The end of idealism

It's almost sad to watch the dawning realisation among the right that the Middle East is steadfastly refusing to be transformed, as America planned, into a hotbed of western, or even eastern democracy.

The Taliban and Al Quaeda are reoccupying Afghanistan and the reconstruction of Iraq has been almost catastrophically badly managed. Iraqis themselves are increasingly pessimistic. In the White House the signs are growing of a changing of the guard. It's out with the neocons and in with some of George Bush senior's old advisors.

Pragmatism is replacing idealism all over. Personally I think a bit of idealism is a good thing, but the neocon plan was simply too ambitious, too sweeping. Too high risk.

I've always held that dream had some chance of success. A slim chance, but a chance. For it to work the plan had to work quickly and effectively. It hasn't and it is now all but opportunity lost and the right knows it.

Even the most staunch proponents of the war are now sounding defeated. From endlessly praising the democratic spirit of the Iraqi people some are now starting to blame the Iraqis for their own troubles. Over at Sir Humphrey's Lucyna "quotes approvingly" a post on Iraq, "where lying is a way of life".

At first we were all offended at being lied to so much. But after a while, you stop taking it personally, and you just start giving credit where credit is due: They can't build anything, can't manufacture anything, and can't fix anything that breaks. But at least they are good at one thing: lying their asses off all day, every day.

It's a complaint that strongly echoes those of a previous generation of Middle Eastern imperialists, the British.

AL, quite rightly, is livid about the new US fortress/embassy being built in Baghdad:

Could the US State Department have chosen a worse idea, considering the "Green Zone" they presently use is already a running joke worldwide? Are these people so completely incompetent, clueless and out of touch that this ever seemed like a good idea? And if I think it is a bad idea after reading Iraqi blogs, what must Iraqis think?

In comments to this post new recruit Andrei really parades the new and growing attitude of the right toward Iraq. It's the reemergence of an old conservative standard" "Why help people who won't help themselves":

Why can't the Iraqis keep their own electricity running? Why is it the Americans that have to do this? If the place is a basket case (which it obviously is) why is it that the Americans have to fix it up?

The answer to this is that America is one of the most humane countries on earth (if not the most humane) and they are taking responsibility for fixing up someone else's mess (in this case Saddam Hussein's).

If Iran had won the Iran/Iraq war do you think they'd have taken responsibility for Bhagdad's electricity? Virtually any other country on earth having acheived a victory like the coalition's victory over Saddam Hussein would have crushed the population just to keep them in line.

Instead the Iraqis are being spoon fed with billions of dollars of aid and cretins like the author of that article a chucking brickbats. And the insurgents are lapping it up and obliging the authors of such articles by blowing up power supplies to feed them material for more America bashing.

Perhaps crushing the Iraqi population might have been a better way. Peace might have come quicker that way.

Perhaps, Andrei, perhaps.

AL has pointed to the successes happening in Iraqi Kurdestan and I agree the freedom of the Kurds has been one big plus out of the whole exercise. Let's hope it can last.