# Lounsbury on Iraq & MENA: War, Politics, Economy & Related Questions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2003, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259 "2003-03-26T08:44:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/141 "2003-03-27T07:28:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*I just wanted to offer my belated “welcome back” to **Collounsbury.** > > No questions from me; I’m just reading this thread with wide-eyed fascination, mixed with dread at having my fears about this whole fiasco confirmed. ☹ “Shock and awe,” indeed. \*\* Actually I was hoping you and others might join in thinking out loud about economic risks. I have my POV, but I am up to my neck in the situation. I might even get something I can use out of that. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/142 "2003-03-27T07:36:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Reread the damned discussion and try to step outside of your highly peculiar world view. \*\* Please! I’m just starting to enjoy this thread. I can’t have you red-lining already; we’ve got a long way to go. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/143 "2003-03-27T07:43:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > If the war goes on too long, there is a real risk that Saddam Hussein will actually become extremely popular with Iraqis. Something similar happened during WWII in the Soviet Union. Stalin went from being universally loathed and feared to being extremely popular as an emblem of resistance. REcall, all, that Sadaam is said to have closely studied Stalin and his methods. The present situation appears to reflect almost the same strategy. > [@](#): > > 1. Gulf Arabs. Good lord not Gulf Arabs. That is the last thing you want, nobody likes them, and since it is an open secret they support the war… > [@](#): > > Getting a couple of competent, pragmatic Muslim Arab administrators to take responsibility for some high-profile areas like health care, civilian police, the judicial system, utilities, etc. would go a long way toward reconciling the Arab street to American and British actions. It’s no longer the Westerners occupying an Arab country (which is too evocative of the creation of Israel). It’s their Arab brethren cooperating with the West in an act of charity. Jordanians would probably be best but Qataris or Bahrainis would also probably be acceptable to the locals. Even Kuwaitis would do in a pinch. After all, the Iraqis think of them as practically part of Iraq. 😉 No, no. Not Qataris, not Bahrainis and CERTAINLY NOT Kuwaities. Jrodanians, yes. Egyptians, well okay, Lebanese, okay, Omanis, ideal but hard to swing. Syrians, well not bloody likely. Jordanians and Palestinians are the best of the lot. (North Africans I leave out bec. of linguistic divides) An Arab League supported staffing might be an ideal choice, but make sure the pompous Egyptians don’t take over the show. They’re possibly the worst model for staffing a government. > [@](#): > > 1. Other Muslims. Not as good as fellow Arabs but better than Joe Smith from Kansas. Turks would be a good choice but there is a whiff of animosity there (with respect to the Kurds it’s a good deal more than a whiff!) that might rub some people the wrong way. No, Turks are a stunningly bad choice. This region does not forget. Ottoman “occupation” and all that. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, Turkish reluctance to participate in an attack may give them a bounce in popularity with the average Iraqi. One key point here is to make certain that a great deal of infrastructure construction work is let to Turkish construction companies. It will be a boost for the Turkish economy and having a bunch of Turkish construction workers rebuilding Baghdad will play a lot better than having only European and American ones. I also point out that the West could do far worse than an Iraq heavily influenced by Turkish political and social thought. Pipe dream. These two societies are very very different and have not had a common history in reality in more than a century. No. Turkish particp in government is right out. In rebulding, well that is actually a super idea, but in government, no, no, no. > [@](#): > > 1. Anyone besides the U.S. and British. For geopolitical reasons, it is extremely unlikely that the French will get much of a role. But the U.S. could certainly do with the odd Swede. Pity as the French are wildly popular nowadays in the Arab world. > [@](#): > > 1. Arab-Americans, especially Iraqi-Americans. The U.S. has made good use of the Afghan diaspora. Hopefully it will be able to make good use of the Iraqi one. I’ve often wondered why the U.S. doesn’t do more of this… For example, (for a while, I don’t know if they still do this) the U.S. finally started putting an Arab-American undersecretary of state in front of Arab media. That sends a powerful message about the nature of American society. Problem is (a) American government does not generally trust 1st generation folks and (b) 2nd generation folks are generally highly assimilated. I speak better Arabic, both dialect and formal, than most Arab Americans I have met (meaning 2nd generation born and raised in the USA). > [@](#): > > From reading English language arab media, my impression is that anger at what’s going on in Iraq is about 25% anger at having foreign troops invading an Arab country and about 75% bitter cynicism regarding what America will do when the shooting stops. I think that is fair, although a better characterization of elite than popular opinion. Pop opinion is probably more 50/50. > [@](#): > > Progressive Arabs have a long-standing complaint that the U.S. is willing to tolerate brutal regimes in the interest of stability. The U.S. has a uniformly lousy track record in promoting democracy and social progress in the mid-east. The Arab street is justifiably dismissive of America’s claimed intentions to transform Iraqi society. \*\* Indeed, it’s almost insulting. “How stupid do you think we are, anyway?”\*\* You have hit the nail on the head. Emphasis added on the most important obs. > [@](#): > > If (and it’s a big if) successful, concrete steps are taken to transform Iraq, I think much of the current anti-american mood will evaporate fairly quickly. No, I do not think it will evaporate quickly, it will subside but not evaporate. The problem is the manner in which this has happened has only reinforced the sense of helplessness and humiliation in the Arab world. American muscles in against the will of essentially the entire world (with the facade of a ‘coalition’) and ‘remakes’ the benighted locals. That resentment is going to stick - it can however, be overcome if things go well, and we are scrupulous about making it an Iraqi affaire w/o sweetheart deals to American firms that will reinforce the colonial accusations. > [@](#): > > If America blows it, we’ll be living with the fallout for a very long time to come. There’s no question, however, that Bush has rolled the dice in a big way and for huge stakes. If his number comes up this could be one of the most transformative geopolitical events since WWII. If he craps out, this will be one of the most transformative geopolitical events since WWI. Yes. I’ll say that for all my criticisms, I am raring to go to work when things stop, in the ring of transformation I am. > [@](#): > > BTW, I don’t recall who mentioned it, but the Iraqis are, of course, playing heavily to the Arab street. I just saw some footage of Iraqi children “injured” in a bombing raid. Three were sitting up in hospital beds, appearing slightly bemused by all the attention and sporting _identical_ bandages wrapped around their heads. I don’t doubt that there are many civilian casualties but it is a truly precision weapon indeed that can inflict identical head-wounds only on doe-eyed six-year olds. For variety, one other victim had a single piece of gauze perched on the top of her very full head of hair. These images were quite obviously chosen to inflame Arab public opinion. Yup. Agitprop all around. Double helpings on Fridays. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/144 "2003-03-27T07:45:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > > * * * > > Please! I’m just starting to enjoy this thread. I can’t have you red-lining already; we’ve got a long way to go. 😉 \*\* You’re right, sorry about that. I did mean that Lib, you have to step outside of … wel a very particular world view to get a grasp on these things. I should not have called it peculiar, that’s unnecessary, but let me fairly say that Libertarianism a la Lib is fairly far away from the realities of this region. Or close, in the sort of photo negative sense. But sorry about the wording there. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/145 "2003-03-27T07:53:19Z")
Besides, the term “gangster” was applied to a specific regime, Saddam’s to be precise. Here’s a good article: [http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm](http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm) Scroll down for a description: > [@](#): > > “You must understand, the daily behavior is just the result of the mentality,” he explained. “Most people would say that the main conflict in Iraqi society is sectarian, between the Sunni and the Shia Muslims. But the big gap has nothing to do with religion. It is between the mentality of the villages and the mentality of the cities.” > > “Okay. Here is a village. …in the villages each family has its own house, and each house is sometimes several miles from the next one. They are self-contained. They grow their own food and make their own clothes. Those who grow up in the villages are frightened of everything. There is no real law enforcement or civil society. Each family is frightened of each other, and all of them are frightened of outsiders. This is the tribal mind. The only loyalty they know is to their own family, or to their own village. Each of the families is ruled by a patriarch, and the village is ruled by the strongest of them. This loyalty to tribe comes before everything. There are no values beyond power. You can lie, cheat, steal, even kill, and it is okay so long as you are a loyal son of the village or the tribe. Politics for these people is a bloody game, and it is all about getting or holding power.” > > “In the city the old tribal ties are left behind. Everyone lives close together. The state is a big part of everyone’s life. They work at jobs and buy their food and clothing at markets and in stores. There are laws, police, courts, and schools. People in the city lose their fear of outsiders, and take an interest in foreign things. Life in the city depends on cooperation, on sophisticated social networks. Mutual self-interest defines public policy. You can’t get anything done without cooperating with others, so politics in the city becomes the art of compromise and partnership. The highest goal of politics becomes cooperation, community, and keeping the peace. By definition, politics in the city becomes nonviolent. The backbone of urban politics isn’t blood, it’s law.” > > In al-Bazzaz’s view, Saddam embodies the tribal mentality. “He is the ultimate Iraqi patriarch, the village leader who has seized a nation,” …To him, strength is everything. To allow criticism or differences of opinion, to negotiate or compromise, to accede to the rule of law or to due process these are signs of weakness." > > Saddam is, of course, not alone in admiring The Godfather series… Apropos nothing, Saddam’s step-dad reportedly was a local bully/petty thief known as “Hassan the liar”. (Pollack, p.7) **Collounsbury** : Re: Well-Informed Cost/Benefit Analysis 1. This question seems mute now, but I’m curious. Given Saddam’s access to considerable funds from smuggled oil (via Iran, Syria, and Turkey), an eroded sanctions regime, a small force of inspectors running around the country and the ability to create bio-weapons using fairly small facilities, how long would it take Saddam to develop WMDs? I’m defining a WMD as a weapon that is likely to kill upwards of 10,000 people at once, eg. weaponized smallpox or nukes. Put another way, is this “medium run problem” a 3-5 year problem, a 5-10 year problem or what? (I would prefer to discuss this at a more fundamental level than whether aluminum tubes constitute proof of WMDs or not. If possible.) 1. My perception of the situation draws heavily (ok, entirely) on Pollack’s The Threatening Storm (2002). Do you have an opinion regarding the quality of Pollack’s analysis? As always, feel free to ignore the preceding given time constraints and whatnot. Thanks and welcome back. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/146 "2003-03-27T08:01:02Z")
“Seems if they had that much influence they’d stand to gain as much or more from a successful revolt that left substantial parts of the south in the hands of pro-Iranian forces who would for diplomatic reasons would be problematic for the Anglo-American forces to deal with.” The point is that they may be more worried about future American policy than the local situation in South Iraq. If the Americans were to win very quickly and easily that would strenghthen the position of the hawks in the adminstration who would perhaps start pushing for a war against Iran. The ideal situation from Iran’s pov. may be a difficult American victory which strengthens the position of Shias in post-Saddam Iraq but which is costly enough to dissuade the US from future wars in the region. And Iran could still get pro-Iranian forces in Iraq to revolt later when they calculate that the war has gone on long enough. All this is speculation of course and you are right that there are other explanations. But I thought I would throw this around. The fellow on ABC seemed to know what he was talking about. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/147 "2003-03-27T08:01:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > Let’s see. I’m in my home. Soldiers in tanks are a hundred yards away. The safest thing for me to do is push my children out the door in front of me and then shoot at the tanks? No. Well, is the safest thing for a father to do, to illustrate you’re not in Kansas, when riding with his infant son to market in a pick-up taxi, is to sit on the edge of the pickup bed and hold him up to see the countryside? I’ve seen plenty of such things. Awareness and habits. I don’t know what happened there, I have not seen the video and all I can say is either scenario seems reasonable to me, that of our ex-Gulf based comrade or yours. I don’t know. If it is the former, than I can simply say that consciousness of danger and ideas of how to deal with it are variable. If it is the latter, then it is beastly, as I said. > [@](#): > > I’ve stated my complaint plainly. I am complaining that rather than condemn the Fedayeen Saddam, people are pleading that we understand them, and I am complaining that Arabs are being painted with a broad brush as savage parochial idiots who do not understand democracy. I find your latter characterization annoying. To the first part, I do not know what the Fedayeen Sadaam are really doing. I hear the claims, and then I hear the counter claims. It of course is helpful for the Anglo-American forces to claim it’s all Sadaam’s thugs, and the inverse. Given what I have read and heard on the nationalist reaction in Iraq in some quarters, I am guessing you have a mixture of both genuine popular resistance to our troops, as well as welcoming (and sometimes maybe both, depending on the mood), and Sadaam’s boys donig very, very ugly things. Now how the fuck you are getting this is painting “all Arabs” as something, I do not know. “Arabs” are not savage, war is savage and in wartime people tend to do savage things. To the extent the populace and Arabs in general see this war as a threat to them, they will do savage things, much as you have seen Americans here on these boards in the past – far further removed from real threat – propose savage things. That is the nature of war. Period. American and Brit soldiers are likely to do nasty things, to save their lives, and they will be justified, on a personal level. I have made the argument that in the interest of the State and in the long term interest of the American people that we be willing to see some of our soldiers die to spare Iraqi civilian lives. That is a cold political calculation looking to political ends, and long term goals. I don’t plan to engage in easy arm-chair morality in critiquing American soldiers, and I don’t see much point in easy outrage about imagery I have not seen, one way or another. I expect savagery, I expect nastiness. Now as to the idea that Arabs are “idiots” – well I have no idea where you get this from. Perhaps you believe that because they do not see the 'self-evident" superiority of our/your/Western ways of thinking, they are idiots. Well that is not my opinion. Cultures and societies change at their own pace, I have no small love for the good parts, IMO, of the local scene, but there is a lot of adopting local culture needs to do to very different circumstances. That is a process, I have seen it happening, and it can only happen in nativized ways. If this is myopic of them, that people have to find their own ways of doing things, then… whatever. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/148 "2003-03-27T08:05:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elelle \* > Have you heard opinions on the Columbia disaster, Oh yes, people were shocked and horrified. I never heard anyone make a punishment from God argument. I’m sure it may have been made somewhere, but I think only really radical folks would make that argument. > [@](#): > > and the intense sandstorm now hampering American troops? Are these viewed as a vengence of Allah? This year has been one of wierd weather. I was snowed in for three days… here in the Middle East, snowed in. Back in early Feb. Just had another snowfall. Yes, a number of people see this as God expressing displeasure against the Americans. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/149 "2003-03-27T08:11:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jojo \* > My theory is that we are still fighting the Second World War. Ba’athism is a totalitarian idea that developed alongside Nazism. I have a Jewish friend who’s family were from Baghdad. They fled Baghdad in the 30s because the arabs were making comments along the lines of “When Hitler gets here, you’re for it”. The Ba’ath party were originally formed in Syria in 1941 at the height of Nazisms power. > > Whilst we kicked the fascists out of Germany, we stopped short of kicking them out of the middle east. > > So, any validity in my idea or is it a crock of shit? \*\* I will be more categorical. Crock. Arab sympathy for the Germans was anti-British, not ideological. Few is anyone had a clear idea of what Nazism was/is. Frankly it is far too alien to the Middle East for people to really wrap their minds around. The Jewish angle needs to be understood in the context of Jews “collaborating” with the British invaders/ European invaders. Different from when the Crusaders came and massacred them (the Jews), late 19th /early 20th century liberals saw the Jewish communities as a means of (a) influencing the ME and (b) divide and conquer. Plus they had better language skills. So, Jews were granted better rights than were prevalent pre-colonial (and in fact the pre-colonial situation had degraded the rights that the Dhimma peoples should have had under Islamic law). Obviously Jews went for that big time – and why not? But that did breed resentments. A long and ugly history, colonial use of minorities to divide and conquer – and of course the ugliness of suppression of minorities before the colonial rule… ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/150 "2003-03-27T08:18:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by syncrolecyne \* > Do many Arabs see the borders between their nations as arbitrary lines in the sand? In the classic Middle East, almost everyone sees them that way. Hard not to. Egypt, Oman and Yemen are exceptions since they more or less match historical states. Nothing being perfect, it’s pretty close. Everyone else is largely a fiction, in a manner. Nota Bene, by chance of history the North African states, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco more or less match historical entities as well, and you find that national identities and loyalties are a lot clearer, tribalism largely dead in that region. Largely. [quote] Or are those of each particular nation highly partisan to their own nation. [/quote To confound us further, this is **also** true. It takes some time to get used to the implicit cognitive dissonance, but that is what makes the classic Middle East so bloody unstable. > [@](#): > > On one hand I see expressions of solidarity for Iraq or the Palestinians, but also I see each Arab government jealously guarding its own power base. In the 1960’s Nasser aimed at uniting the Arab world, and briefly accomplished a union between Egypt, Syria, and I believe Yemen. After he died and Sadat made (relative) peace with Israel, the idea of transnational Arab political unity seemed to crumble. Arab Nationalism still gets kicked around, but no one really truly believes it. It is an icon of faith more than a thing people will work for. The United Arab Republic collapsed, with Egyptian troops fighting Yemenis, out of just these contradictions. Everyone wants unity… on their terms. Think of it like the ‘coalition of the willing’ > [@](#): > > Is there any viable movement to unite different Arab states again? Could outrage over Iraq and Palestine convince the leaders of any two Arab states to form a new UAR type state? No. As Asaam Rifaat, head of al-Ahraam al-iqtisaadi told me “All Arab agreements go right into the freezer.” ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/151 "2003-03-27T08:22:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > And this is exactly what the coalition is doing. Risking coalition soldiers’ lives to save civilians. Welcome aboard Sam old man. I don’t believe I said otherwise. I was making a warning, not a present critique, although nota bene, read the BBC articles linked in my message touching on opinion. Rules of engagement are loosening. I am warning that loosen them too far and you are not really sparing soldiers’ lives, you’re defering combat. > [@](#): > > The British just went into Basra to engage in urban warfare, because a civilian uprising was being crushed by Saddam’s Fedayeen. Or so it has been reported, although Arab TV broadcasts live from Basra suggest the uprising was limited. The remainder of this is military analysis neither of us is qualified to make. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/152 "2003-03-27T08:23:47Z")
Very fair and a good point that was in fact lost in the thicket. It is my hope that this will continue. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*Here’s the entire context: > To that, I simply added the comment that the Coalition forces are already doiing that. I was not levelling an accusation at anyone. I just wanted to make sure that this point was not overlooked. Coalition troops are dying because they are being extra careful to protect civilians. This should be recognized. > > No criticism of Collounsbury’s point was intended. In fact, I agree with it, and so do coalition commanders. If the military launched one of those Arclight raids they used in SE Asia, it might result in fewer coalition losses, but it would be a public relations disaster. > > It would also be immoral. My belief is that if you are an invading force, there is a moral burden on you to do everything in your power to limit casualties in the civilian population, even at the expense of the lives of your own soldiers. The line should be drawn at the point where the war plan itself is compromised. Short of that, the overriding concern should be civilian casualties. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/153 "2003-03-27T08:30:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tamerlane \* > The expressions of solidarity are natural, but are not necessarily made at the expense or in place of nationalism. Though among, say, some Palestinians in Jordan or Lebanon, that may well be the case. Precisely. The P’s are a nascent nation w/o a nation. Very volatile. > [@](#): > > However that particular model of pan-Arabism - the secular, socialist model best articulated as Nasserism - is pretty much dead. It may still have some appeal in certain westernized segments of the population of a certain age Well-educated Arabs btw 45-60 essentially. > [@](#): > > ( **Collounsbury** could probably speak better to the extent that it lingers in certain circles ), but in general it appears to have fallen by the wayside, mortally wounded in 1967 and dieing a slow, lingering death through the 1970’s and '80’s. Exact. > [@](#): > > But as a romantic notion, I think it still has a fair bit emotional appeal. Arabs are very aware of the past glories of history and it seems the notion of a ‘return to the Caliphate’ still stirs some response, even if it is a bit more metaphorical these days. Generally though, when I’ve seen pan-Arabism pop up in more moderate literature in recent years it is usually more in the context of greater cooperation among Arab countries, like intertwining economic zones and co-development projects, rather than out-and-out political fusion. Exactely. A pan Arab nation gets very little play any more, and no serious play. Let me be a bit rude but to the point, Pan-Arabism is the “Lit Crit” academic thinking of the Arab world. Intellectual masturbation by ineffectual people holed away in academic posts. > [@](#): > > Of course then there is the extremist view, which _quite literally_ want to resurrect **The Caliphate**. Or so they say. These are the extreme theocrats, ObL among them, that claim to strive for a revival of a unified Islamic empire. But nota bene, this is torn between Arabism and true Pan-Islamicism. To Arab Muslims of course, they see no contradiction, but obviously other Muslims… well are not quite of the same mind. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/154 "2003-03-27T08:33:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by > My question to either of you: > I heard someone on ABC a few days back suggest , citing Syrian sources IIRC, that Iran had some hand to play in the stiffer than expected resistance in the South and the absence of any large-scale Shia revolt. What do you think of this? > > I would imagine that Iran wants Saddam to go but they would like the war to be sufficiently difficult that the US is dissuaded from attacking them next. Is this the fallout of the axis of evil speech? Common sense would have suggested that any attack on Iraq be accompanied by an effort to improve relations with Iran. Instead the administration has given them an incentive to make things difficult for the US with its rhetoric. Interesting. I would not be surprised. As to the 2nd paragraph, last line. Yes, the adminstration has given them incentives to make things difficult. However, to be fair to the Admin., they had few incentives to be enthus. about this either. The problem overall is that this Admin has walked into a minefield w/o a clear idea of how extensive or how dangerous it is. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/155 "2003-03-27T08:34:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > > Nota Bene, by chance of history the North African states, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco more or less match historical entities as well, and you find that national identities and loyalties are a lot clearer, tribalism largely dead in that region. Largely. Libya, too, I’d think. Or at least Italian Libya seems to pretty much have encompassed the old reach of the Sanusiyya ( which granted isn’t particularly old by Middle Eastern standards ). I’ve never been entirely clear on the extent of competing influence or overlap of Tripolitania ( usually at least quasi-independant ) vs. Cyrenaica ( sometimes an Egyptian dependancy ) on the coast. Maybe Bahrain is another example, but a pretty idiosyncratic one. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/156 "2003-03-27T08:38:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Actually I was hoping you and others might join in thinking out loud about economic risks. \*\* Well, since you seem to be soliciting WAGs, my nightmare scenario is an economic and political collapse in Turkey. When the tough fighting starts around Tikrit, the Kurds seize their chance and declare an independent Kurdistan. The Turkish military comes barreling across the border. The Amercans order the Turks back, they refuse to go and a three-cornered fight develops among Turks, Kurds and American forces in the area. Foreign investors and the Turkish elite bolt and every last bit of privately-held foreign exchange tries to flee the country overnight. Since the just-now-recovering Turkish economy is heavily dollarized, this result in almost total economic collapse. Needless to say, the Turkish Lira collapses and public disorder breaks out. The military – which had its doubts about the current civilian government anyway – steps in and takes power, thereby scotching any chance of Turkey even beginning discusions to join the EU for at least a decade. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/157 "2003-03-27T08:52:05Z")
Wouldn’t Gulf Arabs still be better than Americans? (I was, of course, joking about Kuwaitis) Part of the problem is finding suitably qualified – and suitably internationalist – candidates. I agree that Palestinians would be ideal, but Palestinians with extensive governmental and administrative experience are a bit thin on the ground just at the moment. One of the reasons I think stocking up on Arabs from pretty much anywhere would be important is because of how it would be perceived outside Iraq. My great fear is that some paunchy retired general is going to get the job and staff the Iraqi “administration” with a bunch of people from McKinsey. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/158 "2003-03-27T08:56:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flowbark \* > Besides, the term “gangster” was applied to a specific regime, Saddam’s to be precise. Exactely, I can’t be responsible for people not being able to distinguish between comments on a particular socio-political situation and “Arabs” in general. As to incapacity. I have said more than once, there are ‘democratic’ roots in the region, but the history is such that it will take time and effort, good gardening to prepare them. I have also emphasized that these efforts must be nativized, not alien impositions. I specifically refered to the situation in Iran. There are important lessons there. Now I am sorry if this all shattres some magical thinking and mystical understanding of the region. I do business in an ugly neighborhood, but there are good things here, beaten down, but here. This stuff will not change overnight, and expectatinos of miracles will not get good policy. So, you want to form realistic opinions? Read carefully and go in with your eyes open. I firmly believe change is possible, that the region has real potential and it is NOT a big shit hole as Brutus said in the Pit on this subject. However, neither is it a garden ready sprout the magical democracy seeds Americans have come to sow. It’s a rocky, long neglected field in which different plants grew. Beautiful, lovely in many ways, but hard goddamned work. If we are not ready for this, then we should have never gotten into it. Period. > [@](#): > > Here’s a good article: [http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm](http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm) I think the description was accurate but a little overly negative. There are positive things in village life, it is not all fear and people … well there are moral rules and standards, often recog. to Westerners, but often very differently framed. But in regards to power, it is close to the truth as I understand it. > [@](#): > > **Collounsbury** : > Re: Well-Informed Cost/Benefit Analysis > > 1. This question seems moot now, but I’m curious. > > Given Saddam’s access to considerable funds from smuggled oil (via Iran, Syria, and Turkey), an eroded sanctions regime, a small force of inspectors running around the country and the ability to create bio-weapons using fairly small facilities, how long would it take Saddam to develop WMDs? I’m defining a WMD as a weapon that is likely to kill upwards of 10,000 people at once, eg. weaponized smallpox or nukes. Put another way, is this “medium run problem” a 3-5 year problem, a 5-10 year problem or what? Military question, I don’t know. I personally consider the WMD squeeling to be a crock of shit. Here is the only item I will offer on this, take it for what it is worth. I have a good friend in US service here whose job description makes him qualified to opine. Also an “Arabist.” His opinion was that the Regime did not present a present threat and that containment was the way to go. You can take that for what it is worth. I will not identify job or position, for the obvious reasons. > [@](#): > > 1. My perception of the situation draws heavily (ok, entirely) on Pollack’s The Threatening Storm (2002). Do you have an opinion regarding the quality of Pollack’s analysis? No. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/159 "2003-03-27T09:01:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > Wouldn’t Gulf Arabs still be better than Americans? (I was, of course, joking about Kuwaitis) Maybe. Gulfies are none too popular. They also have not a deep skill base, most of the Gulf is really run by guest workers. > [@](#): > > Part of the problem is finding suitably qualified – and suitably internationalist – candidates. I agree that Palestinians would be ideal, but Palestinians with extensive governmental and administrative experience are a bit thin on the ground just at the moment. Not really, there are many in the Gulf, hanging about Europe, in Jordan. The Diaspora, not the P’s in the Territories. > [@](#): > > One of the reasons I think stocking up on Arabs from pretty much anywhere would be important is because of how it would be perceived outside Iraq. My great fear is that some paunchy retired general is going to get the job and staff the Iraqi “administration” with a bunch of people from McKinsey. Indeed. Indeed. Indeed. The last thing that we need is a western consultant run administration putting in place idealized “best practicies” that will fall apart the moment we are gone. This is why I am emphasizing growing the institutions from as much of a native base as possible. If the goverment instituions are some alien thing, an imported plant not adapted to local habits and the like, you get Egypt. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259/160 "2003-03-27T09:04:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tamerlane \* > Libya, too, I’d think. Actually, after a little poking about, definitely Libya. Seems Cyrenaica was included in the Ottoman beylik of Tripoli from the 16th century and the Karamanli dynasty continued that into the 19th century. Sorry. Compulsive pedantry :). - Tamerlane [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lounsbury-on-iraq-mena-war-politics-economy-related-questions/164259.md?page=9)