My only thoughts have to do with punctuation and protocol.....Originally Posted by joelb
My only thoughts have to do with punctuation and protocol.....
Example is better than precept.
The last time when I was in Bahrain in April 1995 there was an episode of Shiite protesting that occasionally led to incidents of violence. Helicopters were flying over Manama, there were a couple of pillars of smoke rising in the air, and from a distance of about 400 meters away I saw a traffic control point with an APC or two. I wasn't particularly concerned about my personal safety and just went about my business as usual -- it wasn't as though it was Normandy or anything like that.
I was there because the heaviest rainfall in Bahrain since 1945 had caused flooding in a warehouse next to the U.S. Navy base there that contained U.S. Army war reserve medical stuff. (Over there they don't build stormwater drainage systems like we do because they rarely need them.) The damage to the medical supplies was negligible but I found holes torn in the roof of the warehouse that had been caused by high winds during the storm. I told the Navy about it because their contracting office was the organization leasing the facility.
During the period of '94-'95 when I went back and forth to Bahrain I saw occasional news stories about Saudi crackdowns on Shiites living on the east coast of Saudi Arabia by the Persian Gulf. The stories invariably said the troubles were caused by Iranian provocation. I don't know whether that was actually true or just something the Saudis were saying. I'd like to see a map of the region that shows the percentages of Shiites living in the coastal areas of eastern Saudi Arabia, vis-a-vis the Sunnis. It would also be interesting to see the same thing about the other smaller Gulf nations.
It doesn't show percentages, but it shows majority in various areas.
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/...ionCore_lg.jpg
Example is better than precept.
Shiites have long been an oppressed minority on the Arabian Peninsula; though a disproportionately large portion of the known oil deposits is drawn from their land. The northern Saudi oil, Bahrain are notable, and it looks like the oil producing part of Yemen as well.
Knowing that the Brits had Iranian oil cornered when the US made a move on Arab oil; I would not be surprised if this influenced our perspectives as to who to throw our lot in with. To elevate Shiite leadership may have been seen as too likely to fall under Britiish influence.
This is a division we could play to our advantage today, both to help stabilize and reduce the strategic significance of the Saudis; and also to open better lines of communication with the Iranians. Both of those are vital US interests.
The Gulf States sending security forces understand this very well, and those leaders are acting far more to sustain their own status quo than they are to ensure there are no temporary disruptions of oil flow. Temporary they can live with; but the creation of 1-2 Shiite states on the AP? I suspect that makes them very nervous indeed.
Next thing you know the Hashemites will re-exert their claim on leadership of the region...
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Are you expecting Obama/Clinton statements along the lines of: Obama Says Libyan Officials Could Be Held for War Crimes or do you think Saudi and the Gulf States have seen the US is all bark and no bite in these matters and are just ignoring the US?
I think we lack the moral convictions to stand consistently by our express principles as a nation. Sometimes hard interests demand that to be the case; but when one takes a principle-based approach I think they need to clearly communicate that they are taking a deviation from that path knowingly, and why.
As I understand it, Bahrain used to be the entire Gulf Coast of the AP, like the right post of a capital H. The al Sauds were constrained to the highlands across the center, much like the crossbar of that H, where they tied into the Hashemites that ran along the Red Sea, completing the H. The Portuguese conquered Bahrain, and then in turn were run off by an insurgent movement that opened the door for Iran to extend its influence and Shia-ism into the Gulf Coast of the AP in the 1600s. At the end of the day, the Iranians are rolled back, leaving pockets of Shiite Arabs, the Hashemites are awarded the booby prize of Iraq and Jordan; and the al Sauds get the bulk of the AP.
And here we are today. Our principles and our interest are in direct conflict in all of the Gulf states. Can a middle ground be struck? I doubt it. Can liberty be once again suppressed by these governments? For some period of time, certainly. Can it be denied indefinitely? No. This might not be the final push by the people, but that push is coming.
This is a time for hard diplomacy rather than hard action. To sit and hope it all smooths out is a bit Polly Anneish. "Smart Power" could turn down the temperature of the GWOT several notches if we could convince these leaders that the best way to stay in power is to make smart, reasonable, moderate concessions to their people. To trend toward a parliamentary system with a more ceremonial role for the Royals seems logical to me; while granting greater justice in the judicial systems, and a greater voice in governance to the populace. This would also allow the Royals to get closer to Islam as most want, while allowing the government to become a bit more secular. Creating a bit of an artificial separation that Muslims seem quite happy with, but that baffles Westerners (such as going to a western country and partying like a rock star, then returning to pious Islam once back at home with no sense of sin or hypocrisy).
Personally, I think we'll F this up.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
That is the whole problem both for our foreign policy and our domestic policy. The law, the rules, don't matter anymore. Which ever party is in power will bend and twist them to suit their agenda. Keep doing that and soon there want be any laws or principles just a struggle for survivial....greed backed by force.
Last edited by slapout9; 03-16-2011 at 04:31 PM. Reason: fix stuff
The al Khalifa dynasty has been ruling Bahrain since around 1776; they're Sunnis and the name has the same meaning as our word caliph. IIRC the British made it a protectorate in the 1840s following an anti-piracy campaign in the Persian Gulf. In essence the al Khalifas were allowed to rule the place domestically and let the British take care of foreign affairs. The British pulled out in about 1972 and we located our naval base in the old Royal Navy station there.
One Bahraini who worked for our Navy said many Bahraini residents have had their families in the country for two or three generations but they are not given complete citizenship rights because they're Shiites with roots in Iran. One of the sources of Shiite resentment are the many guest workers there, people from Pakistan, India and the Philippines who are seen as taking "their" jobs away. This is all off the top of my head and I'm sure the CIA's online page on the country has more precise information.
Our principles as a nation apply to us. There is nothing in those principles that requires or recommends their export to or imposition on others.
There are lots of ways it "used to be". As with most of that region, the islands now called "Bahrain" have been conquered by and incorporated into a rather wide variety of entities over the centuries. There was never any static "the way it used to be" that was disrupted by the colonial age.
There is no conflict between principles and interests, because there is nothing in our principles that requires us to demand that other nations live up to our principles. Our principles are our principles. We need to live by them. That doesn't mean we can or should impose them elsewhere.
We can't convince these leaders of anything, as we just saw in Bahrain. We recommended concessions and reform. Our recommendations were rejected. Not much we can do about it.
Back in the Cold War we got used to assuming that any despot who was nominally on our side was sponsored by us, sustained by us, accountable to us, and could be directed by us. That's no longer the case. We're not dealing here with Somozas or Marcoses. These guys don't care what we think, we have no leverage over them, and they will do what they please no matter what we say or want.
Seems logical to me too, but nobody in these countries gives a damn what you or I think, or what America wants. We don't have the influence that many think we do.
I don't think you should be telling us what "most want", because you don't know. As with most places in the world, people in these countries want lots of different things, many of them conflicted and contradictory: all over the Arabian Peninsula the same people who speak in romantic terms of glorious traditional Islamic asceticism are wallowing in as much western-style material consumption as they can... so how do we judge what they "want"? By what they say or what they do?
Most often, when people talk in simplistic terms about "what the populace wants" they are simply imposing constructs compatible with their own assumptions. It's never quite as simple as that.
We can neither fix it up nor F it up, because we haven't the influence to do either. The governments involved and the populaces involved will sort out their own accommodations in their own way and we will cope with the process and the outcome as best we can.
We are neither the cause of nor the solution to these problems. We didn't break it and we can't fix it. They will sort it out their own way, and we will cope. it's not about us. It affects us, but we are not in control of it.
Yes indeed... and it is the same thing we try to teach kids when we tell them that at times it takes moral courage to stand up against the flow and do what is right.
In the adult world it is much the same but we also have the "everything is negotiable" and "we must just go with the flow" crowd who are quite prepared to sell their mother on the nearest street corner - and be able to rationalise it and justify it and explain it away without any remorse.
It takes a certain kind of courage to make a stand on principle (IMHO a higher level of courage than mere physical courage) and that is why we find so few politicians able to step up to the plate.
In the case of Libya the French and the British have taken a half step forward while the US dithers - not saying yes or no but just a big maybe and the Germans kiss the Bear's ass. It doesn't come more pathetic than this.
The Libyan opposition are asking "where is NATO", "where is the West" and instead of telling them "we are not coming" the message is that "we are thinking about it so do try to die well in the meantime".
If we don't have the balls to stand up for the western democratic principles we supposedly hold so dear then at least try to summon up the courage to admit it.
That sadly is a certainty.Personally, I think we'll F this up.
The US dealt with those who were in power at that place and that time. No need to read any more into it than that. If the Sauds hadn't been willing to deal we might have tried to set up a Shi'a state and broken off the valuable chunk of the Peninsula under a regime that we could control, but there wasn't any need for that... and I somehow suspect that in the long run such actions wouldn't have worked out terribly well.
That kind of manipulation and interference in the affairs of others is completely uncalled for and would probably be disastrous. The most likely outcome that I can project would be a complete mess and lasting loathing from Shi'a and Sunni, Saudi and Iranian.
What ever happened to minding our own business?
Same question I asked JMA: what exactly would you want to see us do about Bahrain?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks