Rally 'Round the Flag, Boys and Girls

[gipper]

A simple glance at headline news these days reveals that the Middle East is in a state of crisis much moreso than usual in the post-WWII era. In confluent trends, I submit, as the Pakistani ambassador put it today, "the Taliban and al Qaeda own the night in Afghanistan"; as to Pakistan itself, restive with radicalism and lawless in its famed border region-refuge, the precarious tenure of a marked man provides constant worry of not only a radical takeover but one of a nuclear state; Iraq is Iraq and the news is grim in an objective view; Iran not only has a radical government and nuclear ambitions soon to bring fruit, but it appears on very good evidence to be a significant interloper in Iraq's civil war; Syria has tentacles in Lebanon, which itself is ablaze with fighting between US-friendly government forces and outriggers of the al Qaeda movement, in the refugee camps; meanwhile in Gaza, Hamas has routed Fatah, assuring until a forcible wrenching of power (most likely by the Israelis) a radical authority structure in that former territory; it is an even bet (or even lesser odds) that the strife will spread to the West Bank.

IF events and dynamics should break least favorably to our interests, a major upheaval could be in store, one that could significantly affect th politics of the region and the geopolitical backdrop as well.

At such a time, parceling blame is a backseat exercise to setting some firm foundations for future right and justice, which, I suggest, is how we should cast our own interests, and Israel's.

[Michael Tee]

It seems to me that Iran has grown mightily in stature as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  The big areas of its influence are in Syria/Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq itself.  I think it's bullshit to ascribe much influence in Afghanistan to Iraq, except in the province bordering Iran. 

These are exciting times.  The Shi'a are standing up for the  little guy across a broader swath of the region and they seem to be winning.  I don't know how this could work, but I am wondering if Shi'ite social and para-military movements could attract secular and even Sunni support where men from those communities put aside their differences with the Shi'a to join them in a United Front of resistance to the Great Satan.  Surely the pre-eminent curse of the region is US aggression and exploitation both overt and covert, which in effect victimizes all Arabs and all Muslims.  The real basic idea is pan-Arabism expanded, or a New or Secular Caliphate.  This obviously depends on new models and new blood.  One would think that somewhere there are young army officers similar to Kemal Ataturk and the Young Turks, who could hammer together a union of forces which would finally allow these people to be masters in their own home.

[gipper]

You comment, Michael, that "surely the pre-eminent curse of the region is US aggression and exploitation both overt and covert, which in effect victimizes all Arabs and all Muslims." I'd like to ask you for a bill of particulars of material and significant items that would form a foundation of grievances thick enough to soak up the blood (in your apparent aim) from a Third World War. 

[Michael Tee]

domer, books have been written.  In a nutshell, dealing with the landmarks only, you have the State Department - Aramco collaboration with the House of Saud to establish a permanent US puppet monarchy in Saudi Arabia, the CIA-Anglo-Persian Oil Co.  overthrow of the elected Mossadegh government in Iran to establish a particularly cruel dictatorship over Iran, and the CIA-State backing of the Egyptian and Jordanian dictatorships.  All dictatorships, all ruling through repression, torture and murder and all contributing in their own respective ways to the "stabilization" of the region, meaning to assure the USA of a stable, cheap and reliable source of oil.  Details include the military support given to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, the subsidies and diplomatic help (through its puppet Arab clients) that enable Israel to maintain its 40-year occupation of the West Bank and the growth and financing of the Taliban.

The U.S. has been by far the most pernicious foreign influence in the Middle East since the end of WWII and it looks like now all the chickens are coming home to roost.

[_JS]

I think you make a well-worded post Domer.

The only area for which it might be lacking concerns Israel, who will always loom large and be a major factor in hindering any peace in Gaza, the West Bank, or Lebanon.

Pakistan is more insulated from radicalism than people think. It tends to rest its power in a few very well-to-do and well established families, who are anything but radical (like any tycoons they tend to wish to protect what they have, something radical changes does not afford them).

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait seem to be awfully quiet these days, yet one doubts that they would sit idle with so much of a destabilizing force sitting just to their North.

[gipper]

I know your position, Michael, but I ask for a bill of particulars to help focus my response. You presume if not a democratic capability then at least a democratic impulse on the various Arab and Persian peoples. That is the first point of defense: their aspirations legitimately have not been expressed in terms of democratic principles but instead, and rather uniformly, for authoritarian structures, which, notably, may be seen to mimic the caliphates of yore that some are said to idealize. That the various peoples may be growing dissatisfied with that authority, chafing uneasily, bespeaks the ever-more encompassing reality of modernism than any initial desire on their part that the US was instrumental in thwarting. So too, the evils laid upon these peoples -- and this is a significant and regrettable list -- were only indirectly, obliquely enabled (not imposed) by the US, almost never intended by America but, as in the notable case of Iran, were a so-called necessary byproduct of the Cold War, which had its own dynamic but is now defunct. Further, time has elapsed since these governments were installed. During that period, we can assume, the given populaces have, through whatever means are available, formed a body politic with at least some influence on policy. Indeed, in Saudi Arabia, for example, as I understand it, the people sometimes (often?) must be placated along strict religious lines to keep a well-functioning state.

[Michael Tee]

<<You presume if not a democratic capability then at least a democratic impulse on the various Arab and Persian peoples. That is the first point of defense: their aspirations legitimately have not been expressed in terms of democratic principles but instead, and rather uniformly, for authoritarian structures, which, notably, may be seen to mimic the caliphates of yore that some are said to idealize. >>

Well, domer, in the case of Iran, the people had elected a democratic government headed by Mossadegh, they seemed quite happy with him and quite frankly I don't understand why you say that "their aspirations legitimately have not been expressed in terms of democratic principles."  Wasn't it enough for them to elect a democratic government and live under it?  It was the CIA and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company which Mossadegh had expropriated that seemed to be expressing aspirations for an authoritarian structure.  They're the ones who brought back the Shah.

<<During that period, we can assume, the given populaces have, through whatever means are available, formed a body politic with at least some influence on policy>>

Of course they have.  What do you think the secret police and the torture chambers are for?  They're for people who want an influence on foreign or domestic policy that runs counter to US interests.

domer, I'm not going to suggest that all these Arabs would have developed themselves into mini-Switzerlands had the evil U.S.A. not interfered with their government.  But what would or might have happened without U.S. interference is of secondary significance only.  Firstly because NOBODY KNOWS what the result would have been.  It's speculative.  Everybody has his own hypothesis.  The fact is that the only thing everyone knows for sure is that the U.S. interfered.  Thus, if there's anything wrong with the country (and believe me, there's PLENTY wrong with every one of them) it can all be blamed on the U.S.A.   WILL be blamed on the U.S.A.  It's only natural - - if you wanted your own life and your family forced you into the family business, then whatever's wrong in your life twenty years later is due to their interference.  You coulda bin a movie star.  Coulda bin a millionaire. etc. etc.

Also in the case of oil, none of it was a necessary product of the Cold War.  They made billions out of sweetheart deals with corrupt local governments.  What do you tell the people of those countries that were fucked over and ripped off?  I'm sorry, the Cold War made me do it?  That's ridiculous.  They know you fucked them in the ass and got rich.  They could care a rat's ass if you did it to them because of the Cold War or because you had a mortgage to pay.  Believe me, domer, nobody gives a shit WHY you fucked 'em, they just know you fucked 'em.

Your last point that time has elapsed and body politics are evolving is anyway pretty much on a par with my take on the situation.  That is exactly what's happening in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Iraq and - - at a more mature stage - - in Iran itself.  These people have thrown off or will throw off the fascist cliques that the U.S. has saddled them with.  What you are seeing is the U.S. losing its grip, slipping in power as Iran rises.  The U.S. has no business in the Middle East.  Iran has plenty.  Gradually, the region is ejecting its parasitic foreign bodies.  The challenges are as I outlined previously - - how to broaden the base of the rising native super-power to include Arabs, Sunnis, Turks and maybe even - - in the long run - -  Jews.

[gipper]

I appreciate your argument, Michael. As to pre-shah Iran's democracy, of which I currently know little, I must remark first of all that it seems counterintuitive (especially in light of today's US obsession with its spread in the Middle East) that it would have been in our interests to overturn a truly democratic state in that corner of the world, right on the doorstep of the bete noir authoritarian regime of the time. What you say about oil interests (nationalized under Mossadegh?) is sufficient to explain the operation. But even granting CIA perfidy and the regimicide of a durable democratic state, viewed in perspective, as all other "encroachments" must be from Palestine-Israel to Iraq to Saudi Arabia and so on running out the list, there are three axes (at least) that run through the region not so much ameliorating the harm we caused but casting it as stale (time has passed; indeed, a pregnant question vis-a-vis the US is what blot endures besides Iraq?), overblown (the harm caused is the type a vigorous, not a malevolent, state using Machiavellian principles would cause in the course of taking care of affairs of state, especially in extenuating times like the Cold War; the outsize discrepancy of power did not make the indegenous populations "victims" (a dominant theme running through your argument, which is more a position of comfort for purposes of argumentation than it is a fair and just recapituation of reality) so much as casualties of war (the Cold War)), and both practiclaities, principles and sane self-preservation would seem to counsel taking the cinder out of your eye rather than cast about, half-blind, to punish the culprits who built the cinder road. Germany and Japan, the instruments of horros perhaps beyond comparison, are now, some 60-70 years later, among the family of nations. Who can even begin to compare Arab suffering to the horrors these states wreaked? And certainly the US did nothing comparable.

[Michael Tee]

<<Who can even begin to compare Arab suffering to the horrors these states [Germany & Japan] wreaked? And certainly the US did nothing comparable.>>

Well of course if you let Germany and Japan set the bar for criminal wrongdoing, you've got it set so high that virtually everybody else gets a pass.  I don't think it's a legitimate way of looking at things.  In fact, from my POV, I'd say that the U.S., given its history and traditions and its lead founding role in the UN, should be held to a significantly higher standard than any other country on earth.  It should be a given that they will behave much better than Germany and Japan did.  (Although never before the Bush administration was the gap between them so dramatically narrowed.)

<< . . . there are three axes (at least) that run through the region not so much ameliorating the harm we caused but casting it as stale . . . >>

domer, there are plenty of people your own age whose parents were tortured to death by the Shah's secret police.  Iranians gassed by Saddam's armies who figure they know where Saddam got the gas and the technology from.  Widows of the Iran-Iraq war who blame the U.S.A.  There's nothing "stale" about U.S. policy outcomes, unless you experienced that policy as a North American news consumer and not as an Iranian.  They just aren't gonna forget about it as easily as you are willing to forget about it.  To them, it was real.  Same goes even more for the West Bank which is an open wound every single one of our waking days.  And when I say "West Bank" I don't just mean the actual physical inhabitants, I mean their sympathizers and supporters all over the Arab world.  I think, with respect, you over-intellectualized something that these people have lived through.  Something that a lot of them are still living through.

<<the harm caused is the type a vigorous, not a malevolent, state using Machiavellian principles would cause in the course of taking care of affairs of state . . . >>

Well, obviously there are two POVs here, the "vigorous" or "Machiavellian" state's POV and - - since you think the term "victim" is an ideologically loaded one - -the people on the receiving end of the vigorous, Machiavellian state's policies.  I would think that truly "malevolent" states, BTW, would be very hard to find.  Nazi Germany, certainly, WWII Japan, OK, otherwise where do you find them?  but I don't think the victims of a non-malevolent but vigorous and Machiavellian state are going to take much comfort in considering how much worse things would be if their perceived oppressors had, for example, been Nazis.  It's just not human nature to think like that.  Besides which, some of these folks don't even accept that the Nazis were exceptionally evil.  And they probably never heard of the Rape of Nanking or the Bataan Death March. 

The question is, how much evil has to be done in order to provoke anger and hatred?  It doesn't take a bunch of Nazis.  Look at how much Osama bin Laden is hated in the U.S.A., and yet as an evil-doer, he's an insignificant piker when compared with either George W. Bush or the Nazi war criminals.  If bin Laden is so universally hated and despised for what he did to New York City on September 11, how do you think the Iraqis or the Palestinians feel about America for what's happened to Iraq or the West Bank?


I'm not saying the U.S. did anything comparable to the Nazis or the Japs.  They don't have to.  What they did is bad enough, domer.  It doesn't have to reach Nazi levels.  But they've either got to stop interfering in the region or else interfere on a whole different set of principles with a whole new set of goals.