Three Waves of Mediocrity ( AV: hey, it dawns on some how stupid American policy to the Dar-el-Islam is!)

Three Waves of Mediocrity
by Charles A. Coulombe
Taki Magazine (see note at the end)
September 28, 2012
The Obama regime’s official explanation for the murder of our ambassador to Libya and three staffers amid the destruction of our Benghazi consulate—that it was spontaneous and quasi-legitimized by an anti-Muhammad film—seems to be unraveling. But perhaps more importantly, it points out the insanity that has been US foreign policy from Morocco to Afghanistan since World War II.
Dubya dubbed this policy the “global democratic revolution”—the idea that given the right combination of idealistic leadership and US-supported regime change, the Middle East’s civic life would magically transform into that of Ray Bradbury’s Green Town, Illinois. To these dreamers, 2011’s “Arab Spring” seemed proof that in the Islamosphere, American-style rule of law was right around the corner. But even as their ears were oblivious to the dying cries of Iraq’s Chaldean and Assyrian communities, so have they been to those of Coptic and Syrian Christians. One would think the death rattles of American diplomats might at least catch their ears, but no such luck.
“Due to religious and cultural histories too complex for the average American politico or bureaucrat to understand, the Muslim world is mind-numbingly fragmented.”
Due to religious and cultural histories too complex for the average American politico or bureaucrat to understand, the Muslim world is mind-numbingly fragmented. Internal peace in any given region or country has inevitably been imposed from outside. As the topmost clique in each was small and usually alien, the rulership was constrained to govern through and with coalitions of minority groups—a pluralism dictated by necessity rather than ideology. This pattern was disrupted by the West’s growing power, culminating in the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I and subsequent deposition of the Sultan and Caliph.
Then followed the first of three waves of Westernization. This wave saw various traditional rulers that the West—especially the British and French—either raised or reinforced. Among them were the rulers of Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, southern Arabia, and the Persian Gulf states. There was much to criticize about these regimes: no separation of religion and state; hereditary monarchy; minority rule; inefficiency; suspicion of modern education; rampant cronyism; limits upon freedom of speech, religion, and the press; and governmental legitimacy founded on legends rather than elections. But what these criticisms failed to understand is that in this region, majority rule inevitably means minority oppression.
And so we helped bring to power in various countries people such as Nasser, the Ba’ath Parties, and Gaddafi—they were Westernization’s second wave. They initially had much to recommend them to American policy makers. These revolutionaries broke down old aristocracies and tended to be secular rather than religious. They introduced the form—if not the substance—of republican government. They had a few small drawbacks. So long as the Soviet Union lasted, they were often pro-Soviet; they too were forced to rule through minorities; and as their regimes aged, they tended to become ever nastier in terms of bloody repression. So throughout the past two years, we have encouraged their overthrow in the “Arab Spring” and its aftermath Western-style ideology. Just as with imperialistic Euro-American ideologues, they are extremely intolerant of other ideologies—in this case, religions.
Our leadership must do something probably impossible for them: They must see reality as it is and act upon it. Their relentless hatred of first-wave folk (most recently expressed by Mr. Bush in Afghanistan) needs to be reversed, and the remnants of first-wave adherents must be supported as well as we can. So too with minorities persecuted under the third wave—not only Eastern Christians, but Druze, Alawites, Mandaeans, and Zoroastrians. Moreover, we must explore and exploit divisions within Islam normally invisible to secular-minded policy makers. This includes identifying potential allies—the Sufi and other groups such as the Bektashi, Naqshbandi, and Ismaili—who eschew violence against “unbelievers.” Our policy should also support Shia in Sunnite countries and Sunnis in Shiite ones. 
Above all, we must give up forever the dream of remaking the Middle East. Rather than transforming the region into Ohio, we should concentrate on making it livable for its people on terms they can accept. A good example of what our State Department ought to be working toward is Jordan. Kings Hussein and Abdullah have both been canny survivalists, managing to hold onto power while maintaining a pro-Western political stance. Claiming descent from Muhammad, Jordan’s Hashemites are deeply rooted in Islamic tradition, yet their minority policy is quite enlightened. Aiding the welter of such nationalities and beliefs would be better than anything we have done so far.

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/three_waves_of_mediocrity_charles_coulombe/print#ixzz27q70xDzU