If President Bush would read his stump speech on NCLB when making Middle East policy, we'd be in a better place.
Note: Not an endorsement of the implementation of NCLB (longer note at the end)
Although there are few things stupider than judging something like the success or failure of the Bush Doctrine before 10-20 years have elapsed (not that it stops anybody), I do feel free to comment as to why I believe it's going in the wrong direction right now, and will most likely fail. The reason, is that President Bush did not apply the principles set forth in his education policy towards the Middle East.
Here's what President Bush told the RNC when trying to promote his No Child Left Behind program:
We are transforming our schools by raising standards and focusing on results. We are insisting on accountability, empowering parents and teachers, and making sure that local people are in charge of their schools.
The principal -- the principal expresses the philosophy of his school this way: "We don't focus on what we can't do at this school; we focus on what we can do. And we do whatever it takes to get kids across the finish line.
See, this principal is challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations.
The Bush Administration's approach towards democratization in the Middle East was rushed and therefore flawed. The focus was on elections rather than real progress. The U.S. focused on what it couldn't do (ensure stability via elections) rather than on what it could do (demand rights). President Bush pretended to challenge the idea that Arab nations couldn't hold elections rather than the idea that Arab nations could not develop tolerant systems of government and education.
In doing so, President Bush not only failed to challenge these nations - but opened the door for extremists to seize control and international legitimacy all at once. What Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. always wanted was a chance to compete in an election and seize on contempt towards the regional despots in order to gain control and use the official organs of government to move towards what each group desires (for example, Al-Qaeda wants to re-establish a caliphate).
By pretending that free and open elections were key to democracy, rather than tolerance and liberty, the U.S. forced itself into a position where a properly elected party with a fascist ideology would be able to label itself a democracy. Since the entire selling point of democracy was 'free and open elections,' the US is now left in a position where it can't make further demands that would prevent scenes such as the sectarian violence in Iraq from erupting anywhere a 'free election' is carried out. Agendas such as tolerance of minorities, constructive education and curbing incitement are the real fruits of democracy that is in the Western world's interest (and that Arab world's) that the Arab nations adopt.
However, the US and other Western states quick to praise elections were guilty of the cardinal sin of dealing with another culture: pretending that what worked for you works for everybody. Since elections were a conduit for the desired result in Europe, they were presumed to be equally effective for others.
Ignored in this analysis was the fact Europe did not have a foreign force come in and impose [or allow, depending on your desired political spin] elections. Europe went through several ages of revolutions, internal wars, philosophical innovations before the finished product was ready. Most are either unaware or are forgetful that John Locke based his theories on the existence of a God, knowing that he needed to speak to those he was addressing in terms they'd relate with.
But the US took the finished product and presented it for export to the Arab world without realizing that it is not any one feature of Western democracy that will one day produce the desired outcome in the Middle East, but rather the process of getting there. That is something which cannot be imposed or superimposed on distinct societies. The absolute best we can do is offer incentives for things like female participation in higher education.
The soft bigotry here was that Arabs could not go through that process alone (the merits of which can be debated separately), and just as with education - low expectations lead to suboptimal results.
___________________________________
Note: For a discussion on the effectiveness of 'No Child Left Behind,' please go somewhere else. I have no idea if it works. I haven't followed its implementation. I understand there are issues with execution, particularly funding. The idea of the above post was using the underlying theory, not pointing to a model of implementation.
This, too, is adopted from a post I made on my blog. To avoid excessive pimping, I won't link it unless requested.