<1/2/ of the population has no liberty -- the women. No, this is not what I want...is it what you want?>
First, it's an exaggeration to say no liberty. That's like saying American women had no liberty, until the 1920s, because they didn't have the vote. There are degrees of freedom for women in the Muslim world. Actually, Iraq under Saddam had more freedom for women than, say, Saudi Arabia. So, those who want to promote feminism in the Middle East, should favor other targets. Except that, I suppose, Iraq is now a target of opportunity.
Second, what's important here, is not what you want, and not what I want either. What's important is what the citizens of Baghdad and Karbala want. Things have to change there, and we have to manage those changes, and we have to decide what can and can't be changed. What are the limits to acceptable change on the Arab Street. What is important for American security, and what is "non-core". The Core goals we should insist on. NonCore goals, we should set a good example ourselves, and let them follow, when and if they choose to.
Core:
1. no WMD
2. no Safe Haven for global terrorism
3. no attacks on neighbors
NonCore:
1. everything else.
Third, we have to limit our ambitions. This idea of imposing by force a liberal democracy, complete with feminism and environmentalism and secularism and the kitchen sink too, this is Overreach. I think it'll be a big enough chore, to keep the country from becoming another Afghanistan or Congo, warlord states that are fertile ground for terrorism.
I've got this picture in my mind, of a U.S. soldier on an Abrams tank, pointing his big gun at a Muslim family in the streets of Baghdad, and ordering the woman to take off her veil. When she does, the soldier says, "Aren't you happy to be liberated now?" |
