Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
All Fall Apart?
Former CIA officer Robert Baer has a commentary in Newsweek International examining the consequences of the death of King Fahd. According to a Syrian source of his, of the 1,200 suspected suicide bombers arrested by Syria, some 85 percent were Saudis.
Eighty-five percent? This can't be good. Saudi Arabia sits on 25 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. It is the only producer with enough spare capacity to stabilize oil markets during crises. So what if these jihadists crossing from Syria into Iraq decide, sooner or later, to take their war back home, perhaps by attacking the kingdom's oil infrastructure in the same way the Iraqi resistance is doing in Iraq? That's a scenario that keeps Washington awake at night.
Indeed, but it's what Baer writes later in the piece that shows how potentially dangerous the Iraq war has become to the Saudis, but also how, for better or worse, how such loyalties as ethnicity, sect and tribe, have taken over as the prime motivators of regional actors. Baer writes:
Two months ago, in Qum, [in Iran,] I spoke with Grand Ayatollah Saanei about the phenomenon of suicide bombings. I expected the usual diatribe against the United States but instead his real anger was directed at the "Wahhabi" suicide bombers, almost all of them Saudis, killing Iraqi Shia. "They are wolves without pity," he said. "Sooner rather than later, Iran will have to put them down."
While Baer interprets this as an Iranian threat to mobilize Saudi Arabia's marginalized Shiites, who sit atop the oil fields in the kingdom's eastern province, the situation is even more disturbing. We may be fast moving toward a generalized logic of sectarianism that will undermine the unitary pretensions of several states in the region. This is not an American intention, nor do some of the states involved, namely Syria, understand how their playing with fire in Iraq may turn against them if the outcome is a loose confederalism or partition. (To this, add that the Saudis may see an interest in pushing harder for the fall of the Assad regime in Damascus to ensure the Sunni majority can regain power there, as a counterweight to Shiite gains in Iraq.)
The sectarian dismantlement of the Arab states has long been regarded by Arab conspiracy theorists as an American goal, dating back to the Nixon-Kissinger era, motivated largely by the need to protect Israel. No evidence for such a plan exists, nor are you likely to find any, but there is a paradox here: If the U.S. fails in its Iraq project, it will, inadvertently, enhance the logic of sectarian disintegration.
There is another culprit, beyond American ambition in Iraq: Arab nationalism. The Arab states, in concealing for decades domestic sectarian and tribal divisions under an iron curtain of imposed nationalist unanimity (both inside states and within a broad purported "Arab nation"), must now look warily at a reality telling a different story, where sectarian and ethnic identities often prevail.
In Iraq, we're witnessing the consequences of this daily. In Syria, Alawites can no longer purport to be as one with Sunnis under the great Baathist tent, since the levers of power are not only in Alawite hands, but actually in the hands of the Assad family. In Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, Shiites remain second-class citizens, despite halting efforts to give them some rights. In fact, in many parts of the Arab world the nation-state format offers few convincing solutions to myriad social and political cleavages.
Lebanon alone, while suffering from the same problems as elsewhere, acknowledged this reality by creating a sectarian system. Though much maligned by Arab nationalists and their cheerleaders, it may be a way for the future.
The Bush administration still insists on a unified Iraq under a federal system. Meanwhile, supporters of effective partition must yet prove that most Iraqis will go along with their plan, and that the consequences won't be far more traumatic than what we have today (look at the creation of a separate India and Pakistan). If the Americans turn tail and leave, they will leave behind a sectarian war that will engulf the region. At best, they will have to return to the fray at some later stage to protect their access to oil.
What the Arabs also realize is that there is no Arab antidote to avoid chaos: Arab nationalism is pixie dust. That's why, even if the Americans screw up in Iraq, those who advised against a war find there themselves defending a mirage: America should have never stuck its hand into the hornet's nest, they argue, because what we have now is worse than what we had before. But the status quo they defended was itself aberrant and abhorrent. The idealists stupidly believed Arab nationalism could overcome sectarian, tribal and ethnic divisions, even as they thrived off them; the cynics argued: Let's stick with dictatorship to guard against sectarian breakdown and Islamism. Both approaches were examples of sins by omission.
|8.8.05 @ 1:50PM|#
At least opponents and proponents of the Iraq invasion can now agree on one thing: it was all done for oil.
|8.8.05 @ 1:53PM|#
Speaking of oil, a few well placed bombs in Saudi Arabia and oil goes to $100. They're getting a lot of good practice in Iraq. I'll be busy this afternoon stocking my compound with beans and ammo. Later dudes.
|8.8.05 @ 2:19PM|#
"The idealists stupidly believed Arab nationalism could overcome
sectarian, tribal and ethnic divisions, even as they thrived off
them; the cynics argued: Let's stick with dictatorship to guard
against sectarian breakdown and Islamism."
Are you seriously arguing that the anti-war movement was primarily
driven by a committment to Arab nationalism as a solution to the
Middle East's problems? Wow. Between this and
David Ignatius' recent argument that even _decades of civil war
in Iraq_ (following the "Lebananon model") still might be
considered a US success...Well, I don't even understand the debate
anymore. The goalposts haven't shifted -- they've moved off the
planet.
Anon
Peter K.|8.8.05 @ 2:20PM|#
Hitchens puts it well in a new piece:
"It never seemed to me that there was any alternative to
confronting the reality of Iraq, which was already on the verge of
implosion and might, if left to rot and crash, have become to the
region what the Congo is to Central Africa: a vortex of chaos and
misery that would draw in opportunistic interventions from Turkey,
Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Bad as Iraq may look now, it is nothing to
what it would have become without the steadying influence of
coalition forces."
http://www.slate.com/id/2124157/
People who disagree are just ignorant. (What about the WMD you ask?
Your'e changing the subject.) See, the Congo can be left to implode
because there's no oil there.
Anti-war left-liberals should see stability in the Middle East as
in their self interest. If oil goes to $100 a barrel and the G8
countries go fascist, it will be the anti-war types who'll get put
in camps. (see the upcoming V for Vendetta
flick).
|8.8.05 @ 2:30PM|#
See, I don't even understand what Peter K. is trying to say. Are
you claiming the Middle East is more stable _now_ than before the
war? Are you forgetting your
Ralph Peters? I am so confused.
Anon
|8.8.05 @ 2:36PM|#
A few thoughts:
1) Iran too is having its own sectarian problems; the Arabs and
Kurds both are rising up against their Persian overlords, and the
Mullahs are striking them down hard.
2) People of the left decry the war as only for oil and say that
this makes the enterprise immoral. For the sake of argument, why is
gong to war over oil so immoral? It wouldn't be the first, and it
waon't be the last, time that countries go to war over natural
resources. We have a system in place that needs oil to survive. The
"admirable" thing about the way the U.S. does its wars for oil is
that we don't annex the whole country/region. We don't tax them to
pieces and demand tribute. We "just" put in regimes that are
friendly to our needs, while letting the losing nation earn a
living off of the oil. That makes us a pretty benevolent conquerer.
I don't necessarily support this point of view; I'm just putting it
out there for discussion and thought.
3) We do need to remember that this war started because of 9-11.
Yeah, Saddam didn't have anything to do with it, but it made the
world scenario completely than it was on 9-10. Cliches are based on
truth, and while it is a cliche to say that "9-11 changed
everything," guess what, it did. While supporting a secular
dictatorship that is willing to sell oil at market prices was
allowable and palatable before 9-11, after it might not be so
anymore. Again, just food for thought.
|8.8.05 @ 2:39PM|#
The Middle East in its current form is incapable of stability.
Adding intervention from an outside force may not be the best
solution. Leaving it alone may not be the best solution. So now
what we're left with is choosing the lesser of two evils. Eliminate
the alternative, and you still have evil.
Out comes the "q" word: quagmire. And we're in it now, no matter
for good or ill.
|8.8.05 @ 2:40PM|#
One more thought:
Robert Baer is a very important thinker and writer. He wrote a
cover story for The Atlantic a few years ago all about the coming
fall of the House of Saud. He wrote in depth about the danger of
terrorists bombing the Saudi pipelines and the economic damage that
it would do to the world. He has extensive knowledge and experience
of the region. Baer needs to be paid attention to.
|8.8.05 @ 2:43PM|#
America should have never stuck its hand into the hornet's
nest, they argue, because what we have now is worse than what we
had before. But the status quo they defended was itself aberrant
and abhorrent.
At the risk of sounding selfish, if we hadn't gotten involved then
at least a collapse wouldn't have been entirely our problem. If we
had left Iraq to crumble on it's own, then when the inevitable
occurred we could have protected our interests in Saudi Arabia
while pushing the UN to step in Iraq, saving ourselves at least a
portion of this money that we're spending in Iraq to seemingly
little benefit.
|8.8.05 @ 2:43PM|#
Swede,
Frighteningly good points made by Baer. So why did Bush not send
our troops to Saudi Arabia? Did he fear upsetting his bestest
friend?
|8.8.05 @ 2:54PM|#
I thought I was against rampant American interventionism and entanglement with foreign powers, which George Washington advised against in his farewell speech. So I guess Washington was objectively pro-dictatorship, too.
|8.8.05 @ 2:55PM|#
"While supporting a secular dictatorship that is willing to sell
oil at market prices was allowable and palatable before 9-11, after
it might not be so anymore"
But, supporting a dictatorship based upon religious extremism and
that supplies the large supply of not only economic but human
capital to terrorists because it is willing to sell oil at "market"
prices is allowable, and in fact proudly proclaimed public policy.
Just food for thought.
|8.8.05 @ 3:03PM|#
quasibill,
You make an excellent point! Protecting Saudi Arabia was one of the
prime reasons that we even got involved in the first Gulf War, and
how do they pay us back? By financing terrorists! Thanks guys! So,
I will cede the point that our SA policy is totally twisted. I was
referring more specifically to our pre 9-11 Iraq policy (yeah, even
though we had those no-fly zones, we still allowed oil, under the
guise of the U.N, to be exported. Some reports from Paul Volcker
state that there were U.S. citizens and interests that knew about
the oil-for-food scam, and that would not surprise we one bit). As
the left is fond of saying, we supported Saddam in the Iraq-Iran
war and we sold/gave him plenty of weaponry, so why should we be
against him so suddenly? It really is a hornet's nest, and there
are no easy answers.
|8.8.05 @ 3:14PM|#
"Are you seriously arguing that the anti-war movement was
primarily driven by a committment to Arab nationalism as a solution
to the Middle East's problems?"
Yes, Anon, in Mr. Young's world, the anti-war half of the United
States was an alliance of Kissingerian realpolitikers and Baathist
sympathizers, maybe with a Pat Buchanan thrown in for fun.
Liberals? What liberals?
|8.8.05 @ 3:19PM|#
"Yes, Anon, in Mr. Young's world, the anti-war half of the
United States was an alliance of Kissingerian realpolitikers and
Baathist sympathizers, maybe with a Pat Buchanan thrown in for
fun."
I can sympathize with one's position being mischaracterized. I'm in
the other half of the nation, which consists of boot licking
sycophants of the Bush administration who enjoy murdering people
and issuing war crime apologetics on the weekend.
|8.8.05 @ 3:34PM|#
joe,
Come on now. Those tactics were no worse that fraternity-style
hazing! Cool your jets, sir.
But Jason is right: nasty stereotypes exist for both sides of the
argument, undermining the entire foundation of rational
discourse.
|8.8.05 @ 4:14PM|#
Jason Ligon,
"Mischaracterized" seems such a mild word. Young has suggested
_implicitly_ that the anti-war movement was pro dictatorship and
has _explicitly_ referred to the anti-war movement as "stupid,"
right above. Despite what you may discern about their opinions of
the President, have you ever read anything on H&R by the
anti-war side of Reason that just outright referred to Bush
supporters and/or war supporters as morons, fools, or lickspittles?
I am just amazed that this level of vituperation or, more mildly,
incivility is allowed to pass without comment by the "dis-staff"
side of Reason magazine. Do they not even engage in discussion on
this issue anymore? After all the indirect condescension will Young
just move on the direct condescension? Maybe if he just starts
referring to Julian or Nick as objectively pro-Fascist we'll
finally see some spirited debate.
I guess the pro-war side truly does have the intestinal fortitude
for the long war that the anti-war side does not.
(The questions above about other H&R posts are genuine, by the
way. I am a sporadic reader of H&R, and maybe I'm just missed
or forgotten the mud slung from the other side of the aisle.)
You may now return to your regularly schedule outrage about the
drug war, the war on private property, etc.
Anon
|8.8.05 @ 4:21PM|#
At the risk of sounding selfish, if we hadn't gotten
involved then at least a collapse wouldn't have been entirely our
problem. If we had left Iraq to crumble on it's own, then when the
inevitable occurred we could have protected our interests in Saudi
Arabia while pushing the UN to step in Iraq, saving ourselves at
least a portion of this money that we're spending in Iraq to
seemingly little benefit.
So, we would be footing the entire bill for saving Saudi rather
than Iraq, with a destabilized Iraq right next door. Not sure how
that's a big savings, but whatever.
And what about Iraq. We ask the UN to pretty please take over
there. Two things can happen then. Either the UN doesn't, in which
case Iraq goes straight into a three way civil war. So we maybe
wind up trying to sort out Iraq and SA both at the same time. Still
looking for the savings.
Or the UN does step into Iraq. If US combat troops are getting
chewed on, the blue helmets are going to chewed up, swallowed, and
shat out by the Baathists and the jihadis. So we probably have to
send our boys to Iraq after all. Or say things go real well for the
blue helmets. Who exactly funds the UN?
Oh yeah. Us. Still looking for etc.
|8.8.05 @ 4:24PM|#
Swede,
well said. My point in bringing up SA policy is that saying 9/11
justified our intervention in Iraq is extremely problematic. I
*might* have bought the argument if we had invaded SA, or at the
very least cut all aid and support to the Kingdom. I still don't
think I would have favored such action, but I could have at least
acknowledged that such a policy had internal coherence and
connection to national defense.
As you note, what we did by fighting Iraq, not just once, but
continually for the past decade, was provide a security blanket for
the Kingdom - american taxpayers financed the security of the
jet-set princes. And by taking Saddam out, we eliminated a security
threat to SA.
Interestingly enough, for all my criticism of Mr. Young, he has
finally touched on the reality of the ME - the West (mainly Europe)
imposed artificial states on the ME that don't conform to cultural,
social, and religious history of the region. These states are
associations that are not 'self-determined' in any meaningful
fashion - they were imposed. So it is a little naive to believe
that we can create consent to government through democracy when the
people in different regions have no desire to associate with those
in other regions (see, for example, the Kurds and the Sunnis in
Iraq).
The future holds chaos for the ME as we know it, because the
current situation is built on lies and wishful thinking. It's
similar to Africa - the nation states are inherently unstable due
to their artificiality. The best solution for both regions is for
us (meaning the West in general) is to let them hash it out for
themselves and engage in true self-determination, without our
interference. Will it be painful in the short-run? Probably. But
long run, it's what will work. And the short run may be very short
(see the recent World Bank report on Somalia - a country the West
has finally left to its own devices)
|8.8.05 @ 4:50PM|#
"Despite what you may discern about their opinions of the
President, have you ever read anything on H&R by the anti-war
side of Reason that just outright referred to Bush supporters
and/or war supporters as morons, fools, or lickspittles?"
From the commenters, yes. From the staff ... not explicitly that I
can recall. I know that I've felt the implicit accusation enough
that I've been moved to write several lengthy posts outlining that
you don't have to be a psychopath to believe that the war was worth
fighting and you can be a libertarian and believe the war was the
best avenue of advance for libertarian principles. I don't know how
many times I've had to make to case that non initiation of force is
not violated in the removal of a despot and that we aren't all
anarchists, but it is a lot of times.
|8.8.05 @ 5:16PM|#
Jason Ligon,
So as someone who has slogged through many debates on this issue on
these boards, you cannot recall _one occasion_ where a _staffer_
adopted a, let's say, neener-neener-neener attitude on the issue.
Am I wrong in my impression that Michael Young's posts flow down
from the mountain periodically, like floods during monsoon season,
flinging muck only _somewhat_ indirectly, and continue downstream
unchallenged by the staff?
Look, I don't expect everyone to agree on everything. For all I
know Jesse Walker thinks Liberation Biology is a load of crock and
Kerry Howley wishes Jacob Sullum would stop talking about drugs.
But if there is a...cease fire...in place over certain issues, then
it seems that Young just keeps pushing and pushing to see how far
he can go in violating it without sanction.
As a contrast I would suggest Charles Paul Freund's posts. They too
seem to go unchallenged, but Freund seems more interested in making
his case in a civil (and affirmative) manner -- arguing _for_ his
side -- while Young seems to be moving more and more towards
(rhetorically) kicking his enemies in the nads.
Alright, so I don't have much of a way with words. But am I wrong
about tone here?
Maybe this is one of those group blog etiquette things I don't know
about. There's probably a FAQ somewhere that explains
everything.
Anon
Peter K.|8.8.05 @ 5:28PM|#
See, I don't even understand what Peter K. is trying to say.
Are you claiming the Middle East is more stable _now_ than before
the war? Are you forgetting your Ralph Peters? I am so
confused.--Anon
Congnitive dissonance like yours can result in confusion.
Young writes, "If the Americans turn tail and leave, they will
leave behind a sectarian war that will engulf the region. At best,
they will have to return to the fray at some later stage to protect
their access to oil."
And of course, this will be blamed on regime change even though
this sectarian war, Shia vs. Sunni, Kurds vs. Turks, etc. almost
certainly would have happened had the US pulled the no-fly zones
and lifted the sanctions on Saddam's Iraq, which was the way things
were heading before 9/11.
If a sectarian war did/does engulf the region (including Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, etc.), the price of oil would shoot
through the roof and the global economy would tank. Then the fun
would begin.
Things are bad in Iraq, but I still think it was the right call to
give it a try given the circumstances and I don't think the US
should cut and run. Also, there have been positive side effects in
the region which people like Anon completely ignore.
|8.8.05 @ 5:49PM|#
Every monster in history has positted the coming rivers of blood
as a given, and presented his actions as merely turning them in the
best possible direction.
I do not believe that widespread death and destruction is the
inevitable lot of people in thet Middle East, and I do not believe
the assertions that our contribution to the periodic catastophes
are always our only choice.
No, Mr. K and Mr. Young, are options were not limited to the status
quo or Bush's War.
Peter K.|8.8.05 @ 6:13PM|#
Joe sez:
I do not believe that widespread death and destruction is the
inevitable lot of people in thet Middle East, and I do not believe
the assertions that our contribution to the periodic catastophes
are always our only choice.
Whatever... Seemed to me that Young's point - and the former CIA
analyst's - was that the Syrians and Saudis better cut out the
shenanigans or Iran will bring it, which would spell disaster for
the region, the global oil market, the global economy, etc.,
especially if the US cuts and runs which seems to be what Joe and
Anon are suggesting.
|8.8.05 @ 6:46PM|#
No, Mr. K and Mr. Young, are options were not limited to the
status quo or Bush's War.
Of course not. We could have waged Kerry's War, and things
would be just A-OK, because it would have been done
right.
|8.8.05 @ 8:34PM|#
See, here's the dickery I was talking about.
Peter K., I defy you to point to any posting made by me anywhere
that concerns _any of my views on the war whatsoever_. Positive,
negative, indifferent. I have not shared my views on the war on
this board, _ever_.
I was simply pointing out that your post made no sense to me, and
still doesn't. You suggest that the anti-war left should prize
stability in the Middle East, and your tone suggested that this is
a reason they should have supported the war. Am I wrong in that? If
that was your implication, then wouldn't you have to believe that
the region is more stable now than it was then? Or do you believe
it could be, but some change in strategy/tactics/what-have-you
needs to be made? Is stability a potential source of common cause
with the left, then, if they would come around to it? Or, if you
believe its all going to go to hell in a handbasket anyway, then
wouldn't it have been better (or wouldn't it be better) to build a
strategy in recognition of that inevitability? The set of options
then it really much more complex than "cut and run" or "stick it
out." Strategic withdrawal, reinforcement of forces in key areas,
and various regional realignments (vis-a-vis, say, Saudi Arabia)
all become thorny options. And once again, for the record, I have
taken _no_ position on any of them.
This set of questions related to "stability" is the reason for my
link to Peters, who suggested that an interest in stability results
in supporting terrible regimes that only make for greater trouble
further down the road. I really don't know where Peters stands
these days, either, but I thought it was a good old-school
reference.
I think you confuse my genuine confusion with my snarkiness
concerning Young's original post. I cannot believe that, regardless
of your feelings about the war, you can possibly feel that Young's
implication about the anti-war crowd's strong sympathy for Arab pan
nationalism is at all credible. I'm sure there are strong Arab pan
nationalists out there, but as a major driving force of the U.S.
and/or U.K. anti-war movements? Really? Do you believe that?
Anon
|8.8.05 @ 8:49PM|#
"We could have waged Kerry's War, and things would be just A-OK,
because it would have been done right."
Quite right. Allowing the complete absence of an Iraqi WMD
capability, or even program, to be revealed via coercive
inspections would have safeguarded out security, while dealing a
humiliating blow to the Baathists, and allowing us to continue to
lead the world as we did in during and after the Afghan war.
|8.8.05 @ 9:17PM|#
Wait, I'm confused. What exactly is wrong with being a
realpoliticker or Kissingerist? Anti-war types on the thread are
saying they are not and pro-war types are accusing them as being
such. Since when did Republicans turn into a bunch of mushy-headed
idealists? Does nobody advocate for the Nixonian/Reagan approach
anymore?
Supporting dictators may be a brutal and amoral business, but it
worked in stopping Communism, which was arguably a far more clear
and present threat to world security than a few thousands arab
medical students with a death wish.
Point being, maybe we could prevent the total collapse of the ME,
secure the resources in the region, and prevent sectarian division
if we continue the long-standing policy of supporting the
strong-arm leader, at least until a feasible alternative is
proposed. The idealism of the Bush camp sounds good on paper, and
dictatorship sounds bad, especially couched in "not after 9/11"
terms, but really, idealism does not appear to have worked and
realpolitick has.
|8.8.05 @ 9:47PM|#
"Maybe if he just starts referring to Julian or Nick as
objectively pro-Fascist we'll finally see some spirited
debate."
From what I can discern Nick is the one person in America that
seems to be nuetral on the subject. He'd really like it to work out
but lacks the conviction (thankfully) of that poor bastard in Basra
but in his libertarian heart of hearts knows we are fucked but
doesn't want to come out as dogmatic and boring like Jacob
Hornberger. This works out well for reason because we get balances,
nuanced commentary from the staff and not keyboard warriors blowing
Rothbard out their asses ala antiwar.com or people just asking for
more blood ala Boot, et al.
|8.8.05 @ 9:53PM|#
corky,
Among conservatives, there is no "Nixonian/Reagan approach."
Reagan's moralism is often presented as the polar opposite of the
Nixon/Kissinger realpolitik.
See, when Nixon supported sanguinary tyrants in Chile or Southeast
Asia, it was because of a pragmatic concern about balance of power,
and the need for the US to win the Great Game against the Soviets
for control of the world.
When Reagan supported sanguinary tyrants in El Salvador or Chile,
it was because of a moral concern about how evil the Soviets were,
and the need for the US to win the Great Game and liberate the
world.
So, as you can see, there are vast distinctions between the realist
and moralist schools of conservative thought on foreign policy.
|8.9.05 @ 3:19AM|#
nasty stereotypes exist for both sides of the argument,
undermining the entire foundation of rational discourse.
This little insight should get a whole lot more attention than it
does.
Still looking for the savings.
There is also a lot more truth to this statement than most people
would like to admit.
Suppose Iraq had survived without outside intervention. Sooner or
later Saddam would have kicked the bucket, and I sincerely doubt
he'd have had an equally able successor.
End result: "Iraq is a quagmire."
Iraq is a "quagmire" only because -- to quote that most evil of all
statesmen, Machiavelli -- we are not willing to do all the evil
that good demands. No lesser measures will suffice, and we are
simply not up to the necessary measures.
The ME is not going to settle down until somebody seriously knocks
some heads together (which is not what we are doing right
now...). Why do you think the only people that can rule ME states
are dictatorial tyrants?
By and large, the people of the ME are not accustomed to what we
would consider plain, old fashioned law and order. You have to
really struggle to grasp what it does to people when law and order
has been absent since generations unknown.
|8.9.05 @ 10:00AM|#
Thank you Mr. Young for putting so eloquently the reasons why Arab nationalism is a failure. The entire Middle East is in a mess because of ideologies imposed on its populace, like Arabism and a sense of false unity. We Middle Easterners need more analysts such as yourself. Keep up the good work.
FWA|8.9.05 @ 2:28PM|#
Not only is the Arab nationalism vs. dictator dichotomy
maddeningly incomplete, it's just plain wrong. Umm, let's see, Arab
nationalists = Nasser, Assad the father, Saddam...hmm, looks,
smells and walks like a dictator, too...you mean they're not
exclusive?
Yeah they might have been crappy Arab nationalists, but hey, MY and
all the other hawks didn't qualify their erection for war with
Iraq, so why should we? Oh sure NOW all the hand-wringing and "it
could be worse" excuses. Before it was rose-tossing competitions
from Iraqis and a return to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
Peter K.|8.9.05 @ 2:29PM|#
Anon:
Peter K., I defy you to point to any posting made by me
anywhere that concerns _any of my views on the war whatsoever_.
Positive, negative, indifferent. I have not shared my views on the
war on this board, _ever_.
"_ever_," huh?
Anon, previously in this thread:
Am I wrong in my impression that Michael Young's posts flow
down from the mountain periodically, like floods during monsoon
season, flinging muck only _somewhat_ indirectly, and continue
downstream unchallenged by the staff?
Do you think we're stupid?
|8.9.05 @ 8:03PM|#
Too much time has probably passed, but...
Peter K.: What's your point? As I noted, Young's posts are mean and
condescending, Charles Paul Freund's are not. What does calling
Young a jerk have to do with his political views? Has not the rise
of the blog taught us that anyone, anywhere, at any time can be a
jerk? Surely someone familiar with Alan Moore's work (per your _V
for Vendetta_ reference above) recognizes this?
Anon
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245