Bahrain's Unrest

[Dayuhan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This would also allow the Royals to get closer to Islam as most want

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.

Personally, I think we'll F this up.

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.