The Middle East

[metis]

As I mentioned on another thread ("The B.S. Detector"), I'm going to have to reduce my political "footprint", but I hope to spend at least a bit more time dealing with the situations in the Middle East.  As Howie can vouch for, I don't very often get into this area, but I really should.  He can affirm this because what I'm going to post shortly I've never even mentioned to him over quite a few years of our discussing various items on public posts or personal e-mails.  And over at BNet I almost never got into discussions there on this topic.  Why I tend not to discuss this has been a long term tendency of mine to keep work and my home life, the latter of which includes posting here, quite separate (I remember my wife asking me once what I was teaching that year, which was about 2 months after the semester started-- I rarely talked about my work even to her).

And, to me, the Middle East was "work".  But, unfortunately, by not talking about it much was a bit of a selfish act.  Instead of sharing what I knew, I chose to avoid additional "work".  It's difficult to discuss my background without appearing totally arrogant, but let me just say that I do not call myself an "expert" by any means, nor do I ever assume that I'm some sort of know-it-all in this area.  I'm just a person who's spent a great deal of time studying in this area.  As you well know, the Middle East can be very unpredictable.  As Thomas Friedman is fond of writing and saying, anyone who thinks that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, will never understand the Middle East.  It has a way of making the "experts" very humble.  

I'm an anthropologist (retired) as many of you know, and one of my main areas of studies was dealing with Middle Eastern cultures.  In my classes I would start off with the neolithic time period and take my students through the development of city-states (like Ur), to "civilizations" (like Sumer), through empire (Babylonian), through the influence of Islam, and up to the modern day conditions found there.  

But my interest and teachings were more on culture than history.  One can learn the history of an area but yet not that well understand the culture of that same area.  And it's very difficult for us with western eyes to see and more appreciate the dynamics of the area.  For example, even though the Europeans are far closer geographically than us Americans are, they all so frequently judge Middle Eastern events through European eyes rather than Middle Eastern eyes.  As many blunders as we have made there, the Europeans generally fared worse historically.  And, as a matter of fact, I think there there are more Americans who really at least partially understand how to better deal with Islamic "extremism" (a relative concept) than probably most Europeans.  


I'm going to stop this post now and start another as I continue this as I'm afraid of hitting the wrong key and deleting what I've wrote thus far.

  

[metis]

Besides teaching about the Middle East in my classes for over 30 years, I also have had the benefit of some other experiences.  I used to belong to the Council On Middle Eastern and North African Studies for about 15 or so years, and I attended many a seminar, including a full week seminar that involved eight hour days of listening to experts that were flown in from the Middle East to teach us at the University of Michigan.  However, a bit over a decade ago I broke affiliation with the group for political reasons and I've had no contact with them since.  However, I have continued to attend many seminars through the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit.

I have also had the privilege of visiting the Middle East twice (Israel-- I got sick once and missed going into the Sinai-- that's another story).  I've done some limited studying in mosques here in the Detroit area, Washington D.C., and in Israel.  My synagogue has a pulpit exchange with a local mosque, which I have also been involved with.  I have taught seminars at synagogue dealing with Islamic fundamentalism and it's implications, and we've had numerous speakers come in and discuss what's happening there.

I also have had the experiences in living in the largest Middle Eastern community outside of the Middle East itself.  Matter of fact, around 60% of my students when I retired were 1st or 2nd generation Middle Easterners, especially Chaldians, and I've had the privilege of attending some of their weddings, including one whereas the imam and I discussed Middle Eastern events at the same table (he knew I was Jewish, but we got along very well).

I also have had the pleasure of the experience of being married to one who reflects a great many Middle Eastern values and customs.  My wife of 41 years was from a very rural area of Sicily, which traditionally was more reflective of North African culture than mainland Italian culture.  Even though I was so arrogant as to believe that she could learn a lot from me because of my formal education, I've learned far more from her than I ever could have imagined.  And when we began to get a large influx of Middle Eastern students around 30 years ago where I taught, knowing her family and culture very much helped me to understand where these new students were coming from (as a side, they used to call me the Falafal King because they knew I liked the dish so much, so I frequently had that and other dishes dishes brought to me).

But probably the greatest honor I received was when a weekly news-magazine contacted me to spend an entire summer in Syria, Jordan, and a third country that hadn't been decided on.  This magazine, which I cannot mention, had interviewed me on two occasions, and decided to send me over there to do some investigative reporting (not spying!).  My wife was not happy, but she agreed to let me go.  However, it was shortly after I got the "official" (from my wife) go-ahead that the Persian Gulf conflict broke out, and the magazine had to rescind its offer (either way I wasn't going because my wife would have killed me anyway if I continued to attempt to go).

Anyhow, that's a bit about my background.  Told you it would sound very arrogant.  But my hope is that this may help explain some of my past and future comments.  Again, I'm no expert and I'm not attempting to pawn myself off as one, but I have had some very interesting exposure and training in this area.

BTW, just to let all know that this is one area whereas I can quite easily fly off the handle, so I have to be very careful with myself.  And if I feel I may be "losing it", I may well just abruptly terminate my part of a conversation.  Instead of lashing out at people, my long-term tendency is to simply clam up (must be those Swedish genes  ).         

[Faithfulee]

As a student of the ME, can you tell me if the following statement is true?  It is from one of many websites about Muhammad and Islam.


 Muhammad himself launched 80 war campaigns during the ten years from his migration in A.D. 622 to his death in A.D. 632 though some of them were nothing more than reconnaissance missions...

Having "launched" these 80 war campaigns, were they as brutal as some scholars (not Muslim ones) record? or were they defensive wars?.

[Adrian1197]

As a student of the ME, can you tell me if the following statement is true?  It is from one of many websites about Muhammad and Islam.


 Muhammad himself launched 80 war campaigns during the ten years from his migration in A.D. 622 to his death in A.D. 632 though some of them were nothing more than reconnaissance missions...

Having "launched" these 80 war campaigns, were they as brutal as some scholars (not Muslim ones) record? or were they defensive wars?.

Will you leave the damn Muslims alone for Allah's (peace be upon him) sake?!

I don't know how many war campaigns Muhammad led. Lest we not forget, he was a military man. I doubt it was 80 due to the source from which the information was given. Yes, they were all defensive, as commanded by Allah (peace be upon him). The only battle that may be considered offensive was the conquest of Mecca which was instigated because of Bakr raids against the tribe of Khu'zaah who were friendlies. So, Muhammad was defending someone else. No, they were not allowed to be brutal, also as commanded by Allah (peace be upon him)(Surah Al-Baqarah 190-193).
These verses obviously condemn transgression and only permit war if the Muslim people are being oppressed and cannot come to a peaceful agreement with the oppressers. Which I've informed you like 82 million times...

[metis]

As a student of the ME, can you tell me if the following statement is true?  It is from one of many websites about Muhammad and Islam.

I cannot verify the accuracy of that statement, but there's not much doubt that Islam was spread by the sword at times.  And this is an unfortunate reality with almost all religious groups, including Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism.  How many people have been killed in the name of God or Gods? 

[Faithfulee]

As a student of the ME, can you tell me if the following statement is true?  It is from one of many websites about Muhammad and Islam.

I cannot verify the accuracy of that statement, but there's not much doubt that Islam was spread by the sword at times.  And this is an unfortunate reality with almost all religious groups, including Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism.  How many people have been killed in the name of God or Gods? 

Thank you, I not don't have to apologize on "Islam is not a religion of peace"

Too many people have been killed in the name of God, but I thank God that Christians, Jews, and most other religions have come to be civilized and no longer go to war over their God.

[metis]

Too many people have been killed in the name of God, but I thank God that Christians, Jews, and most other religions have come to be civilized and no longer go to war over their God.

I think the vast majority of Muslems feel the same way.  Most of them from my experience, like you and I, want to take care of the families and community and do so in a peaceful way.  It's the radical minority that we have to watch-- carefully. 

[Faithfulee]

Too many people have been killed in the name of God, but I thank God that Christians, Jews, and most other religions have come to be civilized and no longer go to war over their God.

I think the vast majority of Muslems feel the same way.  Most of them from my experience, like you and I, want to take care of the families and community and do so in a peaceful way.  It's the radical minority that we have to watch-- carefully. 

Amen to that.  I don't mean to extend the discussion on that issue.

But what do you think about the change in the ME now that there are TWO DEMOCRACIES?  One goal of the Islamic terrorists is to defeat Democracies and the situation in Iraq is a real problem for the Terrorists.  Sadly the anti-Bush crowd give no credit for the birth of Iraq Democracy. 

This is a tremendous acheivement that will change the politics of the ME, and with the oil wealth that exists in Iraq, it could lead to prosperity, and real peace.

[metis]

This is a tremendous acheivement that will change the politics of the ME, and with the oil wealth that exists in Iraq, it could lead to prosperity, and real peace.

I have not totally given up on the idea that, even though we blundered our way in, all is lost.  However, I'm not optimistic.  It's not that we don't have the forces there or that our men and women aren't doing a great job, but that the cards are so badly stacked against them.  I've mentioned why this is the case before, so I don't think I have to repeat it.

However, we shouldn't give up, but at the same time we have to get it through our thick skull that we are not going to be the solution there-- they are.  And that "they" includes a Shi'i majority that simply has no love for America and democracy, and they're the ones in power.  They well k now we're leaving sooner or later no matter who's elected.  And they well k now if they play their cards smart, they will create what they want to create in the final analysis. 

I'm going to do something I hate doing-- stereotyping a group.  But here it goes anyway, even though there are always exceptions to the rule. 

These people are tough-- really tough.  I don't care if we're talking about the ME or here, they can survive on a dime and a song.  In my area in the Lower, they have taken failed businesses and prospered.  If you go over to the ME, you'll look at what they're living in and just shake your head and wonder how in the world do can they live.  And they are an extremely determined lot that have enough patience to make Job jealous.  And they don't forget.

But I have to admit that I love them for what they are, and that's no exaggeration.  If they like you, they will treat you like a king.  If you were to go over to one of their houses in the ME, and let's say that the family you visit literally hates you and wants to kill you, if you're invited in, they would literally protect you with their life, and that's no exaggeration. 

So, in the final analysis, they will create what they want to create and there's not going to much that we can do about it.  Our best shot right now is to stay engaged politically and militarily and attempt to bring in all the interested parties and have them figure out a way to deal with this.  After all, they have much more to gain or lose than we do.

Shalom & have a nice weekend.     

[Faithfulee]

Melis

However, we shouldn't give up, but at the same time we have to get it through our thick skull that we are not going to be the solution there-- they are.  And that "they" includes a Shi'i majority that simply has no love for America and democracy, and they're the ones in power.  They well k now we're leaving sooner or later no matter who's elected.  And they well k now if they play their cards smart, they will create what they want to create in the final analysis.

It is more important that the  Iraqis RESPECT democracy and America, especially democracy.  They are Muslims and my fear is that the Islamic antipathy to democracy will  one day  call them to tear down all that we  worked to build up in Iraq. 

I believe that America and our allies have been invited in.  It disturbs me greatly that the libs in America still  hate Bush and condemn the war in Iraq that has produced democracy and the “invitation”.

Those same feelings are currently at work to destroy the Iraq efforts to use their oil reserves.  We must not only be engaged politically and militarily, but also economically, and on a more capitalistic than socialistic.  Sadly the libs who control US media reject capitalism and are objecting to the capitalistic ways that the oil resources are being developed.

Do you agree on the importance of  both democracy and capitalism as important aspects of the future of Iraq and the middle east.

[metis]

Do you agree on the importance of  both democracy and capitalism as important aspects of the future of Iraq and the middle east.

Sorry for the late response-- I've been very busy.

Democracy and capitalism are ideals that are not necessarily compatible in all societies.  As an anthropologist, we're aware of the fact that what may work in one society may not work that well in another.

In order to work well, both capitalism and democracy typically need some preconditions.  One is order.  Neither tend to work well in a society that is disorderly for whatever reason, which is why it often takes decades for both to be implemented to the point whereas they function half-way decently well.  In regards to capitalism, having a surplus is almost essential, although there can be exceptions to the rule on rare occasions.  The reason is quite simple in that if there's a lack of a surplus then, in a competitive society, some may be without, which in turn causes suffering and may lead to revolution.  If there's a safety net, that will help, but having large numbers of people unemployed and only relying on the welfare of others tends to create much instability.

Would I like to see democracy and capitalism with a safety net?  Yes.  But as we experienced in Vietnam, it's much easier said than done.

[SquirleyWurley]

My concern is that it takes time to build a culture that respects reason and individual rights, the principle of checks and balances, etc.  And it isn't clear how to do so.  Without that I'm not sure it matters so much what form of formal institutions a society has politically or economically.

[Faithfulee]

Do you agree on the importance of  both democracy and capitalism as important aspects of the future of Iraq and the middle east.

Sorry for the late response-- I've been very busy.

Democracy and capitalism are ideals that are not necessarily compatible in all societies.  As an anthropologist, we're aware of the fact that what may work in one society may not work that well in another.

In order to work well, both capitalism and democracy typically need some preconditions.  One is order.  Neither tend to work well in a society that is disorderly for whatever reason, which is why it often takes decades for both to be implemented to the point whereas they function half-way decently well.  In regards to capitalism, having a surplus is almost essential, although there can be exceptions to the rule on rare occasions.  The reason is quite simple in that if there's a lack of a surplus then, in a competitive society, some may be without, which in turn causes suffering and may lead to revolution.  If there's a safety net, that will help, but having large numbers of people unemployed and only relying on the welfare of others tends to create much instability.

Would I like to see democracy and capitalism with a safety net?  Yes.  But as we experienced in Vietnam, it's much easier said than done.

Look back a bit further to Korea (where I served the US Military).  I believe in Democracy and capitalism and I think the Korea is an example of where US policy actually believed in it too, and we helped the South Koreans become a major force in the world economy.  While North Korea fumbled and fussed with socalism.

If we believe in democracy and capitalism, we can make it work in Iraq and transform Iraq into the second successful Democracy in the ME.  We are still at war with radical Islam and the best weapon that the western world has is to support democracies and help the build a robust economy where Islamic terrorism has more difficulty spreading it's message of hate and violence.

Wurley

My concern is that it takes time to build a culture that respects reason and individual rights, the principle of checks and balances, etc.  And it isn't clear how to do so.  Without that I'm not sure it matters so much what form of formal institutions a society has politically or economically.

I think capitalism is head and shoulders above communism and socialism and demoracy is the best form of government for humankind.  And I do think it matters that countries be free to choose their own way of life, government and economic systems.  The middle east is a cesspool of oil and Islami fundamentalism and if it doesn't change, it will remain mired in the middle ages for decades. 

We have vital interests there in oil, and the people of Israel.  A major tribute to US foreign policy will be sounded when the two democracies, Israel and Iraq flourish while the "oil rich" nations squander their wealth and sqabble among the Muslim sects.  The individual rights and especially the rights of women will be both a good example and source of the economic successes of these democracies.