The ignorance of republicans or Americans in general about the arab world reminds me of the ignorance/disrespect some ultra liberals show to the religious/cultural values of real americans and are bashed by republicans for their arrogance and for just not “getting it”. Yet their own policies towards middle east are arrogantly idealistic, far from ground realities of the ME and just plain ignorant of real values of the arab/ME/muslim world.
I like republicans for their practical approaches to problems. But for some reason, with Iraq, they opted for a stupid/arrogant/ignorant ideology of the neo cons. What historical parallels (in MidEast) do you have of an invasion bringing in democracy AND stability to the region? Even if you succeed in stabilising Iraq, what makes you think it will cause Saud family to allow elections and what makes you think muslims there will not choose another Hamas type? What did the democratically elected Hamas administration brought to the table for Americans? You had democratically elected govts in Pakistan from 1988-1999, in which it became real breeding ground of terrorism and training centre for Talebans. Today, if Pakistanis can choose a govt, they will over-throw Mush in a blink. If you consider democracy as an ideological silver bullet to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism then why not start with countries that are real problems like Saud’s/Pakistan/Iran? The whole idea of democracy bringing stability to the middle east with Iraq acting as a beacon of freedom and bearer of American interests, is just loonie.
