Egypt's Spring Revolution (2011-2013)

[Fuchs]

... in response to 30 years of provocations from the ME; not from Muslims -- though most were that -- from the ME. That lack of decisive action led to knowledge (not a perception but true knowledge) that the US could not and would not respond well and thus could be slowly nibbled at and the resultant irrtiation and attrition would cause overstretch at a minimum and self flagellating destruction at best.

Ah, the old hawk song, where only shouts and fists supposedly work well on certain people. It's apparently a matter of attitude whether people believe this song or not.



I don't get your "30 years", though.

I can easily identify 33 years of provocations of Arabs by the U.S. (taking the first delivery of F-4 Phantom II in 1968 as marking).

30 years of provocations of the U.S. from the region seems otherwise a bit stretched, for I don't recall an earlier significant incident than 1979 embassy crisis. That was Iran (Persians, not Arabs!), though.
2001 - 30 = 1971. What exactly did Arabs do to the U.S. around that time?


Why exactly do you believe that the U.S. was not strong enough in its responses? I recall it bombed Libya in the 1980's quite strongly.


In short: I don't call this 'They are the aggressors and we powerful and patient people didn't push them back, but appeased them.' view.

[Ken White]

Ah, the old hawk song, where only shouts and fists supposedly work well on certain people. It's apparently a matter of attitude whether people believe this song or not.

Speaking of attitude...

One could suggest that the songs you believe are at least equally flawed -- if not more so...

But I digress. Lemme give you a hawkish comment. If you allow people to bulldoze you or shout you down, then they will. You, Fuchs, personally typify the antithesis of that because you do not allow that to occur. Nor should you. Nor should a nation tolerate continued -- note that word, continued -- provocations from a single source. Not a single party, a single source which may involve multiple parties. The Middle East was and is such a source and it does provide multiple parties with various grudges and strategies -- it is not monolithic.

We did tolerate such provocations from a single source, partly trying to be nice and partly assuming that as the provenance of theses acts varied there were different actors, multiple sources, involved. Wrong deduction, same crowd, different players.

I don't get your "30 years", though.

Not surprising, it's hard to see through bias blinders.

I can easily identify 33 years of provocations of Arabs by the U.S. (taking the first delivery of F-4 Phantom II in 1968 as marking).

You weren't paying attention -- you weren't even born, in fact. Crowbat is closer but even he's about eight years late (Google ArAmCo and look around). Franklin D. Roosevelt started diddling around in the ME in 1942, met Ibn Saud in the Great Bitter Lake in 1945...

30 years of provocations of the U.S. from the region seems otherwise a bit stretched, for I don't recall an earlier significant incident than 1979 embassy crisis. That was Iran (Persians, not Arabs!), though.

Allow me to repeat what I wrote:

"in response to 30 years of provocations from the ME; not from Muslims -- though most were that -- from the ME."

Note the ME, for Middle East, which includes Iran. The Iraniha , some of them at any rate, were upset with us for moving in to their country, uninvited and supporting the old Shah in 1943. The fact that the main intent was to force the then present USSR to back off and leave Iran often gets lost in all the ill informed left wing rhetorical flourishes. That long predates Bob's World's Operation Ajax in 1953 which placed that Shah's son on the throne. Regardless of motivation -- and erroneous assumptions, the Persians led the ME -- again, as they had for centuries. They broke the ice, so to speak in attacking the Great Satan -a and getting away with it. The Arabs then piled on -- ME way of warfare...

If you doubt that, you should spend some time there and get out on the street and talk to people. Not Academics, the elites -- the people.

2001 - 30 = 1971. What exactly did Arabs do to the U.S. around that time?

Just plotted. As a result of the Munich attack, Nixon directed a study (LINK) which got rolling (at the Deputy level, really) and produced a report which was remarkably prescient. So we've been interested since the early 70s (LINK), over 30 years -- and so was the opposition...

Why exactly do you believe that the U.S. was not strong enough in its responses? I recall it bombed Libya in the 1980's quite strongly.

Not at all strongly; better than nothing perhaps -- maybe not. Sometimes minor efforts like that do more harm than good and make one look rather ineffectual. All of our ME responses were like that, ineffectual -- until Iraq (and that wasn't as good as it should have been because DoD and the US Armed Forces did not do a good job)

The US is always more concerned with domestic politics than it is with the broader world. Nixon's effort produce some good results which were ignored. Carter totally mishandled the hostage crisis by actually sending the Ayatollah Ruhollah K. a letter saying he would not use force. Khomeini had been about to direct the Students (note that world, ponder Taliban and look at Tunisia and Egypt today...) at the Embassy to release the hostages but upon receipt of Carter's letter, told then to continue the march. Reagan Failed utterly in first sending troops to Lebanon in 1983, second in allowing State to tie their hands and thirdly in doing little to nothing about the Embassy and troop billet bombings and latterly by withdrawing -- that merely encouraged everyone to believe the US had no staying power. In his defense, he learned from that and thus the Libyan attack in 1986, though it was really not much of an effort. Follow him with Bush 41 failing to topple Saddam -- some moderately good reasons not to but in the ME a very different message was received. Then Somalia and Clinton's feeble effort, all of which failed to impress anyone.

In short: I don't call this 'They are the aggressors and we powerful and patient people didn't push them back, but appeased them.' view.

We can differ on that.

All of which is off thread. So if you want to continue this, let's do it by PM.

[Fuchs]

I took your "ME" as "Arabs" because it makes no sense to discuss 9/11 and Iran together.

The Munich assassinations were about Arabs and Israel, not about the U.S. - this cannot seriously be counted as ME-born provocation against the U.S..

You still did not explain which Arab/ME actions of around '71 pointed the beginning of provocations against the U.S..
This is central to your earlier idea that the U.S. did not respond appropriately to provocations for three decades. No provocations = no lacking response.

Even worse, the whole idea that the U.S. was too soft/dovish towards ME powers/extremists/whatever seems to be clearly unhistorical to me.

------

About Egypt: Foreign agents may play a great role, but considering the possibility that a dictator might use rumours about this for his political survival, I'm for skipping unproven theories and for not adding rumours to the mix.

Most if not all intelligence services are apparently (see 20th century history) rather ineffective at inciting popular revolts anyway. They have much "better" track records with sponsoring extremists or military coups.

[Ken White]

I took your "ME" as "Arabs" because it makes no sense to discuss 9/11 and Iran together.

If one does not realize the linkage and pervasive influence of the Persian Empires (plural) throughout the area on mores and attitudes, I can understand that. OTOH, if one is aware of that, the linkage is obvious. As I said, the Persians have been out in front of the Arabs for centuries...

They had as much if not more influence on the ME and eastern North Africa than did Islam and far more than did the Ottomans.

The Munich assassinations were about Arabs and Israel, not about the U.S. - this cannot seriously be counted as ME-born provocation against the U.S.

In order; Of course they were, True - I didn't say it was.

However, it was the first big transnational terrorist attack against the West and emanating from the ME. It was a harbinger of things to come and it was extremely important because the west got a wakeup call and except for the formation of GSG 9, mostly ignored it...

That is true of the US, Nixon wisely said let's take a look, we did, saw what was going to happen -- and did nothing. Mostly because of domestic politics (It seems de rigueur in the US for a new Administration to disavow ANYTHING the previous Admin did...). We sat on our hands and let a problem develop when we could have taken diplomatic and economic steps to forestall or defuse the problem. Contrary to what you seem to believe, every comment that inadequate action was taken does not entail attack or a military response -- those are usually, IMO, ill advised. However, I do believe that if they are necessary, as they occasionally are, they should be effective. I'd even go a step further and say that if such measures are employed, necessary or not, they should be effective and not just futile swats. Those can result in doing more harm than good (witness most of the past 30 years...[from today]).

You still did not explain which Arab/ME actions of around '71 pointed the beginning of provocations against the U.S.

Sorry, thought it would be obvious. Apparently not. This is 2011, just barely. Thirty years ago would make it 1981 and Reagan would have been recently inaugurated and the Hostages released. I should have been more precise and instead of saying 30 years (meaning a not stated 'from today' and as a rough or approximate figure) should have written "since 4 November 1979..."

This is central to your earlier idea that the U.S. did not respond appropriately to provocations for three decades. No provocations = no lacking response.

Try recomputing with that 1979 start date, see if that works, don't forget to count the Embassy bombings (all of them), attacks on the World Trade Center (all of them), the Barracks bombings (all of them), the aircraft hijackings and bombings (all of them) and I think you'll come up with a fair total over the first 22 of that 30 plus years. Not quite one major attack a year but not far off, either.

Throw in the ship attacks plus Viet Nam and Somalia -- which you may not deem important in this context but of which many in the ME and Asia are well aware and often cite, not least including Bin Laden and Zawahiri, the Egyptian and Abu Yahya al-Libi -- the Libyan AQ strategist. .

As an aside, you seem to accord the 2001 attacks far more importance than I do. While extracting a higher body count and having great symbolic effect, it was just another attack IMO, just one more (or three or four more, depending upon how one counts) atop all the others over the [from 2001] previous 22 years (and that's a figure I've used often on this board...).

Even worse, the whole idea that the U.S. was too soft/dovish towards ME powers/extremists/whatever seems to be clearly unhistorical to me.

If one paid attention -- and few outside the US had or have any reason to do so -- one might come to a different conclusion. I did, do and have...

Most if not all intelligence services are apparently (see 20th century history) rather ineffective at inciting popular revolts anyway. They have much "better" track records with sponsoring extremists or military coups.

True. So we can agree on that.

Also on Egypt -- that first comment of mine above -- "linkage and pervasive influence of the Persian Empires (plural) throughout the area on mores and attitudes" -- applies to Egypt as well...

[Fuchs]

Come on, if you argue with the Persian empire, I can argue with the Roman Empire, Alexander's successor states (Greek), the Byzantine (effectively Greek again) Empire and - this blows a 2,300 y.o. empire to pieces - the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the region for centuries well into the 20th century (Turks).

You overstate the influence of Persians/Iran in the Arab world badly.
They're a different crowd and the actions of some people in Tehran in '79 had as much to do with later AQ-style terrorism as did the attack on the Embassy in Saigon.


Moreover, you're moving goalposts. You CANNOT have meant 1979 with your 30 years statement without having written nonsense.

(...)That lack of decisiveness arguably led to halfhearted measures -- easier to attain or perform -- in response to 30 years of provocations from the ME;(...)

You were clearly writing about 30 years with only halfhearted measures. This could impossibly include the last nine years. It would at most have been 22 years (79-01) of half-hearted measures, not 30.

Furthermore, the bombardment of Libya in 1986 with 60 dead cannot seriously be considered half-hearted. A full war would have been disproportionate and unnecessary.


I still don't buy this revisionist view that the U.S. was overly passive and Arabs/ME/Muslims/whatever were the provoking party.
At most, the history of the post-WW2 relationship between the U.S. and the Arab world could be called troublesome and full of minor offenses/skirmishing from both sides (with the biggest offenses being the invasion of Iraq, decades of support for Israel and 9/11 - in this order).

[Pete]

The Iranian Embassy hostage siege in London in May 1980 happened shortly after the seizure of U.S. embassy personnel in Tehran in 1979.

[Ken White]

Come on, if you argue with the Persian empire, I can argue with the Roman Empire, Alexander's successor states (Greek), the Byzantine (effectively Greek again) Empire and - this blows a 2,300 y.o. empire to pieces - the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the region for centuries well into the 20th century (Turks).

All those had an effect, I just think the Persians had more and a more enduring effect. The length of time since the Persian Empires -- there was more than the one shown on that map -- made the total effect more pervasive; they were around far longer than any of the others you cite. (LINK).

You overstate the influence of Persians/Iran in the Arab world badly.

My having lived there and seen Ta'arof at work in most of the ME nations and Afghanistan says you're far from correct.

Moreover, you're moving goalposts. You CANNOT have meant 1979 with your 30 years statement without having written nonsense.

I beg your pardon?

Go back and read the thread. Note these:

My Post 105: "Some compare current events to 1979. Not a good match. 1986 is a better correlation."

My Post 117: "I have long ( going on 31 years...) contended that Carter's abysmal handling of the Tehran Embassy seizure, Reagan's foolish foray into Lebanon and the mishandling of that whole episode, Bush 41s failure to topple Saddam in 91 and Clinton's tail wagging (that's a celebrity buzz - pop culture reference not a veiled innuendo) led to the attacks in the US in 2001 (and others worldwide before that time)..."

My Post 128: "That lack of decisiveness arguably led to halfhearted measures -- easier to attain or perform -- in response to 30 years of provocations from the ME; not from Muslims -- though most were that -- from the ME."

That last is the one to which you responded.

You were clearly writing about 30 years with only halfhearted measures. This could impossibly include the last nine years. It would at most have been 22 years (79-01) of half-hearted measures, not 30.

That is correct and is pretty much what I wrote in My Post 135 just above. So what are we arguing about? More correctly, what are you arguing about?

As for the last nine years, whether there have been provocations or attempted attacks from the ME or not is not fully known, certainly there have been no big or very successful such. That's really academic -- it's the thought that counts...

Furthermore, the bombardment of Libya in 1986 with 60 dead cannot seriously be considered half-hearted.

You may not consider it half hearted, I certainly do. I've been in units that lost more people killed in less time.

A full war would have been disproportionate and unnecessary.

Agreed, IMO the bombing operation was not necessary but Reagan didn't ask me...

I still don't buy this revisionist view that the U.S. was overly passive and Arabs/ME/Muslims/whatever were the provoking party.

Not a problem, I'm not selling.

You can call it revisionist but its a view I've held for almost all that 30 years, certainly for the last 27 years, since the second Beirut Embassy bombing. As I said, I've been paying attention, you had no need to do so.

At most, the history of the post-WW2 relationship between the U.S. and the Arab world could be called troublesome and full of minor offenses/skirmishing from both sides...

I agree and nothing I've said implies otherwise.

... (with the biggest offenses being the invasion of Iraq, decades of support for Israel and 9/11 - in this order).

I do not agree with either of those but I can understand that you and many in the world would think that. Both IMO have a basis in fact but both are biased -- as is my view, just in a different direction. Iraq was an over reaction to rectify the false impression given by 22 years of placatory response, premature departure, inaction and halfway measures. It worked fairly well even though the execution was flawed.

The real truth is probably somewhere between your view and mine. In any event, this is way off the thread to which I once again suggest we return and take this off thread discussion into PMs if you have more to say. I really do not. We should be able to differ without boring others...

[jmm99]

Foreign Affairs Coverage of the Crisis in Egypt and the Middle East - Summary: A collection of continuing Foreign Affairs coverage of the crisis in Egypt and the Middle East (most recent posted this week):

The Muslim Brotherhood After Mubarak: What the Brotherhood Is and How it Will Shape the Future
Carrie Rosefsky Wickham
February 3, 2011
Portraying the Muslim Brotherhood as eager and able to seize power and impose its version of sharia on an unwilling citizenry is a caricature that exaggerates certain features of the Brotherhood and underestimates the extent to which the group has changed over time.

The U.S.-Egyptian Breakup: Washington's Options in Cairo
Steven A. Cook
February 2, 2011
With the political era of Hosni Mubarak coming to an end, is the strategic relationship between Cairo and Washington similarly finished? The Obama administration must scale back its ambitions to affect change in Cairo.

Israel's Neighborhood Watch: Egypt's Upheaval Means that Palestine Must Wait
Yossi Klein Halevi
February 1, 2011
With Hezbollah calling the shots in Lebanon and Islamists poised to gain power in Egypt, Israel sees itself as almost completely encircled by Iranian allies or proxies. Where does this leave the future of a sovereign Palestine state?

Letter From Cairo: The People's Military in Egypt?
Eric Trager
January 30, 2011
As protests continue in Egypt, both sides -- the protesters in the streets and the Mubarak regime -- are wondering exactly which side the Egyptian military is supporting. Does the army hold the key to the country's political endgame?

The Psychology of Food Riots: When Do Price Spikes Lead to Unrest?
Evan Fraser and Andrew Rimas
January 30, 2011
The connection among rising prices, hunger, and violent civic unrest seems intuitively logical. But there was more to Tunisia's food protests than the logic of the pocketbook. The psychological element -- a sense of injustice that arises between seeing food prices rise and pouring a Molotov cocktail -- is more important.

Letter From Beirut: Crime and Punishment in the Levant: Lebanon’s False Choice Between Stability and Justice
Michael Young
January 26, 2011
In bringing down its government last week, did Lebanon just witness a coup d’etat or did it narrowly dodge civil war? Either way, Damascus, Tehran, and Washington are all watching.

Morning in Tunisia: The Frustrations of the Arab World Boil Over
Michele Penner Angrist
January 16, 2011
Last week's mass protests in Tunisia were less a symptom of economic malaise than of a society fed up with its broken dictatorship. Should the other autocratic regimes in the Middle East and North Africa be afraid?

Is El Baradei Egypt's Hero? Mohamed El Baradei and the Chance for Reform (broken link)
Steven A. Cook
March 26, 2010
The return of Mohamed El Baradei to Egypt has raised questions about the country's political system and the rule of President Hosni Mubarak. Is reform possible, and if so, is El Baradei the man to lead it?

Back to the Bazaar
Martin Indyk
January/February 2002
The United States has an opportunity to set new terms for its alliances in the Middle East. The bargain struck with Egypt and Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War seemed successful for a decade, but now the United States is facing the consequences: Washington backed Cairo's and Riyadh's authoritarian regimes, and they begat al Qaeda. The Bush administration should heed the lesson.

Cheers

Mike

[Dayuhan]

Foreign Affairs Coverage of the Crisis in Egypt and the Middle East - Summary: A collection of continuing Foreign Affairs coverage of the crisis in Egypt and the Middle East (most recent posted this week):

Interesting reading. The contrast between the piece on the Muslim Brotherhood and the rather hysterical "Israel's neighborhood Watch" piece is particularly interesting. Overall the chorus of panic and recrimination emanating from Israel is getting pretty deafening, example here...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...70U53720110131

Israel shocked by Obama's "betrayal" of Mubarak

If Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness...

...To win popular Arab opinion, Obama was risking America's status as a superpower and reliable ally.

"Throughout Asia, Africa and South America, leaders are now looking at what is going on between Washington and Cairo. Everyone grasps the message: "America's word is worthless ... America has lost it."

One has to wonder what exactly they want the US to do to preserve the hollow shell of Mubarak's rule. There seems to be a general reluctance to admit that Mubarak is probably going down no matter what the US does. Rats may leave sinking ships, but who in his right mind stays on a sinking ship?

Seems to me an excellent opportunity for the US to demonstrate that we do not necessarily hold our interests to be identical to those of Israel.

For the US, the story of 1953 Iran is an important one to understand when looking at Egypt today.

It may be even more important to understand that story when looking at Egypt tomorrow, or in the near future, as a new Egyptian government emerges. There will doubtless be all manner of panic over presumed Islamist influence, and all manner of calls for the CIA to do the dirty and bring back a tidy reliable dictatorship. This temptation will, I think, be best avoided.

The message the US needs to deliver, IMO, lies not in what we do to resolve Egypt's current crisis but in how we deal with what emerges after. Time for us to show, not say, that we are able and willing to deal with a government that puts Egypt's interests ahead of ours. Certainly there will be friction, but the way we choose to manage that friction will speak volumes, and have a lasting impact.

[Cole]

One has to wonder what exactly they want the US to do to preserve the hollow shell of Mubarak's rule. There seems to be a general reluctance to admit that Mubarak is probably going down no matter what the US does. Rats may leave sinking ships, but who in his right mind stays on a sinking ship?

Seems to me an excellent opportunity for the US to demonstrate that we do not necessarily hold our interests to be identical to those of Israel.

Ever hear the old joke about two men coming upon a Grizzly bear and the one says, "Run," and takes off to which the other says "you can't outrun a bear." The first replies, "That maybe true but I only gotta out run you." In this case Iran is the bear. Wouldn't you prefer both the U.S. and Israel to have a better hunting rifle and Israel to be the first target of the bear?

Second analogy: If your ship is sinking in water that will cause hypothermia and death in 10 minutes and a rescue ship (election) is 15 minutes away and you have nothing resembling a life raft now, do you jump now?

And you certainly don't need someone from the rescue ship telling you over the radio to jump now...or your young sailors who have no clue what hypothermia (or running a country) involves.

[CrowBat]

Continuing my attempt to understand Ken's flow of thoughts....

Try recomputing with that 1979 start date, see if that works, don't forget to count the Embassy bombings (all of them), attacks on the World Trade Center (all of them), the Barracks bombings (all of them), the aircraft hijackings and bombings (all of them) and I think you'll come up with a fair total over the first 22 of that 30 plus years. Not quite one major attack a year but not far off, either.

Throw in the ship attacks plus Viet Nam and Somalia -- which you may not deem important in this context but of which many in the ME and Asia are well aware and often cite, not least including Bin Laden and Zawahiri, the Egyptian and Abu Yahya al-Libi -- the Libyan AQ strategist.

<snip>

....its a view I've held for almost all that 30 years, certainly for the last 27 years, since the second Beirut Embassy bombing. As I said, I've been paying attention, you had no need to do so.

I think I understand your standpoint now, but have a strong feeling you're throwing quite a lot of unrelated events on the same pile, while ignoring the US involvement in many of them. At least you blame wrong people for attacks on the USA. I also don't agree with the premise of the US - generally - acting "lamely", or being provoked.

If you like, consider me a "Devil's advocate". I don't mind, since it happens often and I got used to that. My point is: as much as I can understand your standpoint, so I can understand the standpoint of those you say "provoke" the USA.

For example: the Iranians see themselves as provoked by the USA, time and again, and again, and again. Op Ajax in 1953 and installation of the Shah was just the start, some of them "insist" on it, others don't even care about these events, but some much newer ones. See; Israeli invasion of Lebanon which (as they see it) and the resulting oppression of the Shi'a in the south of that country - couldn't have been undertaken without US support; assassination of their charge d'affairs in Lebanon by (what they see as) an US ally (Lebanese Christians), and which was a signal for the onset of an "undeclared war" against the IRI; US support for Iraq that brutally invaded them and actually enabled Khomeini to firmly entrench himself in power in Tehran - but also led to the development of the IRGC as the major military, political and economic power in the IRI -; wholehearted support of Wahhabism on at least two sides of the IRI (in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) since the 1980s (I'll not involved various "Stans" to this consideration now); US treachery after Iranians supported them so much in Afghanistan in 2001-2002, and then in Iraq, in 2003; clandestine US operations to steer troubles between ethnic minorities etc. As you can see, their list appears even longer than the one you could offer as argumentation that the Persians are "provoking" the Great Satan...

Now, you are relating various terrorist attacks against the USA with the IRI, and see these are a result of "soft" actions of various US admins. But, why don't you "connect the dots"? Who are the crucial theoreticians of the AQ, and who were not only the 19 idiots from 9/11, but also those who bombed embassies in places like Nairobi? Who are the MBs the Israelis are so in panic about? Persians - or Egyptians and Saudis?

In what way are - for example - Islamists from Egypt that turned so extreme they are not accepted even by their own "brothers" (from the Brotherhood), related to the Persians?

Sorry, not the least.

Furthermore, if you continue connecting these dots...and to bring us back to the actual topic of this thread: don't you find it at least "curious" that the people that run the AQ and became involved in actions against the US, emerged after Mubarak came to power, and since the USA began delivering extensive military aid to Egypt? Prior to that the MBs did not care the least about Washington. If you study them more closely, you find out that their motivation has nothing to do with the Iranian Shi'a, but with the Saudi Wahhabists. They turned against the USA after the US troops "violated the holy soil" of Saudi Arabia, in 1990. They were trained by the ISI in Pakistan in projects financed 50:50 by the USA and the Saudis, and ignored by the US while spreading their ideas from Marocco and Nigeria, via India to the Philippines.

You also mentioned Somalia: as of 1981-1983, Somalia was a recipient of the US military aid, as a counter to the "reactionary and pro-Soviet government" in another former US ally - Ethiopia: I strongly doubt anybody in the DC ever came to the idea to study how comes Mengistu "turned" Marxist-Leninist (literaly) over the night. At the same, the US at least ignored provision of military aid provided by various Arab regimes to the Islamists in Eritrea...only to, 20 years later, find itself having to support Ethiopia against Islamists in Eritrea and in Somalia... Now, do you think Ethiopia or Somalia ever "provoked" the USA, or any US admin to have been "soft" to them too?

[CrowBat]

Crowbat is closer but even he's about eight years late (Google ArAmCo and look around). Franklin D. Roosevelt started diddling around in the ME in 1942, met Ibn Saud in the Great Bitter Lake in 1945...Allow me to repeat what I wrote:

Aramco's original involvement in exploring oil in Saudi Arabia was "business" (and not particularly successful at first); nothing special as such. It turned a "provocation" when the US upheld al-Sauds on the throne and practically turned the country into a military protectorate, in the 1940s and 1950s.

So, I must admit, I'm as confused at this analogy as Fuchs appears to be.

"in response to 30 years of provocations from the ME; not from Muslims -- though most were that -- from the ME."

Note the ME, for Middle East, which includes Iran. The Iraniha , some of them at any rate, were upset with us for moving in to their country, uninvited and supporting the old Shah in 1943.

They couldn't get more upset over what the USA were doing in 1943 than they already were over what the British and the Soviets did in 1941. Then, note that the Shah's son - Reza Pahlavi II - was placed on the throne instead of his father by the British, and already in 1941-1942: what the Americans did in 1953 was "just" to return the same Shah Reza Pahlavi II to the power - and this with help of the same clergy that later stole the revolution of 1978. As such, that was also no "ME provocation", but an US intervention and a provocation. The "payback" bill was delivered in 1978-1979...

Regardless of motivation -- and erroneous assumptions, the Persians led the ME -- again, as they had for centuries. They broke the ice, so to speak in attacking the Great Satan -a and getting away with it. The Arabs then piled on -- ME way of warfare...

I'm sorry, but you're really mixing two entirely different things here. If the "Persians" lead the way, then certainly not with their example of "attacking the Great Satan". Then, their biggest "attack" on the USA before 1979 was the Shah's drive to increas oil prices, in the early 1970s.

Quite on the contrary. What created the modern-day antagonism against the USA was a) Johson admin's decision to abandon the policy of neutrality in the Arab-Israeli conflict, after the 1967 War, and b) the Israeli victory during that War. This brought the al-Sauds and Wahhabists to the idea that a religiously motivated fighter can win wars, and from that moment onwards they began promoting and financing Islamist extremism all around the world. It's easy to follow this development on the basis of activity of various resistance/terrorist groups, (Palestinian as well as others): originally, they had nothing to do with religion at all (on the contrary, many were centrists or even leftists), nor were active against the USA. This began to change after the 1967 War.

And now watch the US reaction to this development: Al-Sauds became the "best friends", and their financing of the development of a major terrorist base in Pakistan was supported as well - with argumentation of the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Zia ul-Haq, who was instrumental in turning Pakistan into the Islamist quagmire as we know it today (with extensive Saudi financing), became Reagan's favourite and Pakistan was left to make its own nuke...

As a result of the Munich attack, Nixon directed...

I'm sorry to interrupt here, but Nixon did not wait for the Munich attack: Kissinger began his tenure with ignoring Sadat's peace-proposal from 1970. That aside, the US intervention in the Arab-Israeli conflict was already going on since at least 1969 (see deliveries of F-4s, which started in 1969 and prompted the Soviet intervention in Egypt, in 1970). It was continued through 1970 (see Kissinger's development of the politics of "ignoring" the Israeli nuclear weapons, and his ignoring of Sadat's peace proposal) and later on, all well ahead of Munich.

One could draw similar parallels - once more related to Egypt - to Reagan's reaction to Sadat's assassination, in October 1981. That was the moment Egypt (plus Sudan at the time) was granted US$1 billion + in military aid for the first time, and the USA launched a host of military and intelligence operations against Libya (does "Early Call" ring any bells here?), which eventually lead to knocking out of that country, in the 1990s. Simultaneously, through all of this time, absolutely nothing has been undertaken to decrease the spread of Wahhabism by the Saudis.

The US is always more concerned with domestic politics than it is with the broader world. Nixon's effort produce some good results which were ignored. Carter totally mishandled the hostage crisis by actually sending the Ayatollah Ruhollah K. a letter saying he would not use force. Khomeini had been about to direct the Students (note that world, ponder Taliban and look at Tunisia and Egypt today...) at the Embassy to release the hostages but upon receipt of Carter's letter, told then to continue the march.

Sorry, but this sounds very much like a misinterpretation to me. Khomeini was surprised by the take-over himself, at first, though he certainly did not wait for any letters from Carter before, only two days later, sending his own thugs to take over from the students. So, he did not escalate the situation because of Carter's (undisputable) "weakness", but for his own reasons.

Reagan Failed utterly in first sending troops to Lebanon in 1983, second in allowing State to tie their hands and thirdly in doing little to nothing about the Embassy and troop billet bombings and latterly by withdrawing -- that merely encouraged everyone to believe the US had no staying power.

I never heard any Arab or Islamist complaining about this. I do recall, though, bitter complaints about the defeat of the "Arab issue" by the Israelis in Lebanon, and the Libyan deafeat (at the hand of a CIA-supported "liberation movement") in Tchad, in 1982. That's why I still find this analogy....well, without foundation.

All of which is off thread. So if you want to continue this, let's do it by PM.

Some of this is crucial for this thread. Particularly Reagan's "installation" of Mubarak and opening of the US military aid program for Egypt: without these two actions, who knows what would Egypt look alike nowadays...?

[Ken White]

Aramco's original involvement in exploring oil in Saudi Arabia was "business" (and not particularly successful at first); nothing special as such. It turned a "provocation" when the US upheld al-Sauds on the throne and practically turned the country into a military protectorate, in the 1940s and 1950s.

So, I must admit, I'm as confused at this analogy as Fuchs appears to be.

So let me add to the confusion.

ArAmCo was the nose of the Camel. No more, no less. A Camel that had FDR's full knowledge and support. Quite full. Devious old dude, he. Wanted to see British and French Colonies disappear the better for American companies to sell in those 'former' colonies and spheres of influence...

Re: The British and Soviets in Iran. True. Both those folks are soundly detested, the US is merely mildly disliked by most Iraniha. That is obviously a generalization but I believe it to be fairly accurate as such.

On Reza and Reza II the perception in Iran was, some years ago, that the US had lobbied for the old man and then been persuaded by the British to support the son and that the US did so. The 1953 coup was as you note supported by the same Clergy that did indeed steal the 1978 Revolution.

The Shah drove to increase oil prices in the 1969-71 period in an effort to convince the US to support his demand for more and better weapons which were being denied him by the then US Administration (my pet strory being the denial of sale of a dozen O-2s which the IIAF got around by ordering them from Reims Aviation...). It worked. The tale of how the Phantoms came to be sold is a cautionary tale in itself and I do not know all the details but do know US domestic politics were heavily involved and Kissinger just pushed the opportunity...

On the Johnson decision to increase support for Israel, you are of course correct and there is no question the results were much as you say and as the common knowledge hold. I did not address the US errors and shortfalls, errors and just plain stupid actions that in many cases led, quite understandably and correctly IMO, to the hostility toward us because, while germane to that hostility, I presumed they were all common knowledge and should be understood. They are of course important in context and in fairness but not important to my point of a pattern of US flawed responses. There have been many errors on both sides of this equation and they are not going to be easily forgiven. The good news is that the US attention span is so short, we'll get over it. For the ME, that is not likely to be the case -- and for the US, that should but may not be a cautionary.

Nixon waited for the Munich attack to get interested in international terrorism as a weapon. That was the point. The political maneuverings you cite were indeed provocative to the ME -- again, I did not mention US provocations that caused the, uh, rather intense dislike and resultant action that emanated from the ME. My point was that 30 years (from 2010-11 ) of the not mentioned US provocations led to 30 years of ME provocations in an effort at retaliation (deserved, perhaps) and that the US failure to properly respond to those puts us pretty much where we are today. Let me emphasize that my idea of proper response was not and is not all military.

I think this:

Sorry, but this sounds very much like a misinterpretation to me. Khomeini was surprised by the take-over himself, at first, though he certainly did not wait for any letters from Carter before, only two days later, sending his own thugs to take over from the students. So, he did not escalate the situation because of Carter's (undisputable) "weakness", but for his own reasons.

is not correct. Khomeini was indeed surprised (as to an extent were the Students themselves...) but he had very early notice from Brzezinski that no force would be used. Exactly what happened and his thinking, neither of us could know.

This is a valid complaint:

...but have a strong feeling you're throwing quite a lot of unrelated events on the same pile, while ignoring the US involvement in many of them. At least you blame wrong people for attacks on the USA. I also don't agree with the premise of the US - generally - acting "lamely", or being provoked.

to a great extent, particularly in that the posts you've read on this thread do not address US stupidity in many areas (though I have mentioned them in other threads). They were omitted for brevity (heh...) not to deny or obfuscate.

The events are in fact unconnected -- but they are also a pattern. That pattern gets ignored by too many and can -- will -- lead to more US errors...

For example:

In what way are - for example - Islamists from Egypt that turned so extreme they are not accepted even by their own "brothers" (from the Brotherhood), related to the Persians?

Sorry, not the least.

Furthermore, if you continue connecting these dots...and to bring us back to the actual topic of this thread: don't you find it at least "curious" that the people that run the AQ and became involved in actions against the US, emerged after Mubarak came to power, and since the USA began delivering extensive military aid to Egypt? Prior to that the MBs did not care the least about Washington. If you study them more closely, you find out that their motivation has nothing to do with the Iranian Shi'a, but with the Saudi Wahhabists. They turned against the USA after the US troops "violated the holy soil" of Saudi Arabia, in 1990. They were trained by the ISI in Pakistan in projects financed 50:50 by the USA and the Saudis, and ignored by the US while spreading their ideas from Marocco and Nigeria, via India to the Philippines.

I think you made my point...

A series of unrelated but flawed policies and perceptions on both sides; the ME as an entity and its multi varied polity and the US, equally multi varied; has put us where we are today. The US as the nominally more rich and seemingly powerful has an obligation IMO to be much smarter about what it does and how it does it -- but that does not remove the actions of varied actors from the ME over a period of years in a pattern that have led to yet more stupid actions.

The issue of this sub thread to me is that flawed US reactions to events trigger more events and thus the self replicating pattern becomes embedded. That cycle need to be broken.

You also mentioned Somalia: as of 1981-1983, Somalia was a recipient of the US military aid, as a counter... Now, do you think Ethiopia or Somalia ever "provoked" the USA, or any US admin to have been "soft" to them too?

Not at all. What many in the world fail to realize is that the US government reinvents itself at 2, 4, 6 and /or 8 year intervals due to our political process. That is no excuse for blundering in policy and international relations but it is the reason for a good bit of it. Those elected on the cycles mentioned do not react to the international community -- they react to US domestic politics, period. Perhaps they should be more internationally aware (certainly many of us think so) and they are getting better due to enhanced communication (if only our news media were better -- but that's another thread) but US domestic politics drive much of our 'diplomacy.'

All the things you cite with respect to the horn of Africa are true -- but the point I was making was that Bush 41's effort to send US Troops to Somalis was flawed because we just sent targets (as did Regan in 1983...). That was exacerbated by Clinton's stupid directive to "get Aideed" and that in turn was not helped by the badly flawed tactics of JSOC and the Rangers; the upshot was that Clinton ordered a withdrawal and that withdrawal was seen by the would be desert raiders of much of the ME as a weakness. It was a weakness but it got misconstrued...

This sub thread is about misconstrueing

That said, Bob's World has some good points with which I agree also.