This is very interesting, and I agree depressing. It also does not bode well for the "Bush Doctrine" of spreading democracy around the world.

As we see in Gaza, Afghanistan and Iraq - tribal, ethnic and family ties seem to be winning out over the central governments (so to speak). Maybe there are places in the world that are just not ready for democracy...

One of the fallacies of multiculturalism is that every person, culture, ethnicity, etc. is equally valuable simply because it exists. I think a better way to look at that is that every people has something to contribute, but they are by no means equal.

Some would call the above paragraph racism. But there is a wonderful essay by Mark Helprin that he wrote around the time of 9/11 that explains what I'm trying to say a little better. He talks about how we've all been taught that we should respect other peoples' customs---not to interfere---and just live and let live. Fine, that sounds great on its face. But what if we learn that there is an indiginous tribe in the Amazon that still performs child sacrifice on a regular basis? Should we leave that alone? Should we impose sanctions? Won't saving those children destroy that tribe's wonderful tapestry-making culture? The answer to all those questions is of course, "no."

It's time we in the civilized West stop beating ourselves up about evolving to the point where we are. It does not necessarily mean we are better people than those who live in Africa, but we have the capacity to help them. And just because some of our ancestors were greedy or tried to forcibly convert them, it doesn't mean we are guilty now or we should just let them be.

I feel the same about the Arab world. There is a clear truth that the people in that world are living in a weird universe of 10th century sensibilities combined with 21st century media and weaponry. We cannot really reason with them when they are 1,100 years behind us. We can't even lead by example. We need to neutralize their ability to hurt others with the weapons or resources they cannot begin to understand in any reasonable way. I know that sounds terribly elitist... but too bad. If I were to compare myself to the Nazis, I'd sound elitist too.

At the same time, we have to keep evolving. If we're going to promote freedom abroad, we need to do something about our own government that is increasingly just a commodity to be bought and sold. If we're going to promote real medical care in places like Africa, we need to make sure we're improving the quality and cost of health care over here. Etc.

But never, not for one second, should we forget that we are an open society with a great deal accomplished in the name of freedom. Places like Africa will never get better as long as good people like us look the other way... even if it is out of good intentions like "respect for all cultures."

Here is the key part of the Helprin essay I referred to above:

Several years ago, I was speaking in a university town in Massachusetts. By some quirk which I hope never to see reproduced, and before I knew what was happening, I found myself debating my entire audience on the subjects of human sacrifice and cannibalism. These well-educated and polite people -- only a few of whom would actually have murdered or eaten one another -- who had sons and daughters, Ph.D.s, and BMWs, were defending the Mayan and Aztec practice of human sacrifice -- that is, in the main, of children -- and the South Sea custom of cannibalism. It wasn't that they were for such things: they weren't. It wasn't that they were not against them: they were. It was that to take the position that human sacrifice and cannibalism are wrong is not only to reject relativism but to place oneself decisively in the ranks of Western Civilization, such a position being one of its characteristic distinctions, and this they would not do. They were ashamed to do so, and they were afraid to do so. My charge to you is that in this, you never be either ashamed or afraid.
Civilization is vulnerable not only to munitions, it is vulnerable to cowardice and betrayal. It is a great and massive thing of many dimensions that can be attacked from many angles. When professors of ethics at leading universities advocate infanticide, you know that civilization is under attack. When governments and churches advocate racial discrimination, you know that civilization is under attack. When a popular "art" exhibit consists of human cadavers in various states of mutilation, including a bisected pregnant woman and her unborn child, you know that civilization is under attack. The list is endless. The daily assault could fill an encyclopedia of decadence and degradation.

Wanderer:

So, we meet again. I had a feeling we would. Thanks for your comment. As imperfect as the Bush Doctrine of Democracy is, and gee we do live in an imperfect world, it is certainly an improvement over a policy of isolation which will doom millions of human beings to wreched lives under murderous tyrannies.

It's hard to compare the Arab world to Africa though clan allegiances do dominate. The reason being that large segments of the Arab world have declared war on the west and so we have taken the war to them. Fighting densively is the best way to lose a war, so attacking/liberating their shores is the best of choices.

Iraq was home to terrorist gangs and murderous training camps. Let us never forget that Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of homicide bombers in israel. Overthrowing this Arab Stalin and his Baathist thugs (modeled on the Nazi party) was and is a blow for decency and humanity.

Africa, so far, is not a military threat to America. Our choices there are when to try and save lives. Unfortunately the intertribal wars are so complicated that we invariably get lost in the morass of feuds. Mogadishu has destroyed our will to interfere in African affairs for a very long time. Thus many, many millions will die through genocide, (see Darfur), hunger and disease.

As I said, this book is a brutal lesson in how the world is, not how we would like it to be.

Glad we could connect again - despite any disagreements we may or may not have, I enjoy your blog and find it an admirable pursuit in memory of your son, OBM.

What troubles me about your response here is similar to what troubles me about the Bush Administration's planning for the post-war.

You identify some of the reasons why we went to war, which could be debated, but we will assume they are all valid. At the moment we are embedded at war in Afghanistan and Iraq - this is a fact.

From your initial post, I think the book you were describing dealt more with post-colonial Africa, the period of (attempted) nation-building. The parallel I am trying to draw is of our "exit strategy" from Iraq and Afghanistan and whether or not there is any hope for it to succeed based on the book you reviewed.

The central government in Afghanistan continues to be completely ineffective outside of Kabul, and the rest of the country continues to be run by tribal opium-trading warlords. In Iraq, the insurgency is being fought along religious and ethnic lines. Iraq was carved out by the colonial powers (like in Africa), and Afghanistan is really a collection of family clans. I don't even want to get into Gaza and the other Palestinian-administered territories and open up a can of worms...

What I am trying to do is to take the Bush Doctrine to the next level (finishing the job, so to speak). I don't think the Bush Administration has effectively done that, which is why I fear that the Bush Doctrine may be half-baked. The book you reviewed, in my estimation, lends some creedence to this view.

Wanderer:

Talking about an exit strategy is a waste of time, it's a way of letting the enemy know when they can take over. You fight until you destroy the enemy. It takes time and it takes blood. It's called war.

Don't forget we had troops all over Europe 50 years after WWII.

We have Delta Forces in over 90 countries right now, you just don't hear about it because they are fighting low intensity conflicts.

Drawing parallels bewteen African nations and Arab nations just doesn't wash. Our national interests are entirely different. The geo-politics are worlds apart.

I don't know if the Bush doctrine is half-baked. Neither do you. Only history will tell. President Reagan was the subject of ridicule by the chattering classes. But he refused to live with communism. He met it head-on and brought that evil empire crashing down.

At least Bush wants to do something. The alternative is isolation and European pacificism which is slow motion suicide.

You should read the book before drawing conclusions about the Arab world. I did not mention that canabalism is alive and well in Africa. That mass rape of little girls is common. That juju magic is used in warfare so primitive it would make your head spin. No, I left out a great deal for fear of making my readers violently ill.

Thanks again for your comments. Especially for your kind words about our son Ariel ZT'L. No matter our political differences, your generosity of spirit shines through. I have a feeling that you are a very compassionate physician.