I’m talking about a hypothetical leader’s ability to pull together a divided people, disagreeing people or even warring peoples to form a common front.
Hitler used nationalism and racism. I’m arguing that religion is a much more powerful force. Hell, Lawrence of Arabia pulled it off once; poorly and only for only a short time, but he proved it was possible.
Who said anything about Arabs needing submarines or tanks to pull this off anyway? Not me! If a leader emerged that pulled the Arab nations together under one umbrella (even if it wasn’t a new single nation, maybe like the old Greek city-states?) and spouted that they only wanted to live together with their Arab brothers in peace and harmony, how could the West or the rest of the world disagree? As long as the Arabs maintained their peaceful intentions, the rest of the world would have and could have no compliants. Shoot, you’d have ER’s all over the US filled with liberals suffering from spontaneous multiple orgasms.
May be; we’ll see. But I still see some major areas of disagreement.
I sure don’t see that, either on this board or out in the political world. Does Hillary say that? Dean? Gephardt? Or columnists: Dionne? Krugman? Kuttner?
Sure, some liberals harp on that almost exclusively. And many conservatives believe the Bible is literally true, and want to translate what they believe to be the Bible’s implications into policy. So let’s not play guilt by association.
It would have made more sense if they’d made that their lead rationale from the beginning, so we could have debated the invasion on that basis.
As a liberal, I want to see the U.S. be a force for good in the world. But I’m old enough that a variation on realpolitik has crept into my veins. Politics is the art of the possible, they say, and not every goal is possible. Disarm Saddam? We can do that easily. Disarm Saddam so that his WMDs don’t fall into terrorists’ hands? Tricky, if he’s got them, but most Americans, in advance of the war, would have bought into the idea that it was doable. Depose Saddam and institute a stable democratic government in Iraq? A longshot at best, IMHO - and not particularly urgent, either, while we’re trying to combat al-Qaeda, North Korea and Iran are on the cusp of going nuclear, and trying to rebuild Afghanistan. A lot of pots on the stove at once, all placing demands on our military and intelligence services.
Who’s going to conquer Iran? They held off Iraq for a decade, back when Iraq’s military was regarded as the powerhouse of the region. Iran can hold off an Arab league long enough to go nuclear, and then they’re safe.
And nobody’s going to try to wipe out Israel via conventional warfare, because Israel has nukes, and they’re not going to lose that sort of war without taking their attacker down with them.
And which Arab rulers are going to give up their power to become a lesser voice in a pan-Arab union? The Presidents of Egypt or Syria? The King or Crown Prince of Jordan or Saudi Arabia? Even if all those nations are swept by religious fervor, and the ayatollahs take over everywhere, the ayatollahs are going to be reluctant to yield kingly power, too. Besides, even they will disagree. These nations will be Sunni, those nations will be Shi’ite, and so on.
To form a common front to do what, precisely? Let’s look at the examples here:
Hardly. Lawrence was a British outsider with inside contacts who helped in the revolt against the Ottomans. And arguably, it wasn’t much of an unified Arab revolt to begin with. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” so the saying goes, but it’s usually quite a bit more complicated than that, particularly when friends are prone to back-stabbing.
Hitler did not accomplish his conquest by rhetoric alone. You might compare a hypothetical Arab ultra-nationalist with him up to a point, when he was recruiting the S.A., seizing popular support for power… but then what? A populist revolt across multiple Arab nations stretches the analogy to the breaking point and beyond. Are the separate armies of Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia going to back down without a fight? Unlikely indeed, Let alone Iran, if you want to bring non-Arab nations into the mix. There have been unified Arab Empires, but there has never been an all-encompassing Arab Nation.
[Furthermore, it should be pointed out that “Arab” is not a religious affliation. There are indeed Jewish and Christian Arabs, besides the multiple Islamic sects.]
You mean like under Philip and Alexander of Macedon? Recall how they unified Greece and built their empire–under force of arms, with both loyal nationalists and paid mercenaries. And Alexander’s troops finally got tired of conquest and decided to go home despite Alexander’s ministrations to the contrary.
shrugs
I don’t understand the conservative/liberal dichotomy here. Certainly you don’t mean to imply that conservatives don’t want peace in the Middle East.
Truth be known, some don’t. There is a wing of the Troglodyte Right, whose theology is a mixture of Stephen King and John Calvin, who are actually eager for the Apocalypse. Was it not James Watt, Reagan’s Sec. Interior, who advanced the notion that environmental concerns were silly and pointless, because Jesus was on his way to shut down the party anyway.
People like that make me nervous. People like that in positions of power and influence terrify me.
You’re right, of course–there is a certain segment of the population, both here and in the region, that desires peace through the direct exercise of superior firepower (and complete destruction of all who do not share their beliefs), via heavenly or not-so-heavenly means… Though I certainly wouldn’t want to be so unfair as to characterize all conservatives as having such a draconian outlook on the possibility of peace.
By no stretch of the imagination! Its only the willingness of that segment of the party which is not reality impaired to cater to the deranged whims of those who are. Therein lies the threat.
In a less equally polarized political environment, maybe the sane Pubbies could afford to stop kissing their butts. But even if they only represent 5% of the population, they vote, and they vote hard.
And brothers and sisters, this one’s gonna be tooth and nail.
These are the same folks who completely support Israel in its struggle against the Palestinians, because that would hasten the second coming of Jesus… who (if I remember my Biblical studies correctly) will then start the Rapture, and the Apocalypse, and all that fun stuff, where the Jews will get burned in hellfire for not accepting Christ as their savior, right?
Lovely. “We’re backing you, because your success means your doom will arrive even sooner!” :rolleyes: With friends like this…
You know the stuff about the red heifer being needed to purify the new Temple? So all the Jews will return and usher in the End of Days. How this guy in Mississippi is trying to breed such an animal? Yes, folks, the Cow of the Apocalypse. Guys name is Clyde Lott and, no, I don’t know if he’s related.
[QUOTE]
To form a common front to do what, precisely?
[QUOTE]
I’m not at all trying to extrapolate on what a hypothetical leader might or might not do with any degree of precision. I’m saying that he must first have his people united for a common goal or purpose whatever or wherever it might be. Bombs, planes, missles, etc. (or schools, libraries, parks, etc. for that matter) are pretty usless without motovated people with the desire, the will and the ability to use them. Suffice to say, a Islamic leader like that in today’s world would have power indeed!
[QUOTE]
Lawrence was a British outsider with inside contacts who helped in the revolt against the Ottomans. And arguably, it wasn’t much of an unified Arab revolt to begin with.
[QUOTE]
That is why I said he did it poorly and for a short time but he proved it was possible. It would stand to reason that someone NOT an outsider with great leadership ability could do better. I remember reading somewhere that Bin Laden would like to do that very thing; unite all Islamic countries under one tent as it were. (see last sentence in above response)
[QUOTE]
A populist revolt across multiple Arab nations stretches the analogy to the breaking point and beyond.
[QUOTE]
What good is an analogy if it isn’t?? You’ll never predict what’s possible without exhausting what’s probable… and beyond.
[QUOTE]
You mean like under Philip and Alexander of Macedon?
[QUOTE]
Maybe city-states was a bad model choice? OPEC might be closer to the imagined power structure. With an appointed head with veto power? Two thirds majority to over ride? (hope I’m not giving any extremists any ideas)
[QUOTE]
I don’t understand the conservative/liberal dichotomy here.
TE Lawrence proved with enough money (in the form of weapons) and effort an outsider can overcome some of the initial distrust and help aid revolutionairies. Much beyond that would seem to be reaching… or would you like to provide cites on the matter?
(Did you read what my previous link says about Arab nationalism?)
You’ll never predict what’s possible anyway, at least not all of it. There are far, far too many permutations if one has to consider every horribly improbable situation that comes to mind. Governments need to make actual policies, and in doing so, they should be considering the most probable results of those policies as a primary factor.
Just because it’s possible that Mexico will invade Texas tomorrow or that South Carolina will secede the second Tuesday after the next full moon doesn’t mean we should start seriously making policy decisions based on those possibilities. Just because it’s possible that people will clone super-intelligent, genocidal dinosaurs that mount little lasers on their heads doesn’t mean we should burn all our natural history museums.
And just because Arab nations could suddenly disregard their long legacy of tribal, political, and national differences in order to unite as one for the greater goal of world hegemony via slitting their own economic throats and shutting off their portion of the oil supply doesn’t mean we should lose a lot of sleep over it.
Depends on the particular types of noise you refer to I suppose… As far as I’m concerned, the bipolar nature of the labels is almost as annoying as those who pledge undying allegiance to a particular side. I suppose it may indeed be the case that liberals are more noisy. On the other hand, the self-identified conservatives tend to be more brutal and dare I say, insane with black-and-white mentalities. And noise bothers me less than irrationality. Which is not to say either left or right can’t be insane–if we’re to continue to use WW2 analogies, Hitler was about as far right as you can get, Stalin about as far left, and woe to those who were caught in between. But I digress.
Don’t think any cites are available, I’m just speculating that an INSIDER could pull this off given enough money, effort and a heapin’ helpin’ of religious fever.
Woe is right. When getting bombarded by a liberal I usually say, “If conservatives have their head in the sand, then liberals have their heads in the clouds.” When getting bombarded by a conservative I usually say " If liberals have their heads in the clouds, then conservatives have their heads in the sand." I guess that’s my gift… pissin’ off everybody!
I really appreciate our exchange mrblue. Thoughtful discussion beats pontification by a mile. (Most of my SDMB has been spent in GQ, only recently have I been to the Pit; it sure gets hot in there!)
Hey, in order to build a calmer, quieter, more reasonable America, whatta ya think of this… Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Al Franken and an anvil in a gunny sack visiting the wreck of the Titanic?
Back to the oil thing. I’m pretty much a tree-hugging liberal, and as you can likely guess I’m against drilling in ANWR.
But not for the reasons people like Rush Limbaugh would have you believe.
The United States maintains a six-month strategic petroleum reserve, stored in salt caverns along the Gulf Coast and elsewhere. But that is only part of a two-tiered strategic reserve. The other, larger, and far more important strategic reserve are the untapped oilfields on American soil which remain intact and unmolested while we burn the reserves pumped out by our enemies and potential enemies.
ANWR represents one of the last large fields in American territory which is easily and cheaply exploitable–all the more important to keep it pristine in anticipation of the day when we really need it, instead of need to pay off political favors with it. We become less dependent upon foreign oil in the future by burning off the Saudis’ shit right now, while it’s cheap.
The fact that the Bush Administration is attempting to tap into that six-month supply of reserves in Alaska, while deceitfully casting the move in the light of making the U.S. “less dependent upon foreign oil,” is primary evidence that the people in charge are either out for short-term political gain at the expense of our strategic future, or are just too incompetent to understand otherwise.
Say what you want about me and my ilk, but intentionally or not we liberals actually have a more strategically sound view when it comes to future energy supplies. Conserve, develop alternative energy sources, and screw over the Middle East by tacking on to their life-blood like a jungle leech while we leave our last, most precious reserves in the safest place they can be–in the goddamned ground.
Jumpin’ jiminy, elucidator. I don’t know if Clyde Lott is related to Trent, either, but I do know that they’re both from Mississippi. That’s enough to make me want to run and hide.
Well, let’s look at a simple introductory text, (The Middle East Today). . .
*"During World War I, the various Arab nationalist trends converged into a single independence movement. Many of the leaders were initially conscious-stricken about deserting their fellow Muslims in the Ottoman empire. . . . The fear was that insurrection within the empire would lead to foreign conquest.
"Most other Arab nationalists, however, broke with the Ottoman goverment, and leadership of the nationalist movement shifted to Sherif Husein and his sons in Arabia. . . .
". . . The threat of military repression in Arabia and the executions in Syria set off the military phase of the Arab revolt. There has been considerable controversy about the effectiveness of this revolt and about the role played in it by Colonel T. E. Lawrence. . . .
"The Arab revolt was by no means a mass movement. There was no widespread civil unrest against Ottoman authority, due partly to Ottoman oppression and partly to lack of encouragement from the government of British India. British Indian army officers who occupied Iraq were skeptical of the Arabs’ ability to win independence. The viceroy of India regarded the Arab revolt as ‘a displeasing surprise whose collapse would be far less prejudicial to us than would our military intervention in support of it.’ Arab independence, he feared would disrupt plans of the British Indian government to annex lower Iraq and might create unrest among the ninety million Muslims in India who had a sentimental attachment to the Ottoman caliphate.
“By the end of World War I, the Arab nationalist movement was divided into diverse currents. Egyptians, deeply involved in their own struggle with Great Britain, did not yet identify with neighboring movements. The Arabian penisula was divided among numerous sheikhs, amirs, and other tribal leaders, none of whom had significant power. . . . A separate nationalist movement emerged in Iraq. It had closer ties with the Syrian nationalists than did the Egyptians, but it too remained apart. The heart of the Arab nationalist sentiment and successor to the prewar movements was that of greater Syria–Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon.”*
(emphasis mine)
It should be noted that over the intervening years, patriotic nationalism has significantly increased in the region (what with the formation of actual, independent nations and all…). The Lebanese have no wish to be governed by Syrians, etc., etc. The concepts of modern “Arab nationalism” would seem to be largely propagandistic efforts to promote (and perhaps confer some sense of greater historical legitimacy) for the particular national cause rather than a more general pan-Arab sentiment. Which is not to say there isn’t some feeling of ethnic unity or that there aren’t some individuals with dreams of the Umayyads revisited. But that would seem little more likely than the probability of Europe once again finding itself under Roman Catholic-dominated feudalism. (Granted, the strength of religious sentiments in Europe are obviously far removed from the Middle East, but the fractious nature of the religions themselves need to be considered in comparison to ancient empires.)
