Thursday, January 22, 2015
MidEast open thread
Developments in the broader Middle East -- Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Libya (there was a WaPo editorial about the last not too long ago that I was thinking of linking to, though not necessarily because I agreed with it) -- might ordinarily call for comment here, but I'm somewhat preoccupied at the moment, plus I'm not sure I can add much 'value', so to speak, not being a regional expert. But in the unlikely event someone is passing through and wants to comment on the developments, please feel free to do so. (Or on anything else for that matter, assuming it's roughly within the blog's remit.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Well, there's now a Crooked Timber thread that seems to be more or less about this, so we can all go bloviate there.
"so we can all go bloviate there."
Done ; )
Right!
More seriously, I'm not sure I'm going to listen to that Migdal podcast, at least not soon. But I'll try to at some point...
I dont know if there's anything profound in it, just think it gives a fairer perspective on the difficulties the US faced in the region, and what drove policy, than perhaps Chomsky does. But anyway,I think that thread has died.
Above was me (obviously)
Not a ME expert, but I do keep an eye on things. The big story seems to me the rise of the Shia (Iran, the role of the militias against ISIS, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, the Houthis). They seem to be groping towards a marriage of religion and politics that provides both motivation and discipline.
The second story is that the US establishment is, as usual, a day late and a dollar short in thinking through the implications.
They seem to be groping towards a marriage of religion and politics that provides both motivation and discipline.
Which some of their opponents, e.g. ISIS and other groups, maybe AQAP, have also achieved, wouldn't you say?
I was having a drink w a couple of friends earlier this evening and the conversation briefly turned to the ME and the Sunni-Shia divide specifically. I mentioned that there were longstanding theological/doctrinal divisions, but my friends said this was just an excuse or cover for 'tribalism'. I didn't want to get into a major argument and am not really sure of my ground here, so I didn't push back much. But 'tribalism' doesn't seem a fully adequate description or explanation.
There is also, of course, a separate secular/'Islamist' divide in certain places (Egypt, obvs., for one) and a (related though not identical) democratic/authoritariian divide. Given these complexities I'd be a little surprised, I guess, if the US est. were not scrambling.
Egypt esp. seems a real tragedy of missed opportunities etc. since 2011. There was an interview I heard recently that was perceptive on this. (Will try to link it later.)
In terms of lives lost and misery induced, Israel/Hamas, Israel/Hezbollah, and of course the Syrian civil war and the whole Iraq debacle wd have to take priority. But in terms of hopes raised and then dashed, Egypt seems to stand out.
"Which some of their opponents, e.g. ISIS and other groups, maybe AQAP, have also achieved, wouldn't you say?"
Not really - the motivation is certainly there, but the discipline to keep policy broadly acceptable while still arguing different sides is not. ISIS is having major problems in the areas it rules, as is AQAP, and the Taliban also ran into the same issues. It's the Tea Party in government. While, contrastingly, regimes such as Egypt or Yemen under Saleh or Algeria lack the ability to motivate more than their immediate clients (usually in the army). By contrast, Iran has had its issues, but also managed regular changes of leadership, kept a broad base of support and has vigorous - if somewhat circumscribed - policy debates. And once the issue switched from Assad to Allawi plus allies vs AQ, the support base of the Syrian regime hardened. Ditto Iraq.
The Middle Eastern Muslim world is groping towards some workable synthesis of religion and politics, because a politics without religion (in the ME) lacks conviction. The Shia seem to be much further along with this project so far.
A major US issue is that the establishment lacks the analytic clarity to sort out the likely consequences of their actions. So they end up with blowback or egg surprise.
Interesting, will have to think about this. ISTM there was a time when a vibrant/viable secular politics in ME was possible (e.g. Nasserism/pan-Arabism), and while it prob. won't be revived in that form, I wdn't rule out a resurgence of some secular mvts in certain places. But just speculation. The recent elections in Tunisia, which I didn't read much about beyond the headlines, brought to power an anti-Islamist; I think he's 89 years old (or something like that), though. (Don't know about broader significance of that election.)
AFAICT Pan-Arabism was certainly lively, but was essentially an urban, mostly middle-class thing. It never aroused the countryside. Maybe it could have been a mass movement if economic development had played out differently, but it didn't go that way. I have often heard "tribalism" trotted out by people who don't want to think through the realities (eg on Bosnia). Tribalism is a thing in Sunni Iraq, eastern Syria and Yemen. Elsewhere it's a combination of religious and class identity.
You could well be right re Pan-Arabism. It's been a long time since I've read anything about it.
Btw, I just heard about a left-ish forum around here later this month (Feb. 21, I think it is) called "The Real Story behind ISIS." I may go to hear what they're saying, not that I'm expecting necessarily to agree. If I go and it's interesting I'll write it up here. (Of course, if I don't go and/or it's not interesting, I won't.)
It will probably talk about how ISIS was created by US policy :).
Too long for a comment box, but It's interesting to put ME players into 2 lists over various decades - those US policy saw as friends and those it saw as enemies, and then draw a few lines to show the alliances among the players themselves. The US never manages to get all it's ducks in one row.
Peter,
If you (or Ronan or anyone else) would like to write a guest post on M.East and US policy etc., drop me an e-mail: my address is accessible by clicking on "see my complete profile" on the blog sidebar. You don't have to write it under a full name, obviously. (I won't promise to put it up verbatim to the last comma, but any tinkering I do would have to be acceptable to the writer of the guest post -- in other words, I won't put up anything unless you're happy with it.) You would
of course retain all rights of recirculation and republication of the post.
I understand people are both busy and often more comfortable writing in a comment thread than on a front page (even of a v. non-high-traffic site), so I don't necessarily expect any takers. But I've had very few guest posts here and that's something I'd like to change.
(Also, February is a short month and the other claims on my time mean that I myself probably won't be posting much here in Feb.)
p.s. The exact wording on the sidebar is "View my complete profile".
"If you (or Ronan or anyone else) would like to write a guest post on M.East and US policy etc."
I dont have the stomach for front page posting, but I can promise to be pigheaded in any relevant comments ; )
Your comments, pigheaded or otherwise, are always welcome and appreciated. :-)
Post a Comment