Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
I agree with Tom, and would go a step further: until recently, it was not unusual for the policy and academic community to do their things in almost complete isolation from each other. Folks in the IC box rarely got out of that box to talk to academic experts. People in State and DoD were too busy on daily issues to have the time or inclination to engage scholars working on the region.
were educated by those in the academic community. There were and are people in both communities that truly understand the ME and will look under the table to determine what's going on -- my observation has been that too many in both do not do so.
The problem was equally severe on the academic side. In the US ME Studies community, distaste for US policy was so great that many scholars were pleased not to be engaged with policy makers.
Also true and frankly, I'm not sure who that is an indictment of. Perhaps no one. Regardless, it is a significant problem but I also suggest that some nominal academic experts that make public statements fail to convince me that they really understand the subtleties of ME political machinations. Or the depth of that distaste I mentioned...

Will also ackowledge the politeness that pervades the ME and the zahir / batin phenomenon can be confusing...

I agree with most of the rest of your comment.
...Also open for question is, as Tom notes, the actual influence of all this on policy.
True but I submit the evidence in the public domain is that the actual influence of those to whom I apply the tag in the Intel and Foreign Policy communities while not totally pervasive is indicative of enough influence -- and enough misreading no matter how well intentioned -- to have caused more than one of our many miscues in the region.

That said, it an exceedingly difficult cultural divide to transcend and I fully understand that. That applies to both the Western - ME divide and the Academy - Policy divide...