The Power of Truth

[Beavah]

Yah, as a Cit World MB counselor, I find myself a bit surprised by this week's events in Tunisia.

 

Trying to figure out where the Arab world is headed with its very young population and very limited freedom and opportunity is an interestin' thing, eh?

 

But as fascinating as a popular revolt against a middle eastern dictatorship is, what's even more fascinating is the apparent trigger ... Wikileaks. The leaked U.S. Diplomatic cables detailing the level of corruption of the Tunesian leadership apparently were the tipping point that set off the protests that led to the dictator fleeing the country today.

 

There is somethin' deep and profound in that, eh? While our diplomatic efforts so often mollycoddle these regimes... while we feared that the cable leaks would damage U.S. security, the reality turns out to be much different. The truth, spoken plainly in our "secret" cables, has a power that neither our diplomats nor our armed forces has, eh? Not a power to hurt us. The Truth, spoken plainly, is the bane of dictators and despots, not of liberty. The truth might well be what it takes to set millions in the middle east free.

 

There's a lesson there, eh?

 

I pray for the people of Tunisia. May they find their Washington, their Franklin, their Jefferson. May they find liberty. And may their example set the fire of freedom to the Arab world.

 

Insha'allah. By the grace of God.

 

Beavah

 

Beavah

[vol_scouter]

Republicans seem to always do what is expedient in dealing with other countries. So even if a country is the antithesis of our values, republicans will support the regime if it supports US interests. Democrats say the right thing but end up doing the same thing. We should become an honest broker in the world.

[Oak Tree]

Real truth, real freedom - are very powerful.

 

And why do we need to be a broker at all?

[eisely]

The more I hear about the content of the Wikileaks stuff, the more it sounds like a good thing.

[Eagledad]

>>Republicans seem to always do what is expedient in dealing with other countries. So even if a country is the antithesis of our values, republicans will support the regime if it supports US interests. Democrats say the right thing but end up doing the same thing. We should become an honest broker in the world.

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

It seems to me that many of the Islamic nations of the Middle East are composed of young people who get a lot of radical views from local religious leaders or from religious leaders on the internet. These young people are also underemployed and as all young people, have a desire to do tinges differently from the previous generations. The combination makes a revolution likely. Just my observations.

[scoutingagain]

I think what interesting about the Tunisian uprising is that it seems to have truely bubbled up from the grass roots, similar to what we saw in Eastern Europe in the early 80's. It is not the same as the Iranian revolution where Islamists took advantage of the situation to sieze power and impose their own theocracy.

 

And yes, seems like both parties have made their share of foreign policy blunders. If only they would at least learn from their own and each others mistakes.

 

SA

 

 

 

[JoeBob]

The Egyptian riots this morning are being credited to Facebook and Twitter. It seems that if you have internet access, you can communicate en masse. A small uprising can be contained by the forces of government. A co-ordinated mass uprising is bigger than govt can handle.

 

The truth? On the internet? I refuse to relegate Julian Assange as the arbiter of truth...

[Beavah]

Nah, not that Assange is the arbiter of truth. The truth was what we wrote in our diplomatic communiques. Research and comment by professional American foreign service professionals. We were the speakers of truth, eh? Except only to ourselves.

 

All Assange did was make it available to the people of Tunisia. On the internet.

 

B

 

 

 

[JoeBob]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

But three rights make a left.

[Beavah]

 

Interestingly, there was a long piece in today's NYTimes Magazine by the executive editor of the times, detailing their involvement in the Wikileaks release and their editorial decisions along the way. A fascinating read.

 

Assange comes off as quite a flake.

 

B

 

[Proud Eagle]

So what happens when a government is overthrown based on bad intel? After all, we overthrew a government based on bad intel, so we know our intel is not always correct. What happens when WikiLeaks leaks something that turns out not to be fact, and people act on that incorrect information, assuming it to be truth? It may not have happened yet, but given enough time it is bound to happen sooner or later.

 

Also, in poli sci circles we speak of both procedural and substantive liberty and democracy. Countries can in fact have democracti processes for making laws, and yet the substance of those laws could be authoritarian. Just because people are casting votes or there are mobs in the streets doesn't mean the actual will of the peopel is at work, and even if the will of the people is behind something that doesn't make the thing good or the people more free.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

[OldGreyEagle]

I thought we overthrew that goverment because that government would not live up to the treaty that it signed that called for UN Weapon Inspectors to , to, to, well inspect for weapons and after a myriad of "last chances" resolutions it was time to act.

 

They really did allow UN Weapon INspectors in the country?

[Lisabob]

OGE - yes, though not with perfect access. Even just a couple of months prior to the war. The weapons inspection thing was a pretext.

 

Here's a BBC timeline for UN weapons inspections in Iraq (1991-2002). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm Note that UN weapons inspections resumed in November 2002.

 

And here's a report, delivered by UN weapons inspector Hans Blix to the UN, on January 27, 2003. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

 

Weapons inspectors were pulled from Iraq in early March 2003.

 

Note that the weapons inspectors had only a couple of months to try to get up and running (after a 4 year absence from Iraq), before the US said "enough!" and went to war, instead. Had the weapons inspectors been given a more reasonable time frame to do their job in Iraq in late 2002-early 2003, who knows how things might have turned out.

 

 

 

[JoeBob]

Irony:

Egyptian ElBaradei was the UN's weapons inspector when he won his Nobel laureate.

Now he's the most probable replacement for Mubarack.