Freedom for the Entire Middle East? Just How Much Fight Have We Got?

There is not a child in the world (or an adult I would bet) who has ever said, "neener, neener, neener."

The phrase is - nah nah nah nah nahhhh nah.

If you can't get that right, what hope is there for you?

Posted by mark butterworth at March 2, 2005 12:57 PM

Alas, sirrah, you are wrong. Many have neener-neenered and many more will neener-neener before the last trump.

Posted by Gerard Van Der Leun at March 2, 2005 1:00 PM

Maybe not in Iran, that's pretty obviously going to be counter-productive and a little more than we could chew. But I'll bet those Bushies are aching for a shot at Lebanon, and what's more I'll bet on someone's desk right now some guys are looking at how to go about it.

Neener is East Coast. Nah nah nah nah naaah nah was common in the Midwest. Never head neener until I moved East and suffered repeated humiliations at the hands of assorted tykes and urchins.

Posted by spongeworthy at March 2, 2005 1:24 PM

Now who REALLY tried to hustle the East--GWB or OBL?

Posted by slimedog at March 2, 2005 2:11 PM

The Army may be stretched tight but the Air Force has a lot of planes that aren't too busy right now. If there's a popular revolution we can give it air support. Could wind up looking a lot like the Afghanistan campaign.

Hmmm - I haven't heard of any special ops troops doing stuff in Iraq lately. Guess I don't have need to know on what they're doing now.

Posted by Karl Gallagher at March 2, 2005 2:13 PM

Neener, neener, nah nah, nyah nyah... This is a little off the subject of bombing and spreading democracy, but do any of you guys get a reaction to a 'nooner'?

Hint, hint: Sex at lunch.

Sheesh.. Too silly today.

Posted by Amy at March 2, 2005 2:39 PM

Jeez, Mr. Van Der Leun, did you have to call the cops? It's not even midnight yet. Are we making THAT much noise?

I know I am. I've been one of the absurdly optimistic ones about the potential for wildfire spread of democracy, and I guess I was more excited about this stuff than I realized, because until I read this it hadn't actually occurred to me that everything might not work out to my satisfaction. I can't tell if that's because I have such low expectations for the Middle East that any improvement seems like found money, or just that I'm naive and see a house of cards where in reality something more dynamic and complicated exists. I suspect that's where Kipling comes in. Hmmm.

Anyway, thanks for pulling me back from the edge, I probably can't afford to be more insufferable than I usually am.

Posted by Uncle Mikey at March 2, 2005 3:31 PM

Do you really think Assad would try a Hama redux, GV? The whole world is watching Lebanon; Arab political consciousness is higher than it's been in decades; and America and Europe, for once, are unambiguously allied against him. Considering the response to Hariri's assassination, I think he's inclined to tread very lightly now lest another heavy-handed action bring the protesters out in Damascus, too.

I haven't read or seen anything indicating imminent rebellion in Syria or Iran so I assume those two governments are going to play it safe by lying low and hoping for something to go wrong in Baghdad or Beirut. But if an uprising does break out and is put down by violent means, then yeah, I think harsh words will be the extent of the administration's response: after all the teeth-gnashing and shirt-rending over Iraq, it's going to take an awful lot before GWB pulls the trigger on another invasion. And it's not like a strongly-worded denunciation would be entirely worthless; having America and Europe on his side surely helped Yushchenko and his supporters.

One more point. I think the fact that Shiites are in ascendance in the region means that if an attack on Iran's nuclear reactor is coming, it'll have to be the U.S. and not Israel that undertakes it. If the Israelis hit Iran, the mullahs will try to use "the Zionist enemy's aggression," etc., to drum up Shiite solidarity in Iraq and Lebanon (assuming Hezbollah joins the new government) and turn the political tides in those countries towards reactionism. It's harder for them to do that if we hit the reactor because we've proven our good faith, by and large, to the Shiites in Iraq. So I think the die is cast -- assuming, er, that Bush actually goes and casts it.

Posted by Allah at March 2, 2005 4:37 PM

I worry because it is not my impression that totalitarian regimes always go gently into that good night just because their people camp out in public squares in search of self-determination. A square named "Tiananmen" comes to mind in this regard.

Perhaps it is also a matter of what political flavor and how long-established the totalitarian regime is, and the size of the country?

Posted by P.A. Breault at March 2, 2005 5:59 PM

It is, I think, mostly a matter of how well armed the people actually are. In the absence of an armed populace and in the presence of an unscrupulous totalitarian government, the only real hope for the people comes from an outside intervention powered by force of arms.

Posted by Gerard Van Der Leun at March 2, 2005 6:32 PM

Allah,
I think that is exactly what GWB wants everyone to believe - military capability and political will are overstretched. I don't think they are as nearly as stretched as believed and I don't think GWB gives much of a concern over elite opinion if he believes the US would benefit by forcefully defending a popular uprising in Lebanon or other key place. We shall see.

Posted by phil g at March 3, 2005 7:30 AM