As Barry Rubin notes in the Winter 2007 edition of The Middle East Quarterly, Arab rhetoric today is no different than it was 40 years ago. "Both the United States and Israel are demonized," write Rubin. "There is expectation of imminent revolution and unprecedented Arab-Muslim unity. As there is also no victory but total victory, diplomatic compromise is treasonous. Conspiracy theories blaming 'the Zionists' and 'arrogant powers' run supreme."

For a brief time during the 1990's, following Saddam's defeat in Kuwait and the apparent success of the Oslo peace process, there was hope that Arabs might reject the mistakes of the past and develop a genuine civil society. But the region quickly sank back into its old groove when the Palestinians rejected peace with Israel and launched their intifada. Then came September 11, the suppression of internal reform movements and the electoral victories of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. Today the Arabs remain obsessed with preserving their "honor" by destroying Israel and driving the U.S. out of the Middle East, sentiments that local dictators like Syrian President Hafez al-Assad and Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah are happy to promote.

"There are four major factors that repeat" in Arab thinking, according to Rubin. "[F]irst is the concept of resistance against foreign powers; second is self-deception about the adversary's strength; third is the belief in a political superhero who will lead Arabs and Muslims to victory; and fourth is the new 'resistance' axis which promises easy and quick solutions, albeit through large-scale bloodshed. Why compromise if total victory is achievable?" Why indeed?

These ideas have led to defeat upon defeat. Yet the Arabs soldier on. In that respect they resemble the leaders of the old Soviet Union, who insisted that despite repeated disasters communism was on the horizon. Somewhere along the way the Commies forgot the definition of "horizon": an imaginary line that recedes as you approach it.

The Arabs are not stupid. Rather, they're in thrall to powerful dictators who perpetuate these behavior patterns in a cynical bid to preserve their regimes. In addition, radical Islamist groups find the language of "resistance" and martyrdom useful for gaining new recruits. In this murderous environment moderates are few and far between.

The left in the United States has relentlessly mocked President Bush for his efforts to create a civil society in Iraq and promote reform throughout the Arab world. Granted, these efforts are idealistic. But what's the alternative? If the U.S. effort in the Middle East fails, the violence, dictatorship and repression there will continue for generations, and probably come back to bite us. Is this really what the so-called "realists" want?