Victor Davis Hanson asks that question, a disquieting one.

...at some point the world is asking: “Is Mr. Assad or Hussein, the Saudi Royal Family, or a Khadafy really an aberration—all rogues who hijacked Arab countries—or are they the logical expression of a tribal patriarchal society whose frequent tolerance of barbarism is in fact reflected in its leadership? Are the citizens of Fallujah the victims of Saddam, or did folk like this find their natural identity expressed in Saddam? Postcolonial theory and victimology argue that European colonialism, Zionism, and petrodollars wrecked the Middle East. But to believe that one must see India in shambles, Latin America under blanket autocracy, and an array of suicide bombers pouring out of Mexico or Nigeria. South Korea was a moonscape of war when oil began gushing out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia; why is it now exporting cars while the latter are exporting death? Apartheid was far worse than the Shah’s modernization program; yet why did South Africa renounce nuclear weapons while the Mullahs cheated on every UN protocol they could?

No, there is something peculiar to the Middle East that worries the world. The Arab world for years has promulgated a quite successful media image as perennial victims—proud folks, suffering under a series of foreign burdens, while nobly maintaining their grace and hospitality. Middle-Eastern Studies programs in the United States and Europe published an array of mostly dishonest accounts of Western culpability, sometimes Marxist, sometimes anti-Semitic that were found to be useful intellectual architecture for the edifice of panArabism, as if Palestinians or Iraqis shared the same oppressions, the same hopes, and the same ideals as downtrodden American people of color—part of a universal “other” deserving victim status and its attendant blanket moral exculpation. But the curtain has been lifted since 9-11 and the picture we see hourly now is not pretty.

[Update late on Sunday evening]

Michael Ledeen comments at Charles Johnson's site.

What he said.

I've never bought the conventional "wisdom" that the backward, barbaric Arab world of today is somehow our fault. Their behavior is their fault, and the sooner they accept and face their culpability the sooner they can join the modern world.

I'm not holding my breath.

Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr issued a statement April 4 reading, "There is no use for demonstrations, as your enemy loves to terrify and suppress opinions, and despises peoples. I ask you not to resort to demonstrations because they have become a losing card and we should seek other ways. Terrorise your enemy, as we cannot remain silent over its violations."

The feeling of victimization is not just a media image. Most Arabs, I believe, genuinely consider themselves victims -- of the West and their leaders.

What struck me during my time there, several years ago, was the lack of any willingness to take responsibility to address the problems facing their societies. While expressions of charity and support among family and friends are common, most of the folks I knew seemed to assume that someone else had an obligation to help them, and saw little reason to organize and work to help themselves. For example, I was told more than once -- by middle class Western educated Arabs -- that it was not "our way" to encourage foreign high tech companies to build local facilities that would hire unemployed college graduates. "Our way" meant that the oil-rich states should send money.

All this, of course, means that Arab societies have no political hope to offer their victims. What's left is religion and fananticism.

Well, they don't really do much of anything over there except flop out the oil teat for us. I can't imagine that engendering a lot of ethnic pride.

That oil is their curse.

What the heck does celebrex have to do with "Did Saddam Create Fallujah Or Fallujah Saddam?"