rather than facing another general election. Did you wonder why the Shiites, supposedly possessed of a uniform outlook, didn’t just vote in a strongly Shiite religious government? Well, first of all, religious Shiites rule in a couple of major southern cities, including Najaf. I believe the experiences of Iraqis under these dismal Mullahs has convinced many Iraqis to avoid mullah-ocracy as a form of government, Iranian government sponsored vote fraud efforts notwithstanding. While it got worse for some Iraqis, I think the ultimate result was a better one, because the CPA had the patience to sit tight, keep pushing democracy, and let the people figure it out for themselves.

The same process is underway here in the U.S. 9/11 simply didn’t happen for roughly half the country’s politicians and people. It is off the radar. Half the country woke up, the other didn’t. I have a suspicion that we just hit the snooze alarm on that alarm clock. Maybe we didn’t – perhaps enough of us are awake to shape the response for quite some time to come. I have a gut feeling that isn’t true, and that it’s going to take the destruction of a major city to get us to come to grips with the struggle going on in the Islamic world. I hope it’s not the case, but it could be.

I believe the reason we’re stuck in a worse-before-better cycle, is that most people have very poor predictive abilities. We don’t learn from history, we ignore obvious facts that cut against our politics and sentiments, and as a result we generally don’t do a good job of foreseeing how events are likely to turn. Thus we respond to stimuli, more than charting out a coherent course and sticking to it. Right now, as we speak, a the usual subset of lefty commenters over at John Cole’s place are pining for a dictator to run the Palestinian authority, mocking the notion of democratic self governance and so forth. These are the same folks who no doubt were trumpeting “root causes” on 9/12/01, and ranting about U.S. support for anti-democratic “But he’s our bastard…” tyrants that we relied on as proxies during the Cold War. I think they misunderstand that sometimes, things simply have to get worse before they get better.

The real test comes, of course, when it’s time for the Palestinians to have a third election. One that some “third way” Palestinian group, other than Fatah or Hamas, is allowed to enter. Still, little steps are better than none. Let’s see how it pans out.

  • Share/Bookmark
Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site, and may be deleted, edited, ridiculed, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. Thank you.
  1. January 26th, 2006 at 12:10 | #1
    The big question then is: "How much worse?"
  2. Zorro
    January 26th, 2006 at 16:19 | #2
    Ye shall reap what ye sow:
    "Israel financed and encouraged the development of Hamas for two, or possibly three, main reasons. First, they thought it would weaken the Palestinian movement to build up a rival to Fatah. Second, the Israelis did not in fact want peace, but rather the permanent acquisition of Palestinian territory, and so they did not want to be placed in a position where international pressure to deal with the PLO became irresistible. By encouraging Palestinian extremism and terrorism, they hoped to discredit the Palestinian cause. Finally, some may have hoped that by getting close to the hard-liners in Hamas, Israel would gain intelligence."

    "Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

    Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official.

    According to documents United Press International obtained from the Israel-based Institute for Counter Terrorism, Hamas evolved from cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Islamic movements in Israel and Palestine were "weak and dormant" until after the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel scored a stunning victory over its Arab enemies."

    but...there may be hope:

    "Hamas builds schools, clinics, and shelters. Hamas is intertwined in the people and amongst them. More importantly though, Hamas will not bend to others will; and that image is an opportunity. As only Sharon could have pulled off Gaza only Hamas can accept it."

    - - Karim Elsahy, One Arab World

    we shall see...if the hamas leader are smart, they will de-throttle the hostilities and put the ball entirely in the hands of a currently rudderless Israel. This is eerily similar to the opening of Tom Clancy's "Sum of All Fears".

  3. January 26th, 2006 at 17:15 | #3
    Palestine just voted for a war to the death with Isreal, (unless I mis-read the Hamas campaign literature) I say it's time they got their wish.
  4. Mikey (Not the Host)
    January 26th, 2006 at 21:20 | #4
    Yeah, okay. Whatever Zorro. Israel - Bad! Palestinians - Good!

    We got, already.

    You really need to drop that folk-Marxism that Dean Esmay was talking about, where the one with the power is automatically wrong, and the underdog is automatically right. The world really isn't quite that simple.

  5. Zorro
    January 26th, 2006 at 21:31 | #5
    Don't be stupid, Mikey... I think what's happened to the Palestinians at the hands of Israel is bad, and they have to stand up for what's theirs or die trying. The Israelis see it the same way, but could wipe out the Palestinians tomorrow, if not for the international condemnation that would bring. Hamas knows that.

    I have many issues with Israel...but it's not simply because they "have power", it's because of their incredible hypocracy and deceit. Oh...and they think they're better than everyone...yeah- that's it.

  6. January 26th, 2006 at 21:55 | #6
    I've got a question for you, Zorro: Do you compose your comments first in German, then translate them into English?

    Enquiring minds want to know!

  7. Mikey (Not the Host)
    January 26th, 2006 at 22:44 | #7
    Zorro, don't you be stupid. You know very well that if the Palestinians put down the gun nothing would happen to them. As you well noted, the Israelis won't drive them forth with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and not for the international condemnation (do you think they really care what France thinks, for example?) but because the Israelis aren't wired that way as a society. If the Israelis, on the other hand, put down the gun, the streets of that land would be choked with their bodies.

    Or does the extermination rhetoric of the Palestinians not bother you? Don't think they actuallymean what they say? That it is just hyperbole? If so, great delusion you got goin'.

    No, it's quite clear from your postings - anyone with power is the oppressor, anyone without is the oppressed and damn the facts, my world-template full speed ahead! The Israelis do not hold a place on the old atrocity comparison meter with the Palestinians. When the side you support intnentionally bombs children on a bus - and they do not have to - Hello! Oslo! Negotiations! Hello! - because that will kill more of the hated Jew, well then, you really need to rethink your entire worldview.

    And bomb those children solely because they are Jews, and you cannot let the sons and daughters of pigs and monkeys live, now can you? If the Israelis have a cold, morally speaking, the Palestinians are the walking dead. And they chose that.

    I'll side with the imperfect but trying to be better. You can take the side of mass slaughter, and welcome to them.

  8. Sean Bannion
    January 27th, 2006 at 09:50 | #8
    Question: If tomorrow morning we woke up and all of the Islamic nations and peoples surrounding Israel were completely without any weapons more powerful than a ripe eggplant, (and Israel retained theirs) what would happen next?
    Answer: Very little.

    Question: If the reverse were true, what would happen?

    Answer: Israel would be overrun in a matter of days if not hours.

    http://www.haloscan.com/tb/kobayashimaru/113833012661851721/

    Anyone who believes otherwise misreads the actual record to date.

  9. Zorro
    January 27th, 2006 at 10:14 | #9
    Answer:
    "During the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel captured the West Bank from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, Gaza Strip (which was under Egyptian occupation), and Sinai from Egypt."

    That is what we would see if the Arabs were suddenly castrated. And they would continue all the way to Iran.

    Think about it this way: Hispanic immigrants and citizens in this country are a force to reckon with economically, and soon, politically. Suppose at some point in our future that China becomes the world superpower, and the Spanish -speaking people in this country claim the western half of the US as theirs (they were one of the first "modern" immigrants), and want a Spanish-speaking, Spanish/Mexican Catholic culture "homeland". They identify sites from Utah to California to Texas as "holy and culturally imperitave" to them. They claim that they were forced out of their ancestors' homeland by force and by deception, and now they want it back. They are backed in this effort by the might and wealth of China and Japan.

    How would you react? Exactly like the Palestinians.

  10. January 27th, 2006 at 21:41 | #10
    Oh, bullshit, Zorro. Even by the Wikipedia's description, Isreal was pretty much justified in the 1967 War. Hell, if they'd just been allowed to keep the Sinai and Gaza from the 1956 War, most of the 1967 conflict would have been unnecessary.

    Isreal has been assaulted by vastly superior forces since day one, harassed and terrorized by Iron Age mentality pricks when she showed her superior strategy and determination on the battlefield, and you hate her for it. Why you should hate what was until recently the only functional Socialist Democracy in the entire region is beyond me. As a Left leaning State and a perennial underdog, Isreal should ring every single sympathy bell you've got.

    When it doesn't, I have to start wondering if you're anti-Semitic.

  11. Mikey (Not the Host)
    January 28th, 2006 at 00:32 | #11
    Start with an analogy that is irrelevant to the topic; create a wild hypothetical to support the thesis; and then end with an appeal to reaction or feeling (which being that is not subject to debate). All the while failing to take into account the careful nurturing that was done to create the insanity that is the current Palestinian society by the nations surrounding Israel.

    Sorry, Zorro, but your little piece fails, and the fact that you felt you needed to say it - and reach so far to do so - says a lot about the indefensibility of the Palestinian cause as it exists today. There is, in their own words, only one solution to the situation. And I would "feel" totally creepy and "react" with disgust if someone I actually knew espoused it.

    Anyway, I never looked good in black.

  12. Zorro
    January 28th, 2006 at 11:00 | #12
    "Hell, if they’d just been allowed to keep the Sinai and Gaza from the 1956 War, most of the 1967 conflict would have been unnecessary."

    Yeah, well...if Saddam had just been allowed to keep Kuwait, he'd be happy and we would be in the situation we're in now.

  13. Zorro
    January 28th, 2006 at 11:01 | #13
    that should read "wouldn't be in the situation..."

    (Freudian slip?)

  14. Zorro
    January 28th, 2006 at 13:20 | #14
    Here's a nice juxtaposition to ponder (business headlines this week):

    $7.4 Billion Ford Loss Sets Corporate Record

    Halliburton swings to $1.1 billion profit

    yes...I guess we are all invested...

  15. January 28th, 2006 at 19:53 | #15
    And once again we've lost the discussion to the tinfoil. Grow up, willya?
  16. January 29th, 2006 at 01:50 | #16
    Re Zorro's Ford-loss/Halliburton-profit juxtaposition: I don't get the connection. Is Ford a Jewish-owned company? Does Halliburton support the Palestinians? Wait--I know: Is it that Fords *use* oil while Halliburton helps explorationists *find* oil? I'm not sure that explains much either. Okay, how 'bout this: Ford's headquarters is in a rust-belt state while Halliburton is in Texas, so you're trying to point out how the UAW has sunk the old-line auto-makers, right?

    Okay, I finally got it: Halliburton got a huge government contract to provide support in Iraq--and of course it was all because of a fix courtesy of Bushitler, but since we all know Capitalism is a zero-sum game, Halliburton's gain had to be paid by another company's loss. Cheney ordered Ford to take the hit because it would cause massive layoffs in Michigan, and everyone knows Dearborn has a high Muslim-American population.

    In hindsight, it was so obvious!

  17. January 29th, 2006 at 16:01 | #17
    Actually, I think he was responding to an entirely different post, but my tinfoil assesment still stands. This guy doesn't know from Occam's Razor. He's still playing around in McKinney's Handbag.
  18. Zorro
    January 30th, 2006 at 09:25 | #18
    That's weird...that IS from a different thread...
Comments are closed.