This was a comment I left in response to
Given my typically american appalling lack of historical knowledge, the Middle East more or less stopped existing between the crusades and World War I. A few hours before I’d read your post, while bored at work, I’d actually been researching what was going on in the middle east in the years between desert storm and shock and awe when I stumbled across something that started with the formation of Iraq in the early 1900’s under british colonialism. That still leaves a very large gap.
I agree. I don’t think we can turn them into us at all. And that’s not what I want. I also don’t recall proposing bunnies & rainbows. =) I propose conversion via a combination of education, food, healthcare, work, and most importantly, contact with the rest of the world all served with a religious and social neutrality. The two keys in that are education and work. From that the food, healthcare, and contact with the outside world would pretty much become self-sustaining. Obviously, that can’t be done in territories where most are hostile to us, nor can it sensibly be done in a country that’s tearing itself apart (see also, Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis packed together under one roof). But we could fund aid programs carried out by more liberal Muslims or any other group they are unlikely to bomb on sight.
As for lacking the luxury of time, I’m afraid that we have no choice. You don’t change people’s hearts and minds overnight. No matter how quickly you can get a fax from the Appalachian Mountains to the Fertile Crescent, the human time frame is less amenable to speed ups. Unless, of course, you want to slaughter the majority, and separate the rest, that is, forcibly disassemble the culture with an ongoing campaign of genocide. Color me not in favor. We’d start learning what international disapproval really means, even in the absense of disapproval we couldn’t afford it, and it’s simply completely wrong.
I agree with Pat Buchanan (and thanks to whichever livejournaler posted this where I could find it). This “stay until we fix things” idea is bullshit. Our presence there is inherently destabilizing.
That’s not to say that I think packing our bags tonight and leaving tomorrow with no further planning is a good idea. That would be a disaster. Saying “we fucked up and we can’t fix it, can somebody please help” might be a start (expect that from Bush about the same time I grow wings and fly). Maybe do a little nation deconstructing so that the kurds have their own state, the sunnis theirs, and the shiites theirs. I’m no expert on middle eastern affairs, and I don’t pretend to be. I’m throwing out my best guesses.
Iraq
I think we shouldn’t have invaded, and we shouldn’t stay. Let them work out their own social systems. Attempting to plan for them as we slowly disengage makes no sense to me. Apoligize for invading; announce we are leaving, starting now, with all US military to be evacuated by September 30. Whee!
History between the crusades and WWI
was my specialty in university. I studied under Dr. Quinn at Ohio University, and while my focus was on the gunpowder empires, specifically the Ottomans, I did learn a lot about other parts of the “Middle East”.
For starters, the term has a lot of really rotten associations with British colonialism. (Why is it the Middle East? Because it’s about midway from the British Isles to the colonies in India…) For seconds, it’s wretchedly imprecise, and gives an inaccurate idea of the cultures involved. The culture of the 12er Shia Persian isn’t even remotely the same as a Lebanese Christian, except that they both probably eat yogurt and pomegranates and drink mint tea. By that measure, call me a Georgia Belle, because I like peach cobbler. (For the record, I’m from the Ohio River Valley.) Also, frankly, I have about 8 different maps of the “Middle East”, not one of which covers the same area as any of the others. I have one that seems to consider anything between Belgrade and India to be the “Middle East”, and one that is fairly focused on Israel and it’s neighbors, such that Iraq isn’t even in the area. Then there’s my method for this post, which is use the term, but distance oneself from it by putting it in quotes.
Some folks have proposed using the term “Dar al Islam” (world of Islam), but again, it’s incorrect. The biggest Islamic country in the world is not in that corner of Northern Africa to Western Asia. Others go for the laundry list of areas: Levant, Fertile Crescent, Northern Africa, etc. However, who, other than an Israeli bakery, uses the word “Levant” anymore? Besides, it gets pretty lengthy trying to cover everywhere you’re talking about. Also note that some of the above terms are imprecise themselves. Most scholars end up speaking precisely to specific areas and wrinkling their noses when the more imprecise terms come up. See note above on putting stuff in quotes. (Do I consider myself a scholar or an expert? No. I’m someone who’s studied more than most Americans, but I speak only a few words of Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish. That’s pretty pathetic, actually, but none of the above languages were available at my university when I went there.)
For the discipline-shaking book that has influenced most modern scholarship in the area, check out _Orientalism_ by Edward Said. For a view on the role of women in Ottoman diplomacy the best book is Leslie Pierce, _The Imperial Harem_. Pierce’s book is an argument against the Orientalist theories of Ottoman decline in the centuries leading up to WWI, and provides valuable insight into Turkish roles in international relations during the time from their golden period under Suleiman the Magnificent known also as the Lawmaker to the late 19th Century, when the fiercest races for European colonialism were taking place.
Another valuable period to look into is the time leading up to and including WWI itself, and the behind the scenes politicing, etc. that were going on. This explains my view of Lawrence of Arabia as a self-serving glory-seeker with more guts than brains. Specifically, a look into the Hussein-McMahon correspondence (in which the British promised Palestine to the Pan-Arab movement, and specifically to a certain family), the Balfour Declaration (in which the British promise Palestine to the Zionist movement in the hopes that Jews really do control the world- also to pay off some big political debts), and the Sykes-Picot agreement (a secret treaty in which the British and the French divided up the Ottoman Empire to suit their own notions, and in which the British got Palestine) might prove instructive. Of the above-mentioned agreements, of course, it was the one with another major European power that they intended to keep.
The Sykes-Picot agreement, in particular, is a fascinating mess. The attempts to keep this division of the Ottoman Empire going the way they wanted it to resulted in a temporary situation in which folks living in the Palestine Territory agreed on one thing, no matter what religion they might otherwise espouse: the British had to go. The situation became so bad, that eventually the British called for international help. But the lines put in place by the British and French for the most part remained the country lines.
(My last comment is precisely 4,300 characters, the limit allowed.)
Now? Well, we’ve added significantly to the chaos and have found ourselves mired in the tar.
As I commented last night, the only long-term solution to terrorism is to dry up the sources of new terrorists. That’s long, hard work involving a refusal to support the kleptocracies we’ve installed because of political expedience. It is no coincedence that countries that officially hate us have many subjects who dream of “Golden America” and subjects of the oppressive regimes we’ve funded and supported hate us virulently. It involves raising standards of living worldwide and refusing to accept flagrant violations of human rights from our “allies”.
What we need to do now is in so far as possible, reduce our role to the most basic peacekeeping – plus work to raise the standard of living of territories under our basic control. As quickly as reasonably possible (as in, do we really need to bring in some scruffy about the edges “king” for pity’s sake, just for expedience!?), Iraqis (and Afghans in Afghanistan) need to be brought in to run their own country. The monopoly of violence needs to be established in those territories, and that’s not overnight work, but neither should it be an excuse for perpetual occupation.
The only problem I have with your post is the human rights aspect. I’m not going to argue that “maybe they’re right” because I don’t think that they are. But they definitely don’t see things my way or your way, and that’s something we have to consider.
It’s one thing to stop an oppressive dictator from doing things the populace doesn’t like. It’s another thing entirely to rework a country’s notion of right and wrong. Consider female genital mutilation in northern africa and the execution of practicing homos in Iran. How would you propose that we go about “refusing to accept” those practices in ways that do more good than harm? (or did you have other ones in mind?)
One of the more compelling star trek: tng episodes I remember was the one with David Ogden Steirs playing a scientist from a suicide where citizens were expected to commit suicide at 40 (or some similar age). I think it was good because, atypically for star trek, it didn’t really offer answers. And it incidentally allowed for a depth of character in Lwaxana Troi. (I looked it up on IMDB, it’s “half a life”, episode #4.22, May 4, 1991)
What I mean by refusing to accept human rights violations is frankly, we’ve basically funded some of the more egregious of Israel’s attempts to intimidate the Palestinians (another situation that’s simply got to end. There are “refugee camps” there that are older than I am.) American oil money has funded the Saudi “morality” police. Hell, we _train_ thugs here at the “School of the Americas” – admittedly to go to Central and South America, but the fact remains.
We talk an excellent line about liberty, but as long as the tin-pot dictator of the week holds the line we want him to, he can be as absolutely evil to his own people as he pleases, and we will continue to fund it. Look at the role we played in Chile, helping to overthrow the *elected* Allende government, because we didn’t want Socialists there. We funded Hussein and Ba’ath as long as they were useful to us against Iran. We have refused to grant amnesty to people who were in genuine political trouble from our “allies.”
As for FGM, I believe we should provide amnesty for those fleeing forced mutilation of any sort, but I also recognise that women play a significant part in some cultures in perpetuating the idea that a woman who has undergone the ceremony is better. (Also, it’s not generally something that the government undertakes, but rather a “tribal matter”.
And as for Iran, we’re not funding them. We’re not actively helping them carry out the Evil Decree. (Not to say that this country doesn’t itself officially carry out persecution – sodomy laws are still used to justify discrimination.)
The question is not whether bad things happen the world over. They do. While I know you’re not a theist, I strongly urge you to check out _Ecclesiastes_, which has some wonderful poetry on the subject. However, the great rabbi Hillel is commonly quoted as saying, “Where no one is behaving like a human being, strive to be human.” Or as Terry Pratchett puts it, “Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was nice?” The only way to accomplish anything like that is “let it begin with me.”
What kind of direct action is available to individuals? That’s tough. Lots of “little stuff” – energy conservation, buying local, reducing individual oil usage, etc. is one set of steps. Charitable contribution and collective action is another. And of course, there is always also speaking out, refusing to be silenced.