Lewis's 'Liberation' Doctrine For Mideast Faces New Tests
By Frederick Kempe
Wall Street Journal
December 13, 2005
NEW YORK—Bernard Lewis, the British-born Princeton University historian who was one of the intellectual fathers of the Bush administration policy of Mideast transformation, worries about Iraq's future ahead of this week's parliamentary elections.
But not for the reasons one might think.
Mr. Lewis's concern is less about insurgent and terrorist violence and more about growing U.S. domestic opposition to President Bush's Iraq engagement. "I would describe my position as one of cautious optimism," he says in an interview. "My optimism derives from events in the Mideast and my caution derives from observing the United States."
At age 88, Prof. Lewis's voice has never been more influential. After Sept. 11, 2001, when the Bush administration was trying to understand the roots of the al Qaeda attack and how to respond, Prof. Lewis was available with a fully formed philosophy that the problems were emerging from failing Islamic states that had to transform themselves. His ideas helped shape the policy thinking behind U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the shift from tolerating and supporting dictators to promoting democratic change.
"I may have had some influence but I think this is greatly exaggerated," says Mr. Lewis, who previously declined to be interviewed by The Wall Street Journal regarding his policy role. (See "Historian's Take on Islam Steers U.S. Policy," from Feb. 3, 2004.)
Although Mr. Lewis insists he was never a "formal" consultant, people familiar with the matter say he recently met with President Bush and is particularly close to Vice President Cheney. Several other U.S. officials have called upon his counsel. His impact on the administration's thinking on the Mideast has been compared to that of George Kennan's "containment," doctrine during the Cold War.
He has scoffed at notions of a "Lewis Doctrine," but when asked to characterize his equivalent thinking to "containment," he uses a single word: "Liberation."
When prompted to elaborate, Mr. Lewis adds, "Enable them to achieve or recover their freedom, to which they are entitled no less than anyone in the world. … Our job is not to create democracy. Our job is to remove obstacles and let them create their own."
Mr. Lewis has differed most with the Bush administration over its failure to hand over control of Iraq quickly enough to capture the momentum of its surprisingly easy military victory. He had favored the preparation and rapid installation of an interim Iraqi government instead of "setting up a kind of viceroy arrangement in the style of the 19th century British empire."
For all the problems the Bush administration has faced in Iraq, however, Mr. Lewis believes the region and the world are better off now than before the war. "Despite internal difficulties and external sabotage, the process of democratization has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams," he says. He points to last January's elections where millions of Iraqis voted despite risks, to the constitutional referendum that followed, to increasing Sunni involvement in the process and most of all to the evolving democratic habit of political give-and-take slowly taking hold.
Mr. Lewis believes change in Iraq has also been in no small part responsible for Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon and democratic progress there, and "glimmerings" of change in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That said, he does share concerns about the success of the Egyptian Islamist organization the Muslim Brotherhood in recent elections. He has less concern about the rise of Iranian-backed Shia parties in Iraq.
"In Iraq, I am not so worried," he says. "Democracy doesn't come all at once. It has to be developed in stages, and it seems to be doing very well. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt represents a real danger. Yet if they come into power they will have to cope with the monstrous problems Egypt faces. If, like the theocracy in Iran, they fail to deal with these problems, they will have to face the anger of their own people. The danger: they wouldn't leave office by the same way they came, through free elections."
For all his belief in the need for transformation, Mr. Lewis is just as convinced that future change is unlikely to come at the end of an American gun-barrel. He instead favors outside assistance for opposition forces and developing civil society. "Iranians and Syrians with a little help from the outside can do the job themselves," he says.
He's a little more concerned about the American role in Iraq. One of the great ironies of our times is that the country that has done the most to shape our current world often underappreciates the historic importance of its actions. "In American English, if you say 'That's history,' it means 'It's over and done with and of no current interest or relevance.' Yet there is a sort of basic instinct for what is good and right in a society and that seems to work surprisingly well."
While Mr. Bush continues his U.S. campaign to rally support for his Iraq engagement, Mr. Lewis provides some dramatic context for why Americans ought to pay attention. U.S. officials, many of whom served during the Cold War, have likened the Mideast challenge to the democratic transformation of the former Soviet bloc. Mr. Lewis instead compares the threat to Europe at the beginning of World War II.
He believes the threat in some respects is greater than even that of the Nazis, as radical Islam is fanatical, violent, global in its reach and enjoys significant support. Beyond that, the terrorists have suicidal tendencies and nuclear potential. Another difference: The world's will to stand together is much more lacking now than it became then. "If Churchill and his team had to face the same sort of opposition as does President Bush, Hitler might well have won the war," he says.
Wall Street Journal
December 13, 2005
NEW YORK—Bernard Lewis, the British-born Princeton University historian who was one of the intellectual fathers of the Bush administration policy of Mideast transformation, worries about Iraq's future ahead of this week's parliamentary elections.
But not for the reasons one might think.
Mr. Lewis's concern is less about insurgent and terrorist violence and more about growing U.S. domestic opposition to President Bush's Iraq engagement. "I would describe my position as one of cautious optimism," he says in an interview. "My optimism derives from events in the Mideast and my caution derives from observing the United States."
At age 88, Prof. Lewis's voice has never been more influential. After Sept. 11, 2001, when the Bush administration was trying to understand the roots of the al Qaeda attack and how to respond, Prof. Lewis was available with a fully formed philosophy that the problems were emerging from failing Islamic states that had to transform themselves. His ideas helped shape the policy thinking behind U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the shift from tolerating and supporting dictators to promoting democratic change.
"I may have had some influence but I think this is greatly exaggerated," says Mr. Lewis, who previously declined to be interviewed by The Wall Street Journal regarding his policy role. (See "Historian's Take on Islam Steers U.S. Policy," from Feb. 3, 2004.)
Although Mr. Lewis insists he was never a "formal" consultant, people familiar with the matter say he recently met with President Bush and is particularly close to Vice President Cheney. Several other U.S. officials have called upon his counsel. His impact on the administration's thinking on the Mideast has been compared to that of George Kennan's "containment," doctrine during the Cold War.
He has scoffed at notions of a "Lewis Doctrine," but when asked to characterize his equivalent thinking to "containment," he uses a single word: "Liberation."
When prompted to elaborate, Mr. Lewis adds, "Enable them to achieve or recover their freedom, to which they are entitled no less than anyone in the world. … Our job is not to create democracy. Our job is to remove obstacles and let them create their own."
Mr. Lewis has differed most with the Bush administration over its failure to hand over control of Iraq quickly enough to capture the momentum of its surprisingly easy military victory. He had favored the preparation and rapid installation of an interim Iraqi government instead of "setting up a kind of viceroy arrangement in the style of the 19th century British empire."
For all the problems the Bush administration has faced in Iraq, however, Mr. Lewis believes the region and the world are better off now than before the war. "Despite internal difficulties and external sabotage, the process of democratization has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams," he says. He points to last January's elections where millions of Iraqis voted despite risks, to the constitutional referendum that followed, to increasing Sunni involvement in the process and most of all to the evolving democratic habit of political give-and-take slowly taking hold.
Mr. Lewis believes change in Iraq has also been in no small part responsible for Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon and democratic progress there, and "glimmerings" of change in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That said, he does share concerns about the success of the Egyptian Islamist organization the Muslim Brotherhood in recent elections. He has less concern about the rise of Iranian-backed Shia parties in Iraq.
"In Iraq, I am not so worried," he says. "Democracy doesn't come all at once. It has to be developed in stages, and it seems to be doing very well. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt represents a real danger. Yet if they come into power they will have to cope with the monstrous problems Egypt faces. If, like the theocracy in Iran, they fail to deal with these problems, they will have to face the anger of their own people. The danger: they wouldn't leave office by the same way they came, through free elections."
For all his belief in the need for transformation, Mr. Lewis is just as convinced that future change is unlikely to come at the end of an American gun-barrel. He instead favors outside assistance for opposition forces and developing civil society. "Iranians and Syrians with a little help from the outside can do the job themselves," he says.
He's a little more concerned about the American role in Iraq. One of the great ironies of our times is that the country that has done the most to shape our current world often underappreciates the historic importance of its actions. "In American English, if you say 'That's history,' it means 'It's over and done with and of no current interest or relevance.' Yet there is a sort of basic instinct for what is good and right in a society and that seems to work surprisingly well."
While Mr. Bush continues his U.S. campaign to rally support for his Iraq engagement, Mr. Lewis provides some dramatic context for why Americans ought to pay attention. U.S. officials, many of whom served during the Cold War, have likened the Mideast challenge to the democratic transformation of the former Soviet bloc. Mr. Lewis instead compares the threat to Europe at the beginning of World War II.
He believes the threat in some respects is greater than even that of the Nazis, as radical Islam is fanatical, violent, global in its reach and enjoys significant support. Beyond that, the terrorists have suicidal tendencies and nuclear potential. Another difference: The world's will to stand together is much more lacking now than it became then. "If Churchill and his team had to face the same sort of opposition as does President Bush, Hitler might well have won the war," he says.
posted by Hanan Elbadry at 10:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home