Your Egypt

[alna]

"Why are middle east experts so unfailingly wrong? The lesson of history is that men never learn from history, but middle east experts, like the rest of us, should at least learn from their past mistakes. Instead, they just keep repeating them.

The first mistake is "five minutes to midnight" catastrophism. The late King Hussein of Jordan was the undisputed master of this genre. Wearing his gravest aspect, he would warn us that with patience finally exhausted the Arab-Israeli conflict was about to explode, that all past conflicts would be dwarfed by what was about to happen unless, unless…
.....
What actually happens at each of these "moments of truth"—and we may be approaching another one—is nothing much; only the same old cyclical conflict which always restarts when peace is about to break out, and always dampens down when the violence becomes intense enough. The ease of filming and reporting out of safe and comfortable Israeli hotels inflates the media coverage of every minor affray. But humanitarians should note that the dead from Jewish-Palestinian fighting since 1921 amount to fewer than 100,000—about as many as are killed in a season of conflict in Darfur.

Strategically, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been almost irrelevant since the end of the cold war. And as for the impact of the conflict on oil prices, it was powerful in 1973 when the Saudis declared embargoes and cut production, but that was the first and last time that the "oil weapon" was wielded. For decades now, the largest Arab oil producers have publicly foresworn any linkage between politics and pricing, and an embargo would be a disaster for their oil-revenue dependent economies. In any case, the relationship between turmoil in the middle east and oil prices is far from straightforward.

Arab-Israeli catastrophism is wrong twice over, first because the conflict is contained within rather narrow boundaries, and second because the Levant is just not that important any more.

The second repeated mistake is the Mussolini syndrome. Contemporary documents prove beyond any doubt what is now hard to credit: serious people, including British and French military chiefs, accepted Mussolini's claims to great power status because they believed that he had serious armed forces at his command. His army divisions, battleships and air squadrons were dutifully counted to assess Italian military power, making some allowance for their lack of the most modern weapons but not for their more fundamental refusal to fight in earnest. Having conceded Ethiopia to win over Mussolini, only to lose him to Hitler as soon as the fighting started, the British discovered that the Italian forces quickly crumbled in combat. It could not be otherwise, because most Italian soldiers were unwilling conscripts from the one-mule peasantry of the south or the almost equally miserable sharecropping villages of the north.

Exactly the same mistake keeps being made by the fraternity of middle east experts. They persistently attribute real military strength to backward societies whose populations can sustain excellent insurgencies but not modern military forces.

.....

Now the Mussolini syndrome is at work over Iran. All the symptoms are present, including tabulated lists of Iran's warships, despite the fact that most are over 30 years old; of combat aircraft, many of which (F-4s, Mirages, F-5s, F-14s) have not flown in years for lack of spare parts; and of divisions and brigades that are so only in name. There are awed descriptions of the Pasdaran revolutionary guards, inevitably described as "elite," who do indeed strut around as if they have won many a war, but who have actually fought only one—against Iraq, which they lost. As for Iran's claim to have defeated Israel by Hizbullah proxy in last year's affray, the publicity was excellent but the substance went the other way, with roughly 25 per cent of the best-trained men dead, which explains the tomb-like silence and immobility of the once rumbustious Hizbullah ever since the ceasefire.

....

The third and greatest error repeated by middle east experts of all persuasions, by Arabophiles and Arabophobes alike, by Turcologists and by Iranists, is also the simplest to define. It is the very odd belief that these ancient nations are highly malleable. Hardliners keep suggesting that with a bit of well-aimed violence ("the Arabs only understand force") compliance will be obtained. But what happens every time is an increase in hostility; defeat is followed not by collaboration, but by sullen non-cooperation and active resistance too. It is not hard to defeat Arab countries, but it is mostly useless. Violence can work to destroy dangerous weapons but not to induce desired changes in behaviour.

....

That brings us to the mistake that the rest of us make. We devote far too much attention to the middle east, a mostly stagnant region where almost nothing is created in science or the arts—excluding Israel, per capita patent production of countries in the middle east is one fifth that of sub-Saharan Africa. The people of the middle east (only about five per cent of the world's population) are remarkably unproductive, with a high proportion not in the labour force at all.

....

Unless compelled by immediate danger, we should therefore focus on the old and new lands of creation in Europe and America, in India and east Asia—places where hard-working populations are looking ahead instead of dreaming of the past."

The entire article can be found on :arrow:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9302

[Katrina]

Quite a pragmatic point of view, but I have to say I agree with many points made in this article.

[alna]

This article is scornful.

Concerning the Mussolini symdrome, the Israeli military people in charge in 1967, the Americans in charge in 1990 and the same people in charge today know perfectly that the military force ratios are in their favour and that they use the Mussolini syndrome for propaganda.

Quote: But humanitarians should note that the dead from Jewish-Palestinian fighting since 1921 amount to fewer than 100,000—about as many as are killed in a season of conflict in Darfur.


It's a pity to restrict a conflict at its number of deaths and to consider that the cultural destruction is negligible.

[Katrina]

Who said this article is not shocking? But who also would say it is not realistic either? From the perspective of this author, how is it more important than deaths from famine for instance elsewhere? “Freakeconomics” book can shock too, but who said many points as ruthless and as pragmatic as they sound are not correct? This person obviously did not write this article to please people who cherish and think the world can be ideal, but this article is aimed at policy makers, who do not cherish such ideas and ideals.

That is the point and ruthlessness of this particular article is that everybody pursues the policy of interests. Propaganda is a crafty political tool everywhere. It is how interests of people in power are achieved where propaganda serves a central role in framing interests of the masses being the “same” to those of their own while they differ

[Katrina]

Whether it sounds bad or not, I do agree with these points:

It is not hard to defeat Arab countries, but it is mostly useless. Violence can work to destroy dangerous weapons but not to induce desired changes in behaviour.

....


Unless compelled by immediate danger, we should therefore focus on the old and new lands of creation in Europe and America, in India and east Asia—places where hard-working populations are looking ahead instead of dreaming of the past."

[patrick2007]

A post above said that we focus to much on the middle east, well we dont have much choice at the moment with all thats happening there and all that may happen in the months ahead i,e the possible war with iran, these future events will continually flood our news papers and stations with news on a daily basis as it gets tenser in the middle east, the days will come when the middle east will be the MAIN topic of conversation EVERYWHERE.

[Louise]

What do you think would happen if all "western" interests were removed from the middle east? Soldiers, diplomats, business representatives--everyone.

What would happen? This is a serious question, please.

[Katrina]

Louise wrote: What do you think would happen if all "western" interests were removed from the middle east? Soldiers, diplomats, business representatives--everyone.

What would happen? This is a serious question, please.

Just one quick opinion. This question requires to many issues to consider to be able to give a comprehensive answer

no guarantee of peace and no guarantee of lack of chaos, either. But at least nobody will be able to blame the West anymore and will have to get their act together. Western presence is "convenient" for some. They can always feed the public why certain things are not done (fault of the West) while doing nothing for the masses but enriching their own pockets. While Arab leaders creatively blame presence of the West, they desperately need its presence for their own political local games and justifying their own lack of performance

[Louise]

(much like the issue of illegal immigration within our borders, isn't it?)

This was a sincere question. I wonder if the benefits of contact with the "western" world outweigh the benefits of a "closed" Muslim world without interference, influence or media from other sectors?