Freak Flag Fly

AMMAN, Jordan, Jan. 21 -- President Bush's inaugural address... drew a skeptical reaction Friday in the Arab world, where analysts questioned whether the rhetoric of the speech was consistent with the administration's actions in the Middle East.

In interviews... a number of political analysts and commentators commended the values outlined in Bush's speech.... But they said the words belied the fact that the United States supports several authoritarian governments in the Middle East and would ring hollow to the many Arabs who perceive U.S. policy in the oil-rich region as motivated by financial concerns and support for Israel....

Several writers called the speech "messianic" in tone and language and potentially harmful to fledgling reform movements across the region.

"It's scary stuff, so sweeping and overarching you don't know what to make of it," said Sadiq Azm, a Syrian writer and reform advocate. "He's saying that what's good for America is good for everyone else. We are used to this kind of bombast from our Arab leaders. But it's been a long time since I've heard it in English."

...Many frustrated reformers say the apparent disarray of the U.S. project in Iraq has given autocratic governments an excuse to forgo even the most modest political reforms....

Many Arabs, including some involved in democratic reform movements, also say the U.S. record of alliances in the Middle East is at odds with Bush's agenda. The United States supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980s during Iraq's long war with Iran. The Bush administration has applied steady pressure on largely resourceless Syria, including economic sanctions for its military presence in Lebanon, while leaving alone the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, which sits atop a quarter of world's petroleum reserves.

...Abdulaziz Alsebail, a professor of modern literature at King Saud University in Riyadh and part of a reform movement in Saudi Arabia that is nudging the ruling family toward allowing more public participation in politics [said] "But the question is: How can you impose freedom? Is military intervention the right way to do it? I don't think it's been a very successful attempt at all."

"Are we going to see more military intervention, or are we talking about something like a Marshall Plan?" said Mohamed Alayyan, publisher of the al-Ghad daily newspaper in Amman. "To achieve this objective, the perception of the people in the Middle East must be changed, especially regarding the Palestinian dilemma and the treatment of prisoners of war. You cannot forget the effect Abu Ghraib had on American credibility here."

Azm called Bush's language "Churchillian, but at a time without an adversary as serious as the Nazi regime." He said the speech would likely alarm governments such as Syria's, already fearful of U.S. military intervention, as well as the reform movement that has been pushing Syrian President Bashar Assad to allow for more open government.

"People will see in this the old civilizing mission, the old colonialism," Azm said. "He has adopted the reformers' agenda, but in such a messianic way that even we are not ready to go that far."

Of course the rhetoric rings hollow to Arabs. Arabs are not the target audience. For Rove, the only audiences that matter are those affecting the electoral map. The inaugural speech must be understood therefore as both a post hoc justification for a failed Iraq invasion, and as part of a long term strategy to bludgeon Democrats as "freedom haters" everytime they disagree on foreign policy.