The Middle East (general catch all)

[Bill Moore]

Marc and Steve,

I agree it is too early to tell. While we successfully removed Saddam's regime, our attempt to transform Iraq is still largely a failed experiment in forcing Western values and political processes upon a people who didn't embrace them. I don't think any of the popular uprisings desire to follow the model we established there, BUT on the other hand, our occupation of Iraq probably motivated some interesting political discussions among the youth in several Arab nations and they decided they wanted change so much, that it broke the bonds of fear that the government had over the people.

Unfortunately in my view, we see people throughout the Middle East demonstrating against their corrupt and inefficient governments and seeking a greater say in governance, yet because these corrupt governments are our allies in the war on terror we don't have a policy for responding to these events. We seem to be paralyzed and letting a potential opportunity to let the Arab people reform the Middle East (something we can't do) slip through our fingers. It seems by our actions, or lack of action, that we would have preferred the status quo to remain, because the bastard you know may be better than the bastard you don't, but on the other hand we claim our policies are at least partially based on human rights, freedom and democracy. Once again we're losing credibility in the Middle East.

From my very bias seat, I see this as the a great opportunity for Special Forces to support the oppressed rise up against their corrupt governments, but, and maybe with good reason, we're too nervous about the morning after to engage.

Marc, I agree that the anti-western rhetoric in the Middle East had legs, but that seems to be waning a little. If we don't always support Israel, if we get past our desire to re-make the Middle East in our image, and we support legimate change that is desired by the Arab people, etc., then there will be less reason for the anti-western rhetoric to resonate. Saddam didn't have any answers, and I don't recall any other leaders in the Middle East who played the anti-western theme to their advantage that were effective in providing for their people. Iran isn't in the Arab world, but their anti-western rhetoric isn't winning them the support of their people. Saddam's anti-western rhetoric didn't win support from his people, but it did generate support from various anti-Israeli extremists, much like Qadaffi's anti-western rhetoric (before he allegedly became our friend) won more support from radicals outside Libya than his own people.

I think we'll be learning and relearning lessons for a long time based on these current upraisings. I only fear we'll discover the truth too late to act in ways that would benefit our interests and the Arab people.

[Dayuhan]

From my very bias seat, I see this as the a great opportunity for Special Forces to support the oppressed rise up against their corrupt governments,

Counterproductive, I suspect. When the operation ceased to be secret (wouldn't take long) those rising up would be de-legitimized, branded pawns of a meddling foreign government. Foreign intervention, especially if it involved arms, would also make it much easier to justify an armed crackdown, and once we are revealed as a participant we'd lose any credible status as mediator.

These uprisings are good things and should be helped along, but it has to be very subtle and if we go out trying to provoke them we are likely to make a mess.

All countries where the US has focused CT efforts and capacity building efforts to help these regimes more effectively deal with the "terrorists" within their borders. One man's freedom marcher is another man's terrorist; and our GWOT focus has been decidedly in support of the perspective of these despotic leaders in that regard. Even Libya became an ally in our war on terror, and leveraged that to gain greater license in the suppression of her own people.

Calling Libya a "US ally" is well exaggerated. They came off the "untouchable pariah" list but that's about all.

The Libyan regime never asked for or needed any license to oppress. Not many people do, really. They do it because its what they do; they don't ask permission and they don't care what we think.

[Bob's World]

Calling Libya a "US ally" is well exaggerated. They came off the "untouchable pariah" list but that's about all.

The Libyan regime never asked for or needed any license to oppress. Not many people do, really. They do it because its what they do; they don't ask permission and they don't care what we think.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/...6?pageNumber=1

We started down that path in 2007. I suspect there is little coincidence that this coincided with the Surge in Iraq, what with Libya being one of the major sources of foreign fighters to that conflict.

[Marc]

Marc, I agree that the anti-western rhetoric in the Middle East had legs, but that seems to be waning a little. If we don't always support Israel, if we get past our desire to re-make the Middle East in our image, and we support legimate change that is desired by the Arab people, etc., then there will be less reason for the anti-western rhetoric to resonate. Saddam didn't have any answers, and I don't recall any other leaders in the Middle East who played the anti-western theme to their advantage that were effective in providing for their people.

Bill, you are right. The effect of anti-western rhetoric is waning. However, the anti-western theme is still important. One analyst that did see the Egyptian uprising coming is David B. Ottaway, who published an occasional paper entitled "Egypt at a tipping point" in the summer of 2010. This is what he wrote about Mohamed ElBaradei:

A Ph.D. graduate in international law from New York University
School of Law, the balding, owlishlooking diplomat has spent his entire professional career working abroad either for the Egyptian foreign ministry or
at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Geneva. For 12 years he was the IAEA’s director general, emerging from bureaucratic obscurity with his outspoken criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003

In other words Ottaway says that ElBaradei's OPPOSITION increases his credibility on the Egyptian political scene.

Another thing. There are leaders in the Middle East who played the anti-western theme to their advantage AND were effective in providing for their people. This approach is at the core of many Islamist movements' strategies. Hizbollah, Hamas and Sadr's movement all combine effective humanitarian and social services programs with anti-western rhetoric.

I agree with you that anti-western rhetoric is no substitute for a lack of attention for the people's need, but I think that an emerging leader that combines anti-western rhetoric with effective policies concerning education, health care, and social assistance will quickly gain massive popular support.

[Marc]

Marc, I agree that the anti-western rhetoric in the Middle East had legs, but that seems to be waning a little. If we don't always support Israel, if we get past our desire to re-make the Middle East in our image, and we support legimate change that is desired by the Arab people, etc., then there will be less reason for the anti-western rhetoric to resonate. Saddam didn't have any answers, and I don't recall any other leaders in the Middle East who played the anti-western theme to their advantage that were effective in providing for their people.

Bill, you are right. The effect of anti-western rhetoric is waning. However, the anti-western theme is still important. One analyst that did see the Egyptian uprising coming is David B. Ottaway, who published an occasional paper entitled "Egypt at a tipping point" in the summer of 2010. This is what he wrote about Mohamed ElBaradei:

A Ph.D. graduate in international law from New York University
School of Law, the balding, owlishlooking diplomat has spent his entire professional career working abroad either for the Egyptian foreign ministry or
at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Geneva. For 12 years he was the IAEA’s director general, emerging from bureaucratic obscurity with his outspoken criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003

In other words Ottaway says that ElBaradei's OPPOSITION to OIF increases his credibility on the Egyptian political scene.

Another thing. There are leaders in the Middle East who played the anti-western theme to their advantage AND were effective in providing for their people. This approach is at the core of many Islamist movements' strategies. Hizbollah, Hamas and Sadr's movement all combine effective humanitarian and social services programs with anti-western rhetoric.

I agree with you that anti-western rhetoric is no substitute for a lack of attention for the people's need, but I think that an emerging leader that combines anti-western rhetoric with effective policies concerning education, health care, and social assistance will quickly gain massive popular support.

[tequila]

For those interested, the Ottaway paper is here. I would disagree with the characterization that Ottaway saw the revolution coming - he rated such an event as highly unlikely.

Might Egypt have its own version of Eastern Europe’s “color revolutions” or Iran’s mass street protests? No Egyptian I talked to felt either was very likely. They cited the apolitical and easy-going nature of most Egyptians, the limited number of activists and the government’s skill in keeping economic and social discontent from turning into a political opposition—at least so far. “The Dream of the Green Revolution,” the title of a new book timed to ElBaradei’s return, was pretty much just that.

On the other hand, Western diplomats reported that the Mubarak government appeared to live in constant fear of a major social explosion at any moment. They worried how long Egypt could remain peaceful while faced with such a yawning gap between rich and poor, a bulging population, mounting worker unrest, worsening living conditions in Cairo and high unemployment among the of thousands of graduating university students.

I would posit that "anti-Western rhetoric" is not going to be central to the next Egyptian government, which will likely be focused overwhelmingly on economic and institutional reform issues.

Note that the organizations you listed all originated as clandestine resistance movements in countries under Western military occupation, which might have something to do with their penchant for such rhetoric.

[Marc]

Note that the organizations you listed all originated as clandestine resistance movements in countries under Western military occupation, which might have something to do with their penchant for such rhetoric

Tequila,

Hamas is an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (Gaza was Egyptian until 1967). Please note that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's ideologue at the time (Said Qutb) never needed a Western military occupation to have a penchant for anti-western rhetoric. In case you still have a doubt, please consult Qutb's writings.

[tequila]

Hamas != the Egyptian MB. It has no operational ties with the MB and has evolved in quite a different direction. Hamas post-1982 has little in common with the original network of mosques.

The Egyptian MB also had its roots in resistance to British occupation, BTW. As for Qutb, that's a much longer conversation that needs its own thread, but I would categorize him as a political Islamist who saw Islam and unswerving adherence to sharia as constituting the perfect society, and those who deviated or disagreed (including non-Muslim Western powers, but principally non-Islamist Muslims) as enemies of God.

Also, it should be noted that el-Baradei was proven 100% correct with regards to his objection to OIF.

Regardless of the above details, I do not think that Egypt's main political concerns going forward will involve foreign policy unless a crisis is forced upon it.

[omarali50]

A few quick random thoughts (sorry, not systematically thought out):
1. The US does not seem to have the agility needed to interfere positively (on a case by case basis, not on some general principle) in most crises.
2. Anti-American feeling in the Arab world is derived primarily from support for Israel, only secondarily from any support the US gives to local tyrants. Egypt was being aided on behalf of Israel, not because the US has any special fondness for the free officers group or any other group of thugs who may have grabbed power. Since US support for Israel is likely to continue, so is a background level of anti-Americanism.
3. The idea that good deeds can buy goodwill does not seem to stand up to scrutiny. Propaganda (skillful propaganda, not the USIS variety) and tribal identity (friend of my friend, enemy of my enemy and so on) plays more into goodwill than actual good deeds. And bad deeds stick around much longer than any good deed. Since the US is bound to be involved in some bad deeds, is a friend of Israel, and has been successfully cast as an opponent of the success of Islamdom (never mind whether that dream has any rational basis or not), its hopes of buying goodwill by throwing money at some corrupt local officials are basically nil. Why bother?
4. Remaining despots will be looking for ways to forge better links with China and Ukraine and Belarus. But its not like the US can stop this trend by toning down some rhetoric or going easy on democracy. There is just no way the US can go as easy on democracy as China or Belarus. Why try?
5. ISI must be celebrating with champagne since the Saudis may now be willing to pay through the nose for good mercenaries. But this is not a general trend, it just happens to be the case for Saudia and Pakistan. Overall, the spread of these revolts is good news. Just not as good as Americans would like.
6. It seems to me, in my naive amateurism, that the US would not be any worse off trusting democracy and encouraging open-ness. The US has strengths here. China and Russia and Belarus do not. Why not play to your strengths, even if some anti-Americanism is going to hang around?

[Marc]

Hamas != the Egyptian MB.

No, Hamas is not the Egyptian MB. Hamas is an offshoot of the MB.

The Egyptian MB also had its roots in resistance to British occupation, BTW.

Your point was that Hamas, Hizbullah, and Sadr’s movement had a greater penchant towards anti-western rhetoric than autocrats because of their emergence under occupation:

Note that the organizations you listed all originated as clandestine resistance movements in countries under Western military occupation, which might have something to do with their penchant for such rhetoric.

The Brotherhood’s roots in resistance to British occupation is not a differentiating factor in its penchant towards anti-western rhetoric. Almost all political organizations in the Middle East (including the autocratic regimes themselves) have their roots in resistance to colonial occupation.

BTW, anyone familiar with Qutb’ biography knows that his anti-western rhetoric does not have its origin in his opposition to colonialism, but in his rejection of western civilization after experiencing it himself during his exile in the United States. See for this: Man, Society, and Knowledge in the Islamist Discourse of Sayyid Qutb By Ahmed Bouzid p.21

But what is clear is that by the time Qutb returned from his exile in America in 1951, his commitments to Islam and his rejection of "materialist" culture were explicit and fully articulated. His rejection of American society was apparently so sanguine that the Ministry of Education forced him to resign from his post.

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/ava...cted/Final.pdf