tom

If Gadaffi wins it emboldens the entire mideast to strike out against the west.

Here's what you said Tom.
Now please follow your timeline and see which of the countries that were "emobolded" by the success of other Arab rebellions "struck at the West".

The West, and in particular the US offered support to the despots in place in many of these countries. Particualrly Egypt. So emotionally the Rebels in Egypt might well hold a grudge with justification and "strike out". However they haven't, and seem to be adopting democratic institutions very quickly - prepared to move on with their own society.
I suspect most of the nations that do suceed in bringing about change in their countries will be more likely to ask for support from the West. Although they will probably be slightly suspicious of Western motivations and commitment to their new democracy. I think thats a well earned suspicion.
Even in Libya, this will probably be the result in Libya eventually as well. They are starting from a place of even less developed institutions but they also have over $30 billion in assets frozen by the US, and valuable oil reserves.... They have the resources. What they may not have is a cohesive to replace their tribal affiliations. But that remains to be seen.
More defections reported on in Libya again today...
I wonder why everyone feels that the Libyan rebellion should be almost immediate? Is it unreasonable for it to take perhaps 6 months to unseat Qadaffi. ?

rickyp wrote:However they haven't, and seem to be adopting democratic institutions very quickly - prepared to move on with their own society

A serious question here ricky. Could you provide documentation for this statement. Because quite honestly, all I have been seeing is articles about how various factions are in conflict with the military and/or internal security forces. If anything, the articles I have been seeing about Eygpt are pointing to a situation that is getting worse and more violent not a situation that is calming down as democratic institutions are adopted.

rickyp wrote:The West, and in particular the US offered support to the despots in place in many of these countries. Particualrly Egypt.

I'm really getting sick of hearing this again and again and again. The British and French put most of these regimes in place and drew most of these borders. They screwed up royally. Ain't our fault. Nasser comes along and aligns Egypt with the USSR and wages war on Israel with Soviet weaponry, and maybe even a few Soviet pilots. This gives the Russkies up-to-date info on how their equipment stacks up against the West's best. We do a little dealing down the road and manage to help 1) Egypt get back into the West's court and 2) make peace with Israel. FORGIVE US PLEASE! WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE DOING! WE FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE FINE PRINT THAT THE BRITS AND FRENCH ALWAYS USED - THE STUFF ABOUT NOT BEING ALLOWED TO CRAP ON YOUR OWN PEOPLE. (Oh, wait... they never so stipulated.)

And then there's this: all these horrible leaders we support? Except there's one country with no horrible leaders, no censorship, no brutal dictator. And it happens to be the one country we support the most. And we STILL catch shit for supporting them. We support dictators and Ricky complains, we support democracies and Ricky complains. We should only support Denmark. Maybe Iceland. But things being more complicated let's look at the nations in question one by one:

Bahrain - 1820: British treaty firms up Al Khalifa family up in power; it "specified that the ruler could not dispose of any of his territory except to the United Kingdom and could not enter into relationships with any foreign government without British consent. In return the British promised to protect Bahrain from all aggression by sea and to lend support in case of land attack. More importantly, the British promised to support the rule of the Al Khalifa in Bahrain, securing its unstable position as rulers of the country." This and other Gulf sheikdom treaties remained in force until 1968. 1968!! When the Brits left in 1971 the USA moved in. PLEASE EXCUSE US FOR SUPPORTING THE GUY YOU'D BEEN SUPPORTING FOR 148 YEARS.

Egypt: see above. I won't bother reviewing the British history with Egypt.

Iran: 1941: Britain and the USSR install Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. 1951: Mossadegh tries to reduce British influence; nationalizes oil. Wikipedia: "The government of the United Kingdom had grown increasingly distressed over Mosaddegh's policies and were especially bitter over the loss of their control of the Iranian oil industry. Repeated attempts to reach a settlement had failed.

Unable to resolve the issue single-handedly due to its post-World War II problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. Initially America had opposed British policies. After American mediation had failed several times to bring about a settlement, American Secretary of State Dean Acheson concluded that the British were "destructive and determined on a rule or ruin policy in Iran."

Long story short: we adopted the Shah. He was better than the Mullahs.

Iraq: The Brits take control after WWI using both the League of Nations and their armed forces to ensure their primacy. Who do they install as King? A foreign Hashemite. 1932: Britain grants Iraq independence but retains their military bases there. Also: control of oil. The foreign puppet king lasts until 1958 when a coup takes place. The new regime goes pro-Soviet. 1968: the Ba'ath party takes power. 1979: Saddam takes control of the Ba'ath party; one year later he declares war on Iran. The USA was trying to keep either Iran or Iraq from falling 100% into Soviet hands and we help Saddam achieve a stalemate. FORGIVE US! WE DIDN'T HAVE YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE AREA. WE SHOULD HAVE... what? You tell me. Saddam proved to be evil. WE TURNED AGAINST HIM AND CAUGHT HELL FOR IT!!! Woe is us - we can never get it right.

Jordan: Another Hashemite abortion. But by a quirk of fate, the young son of the Brit-installed King turned out to be a half-decent guy. The first thing he did was dismiss Glubb, the Brit who controlled the Jordanian "Arab Legion". According to Wikipedia: "Hussein's rule was marred with secret collaboration with Israel and the United States, which often adversely affected [his relations with] the surrounding Arab States and peoples, including the Palestinians. These secret negotiations benefited the Jordanian people and more specifically the Hashemite dynasty in Jordan. Secret meetings between King Hussein and Israeli foreign ministers Abba Eban and Golda Meir began on or before 1963." We helped the guy. FORGIVE US. He was a reluctant partner of the Arabs in '67 and not only sat out '73 he actively warned the Israelis of the impeding Syrian invasion. I'm sure that if we'd not nurtured him he would have stayed a stalwart Arab and now all those damn Jews would be dead. FORGIVE US. We then helped him make peace. Are we still supporting his son, who has largely continued his policies? FORGIVE US.

Kuwait: see Bahrain above - the stories are quite similar, with this treaty relationship lasting from 1899 to 1961, when the Brits finally allowed Kuwait to be independent. This wasn't an entirely gracious act on the part of Britain; the fact was they could no longer afford to maintain their empire in the Persian Gulf. The USA, due to having advanced technology from our own oil boom and the resources to keep the USSR at bay, picked up the slack. The Saddam invaded Kuwait. By defeating Saddam we implicitly supported the al-Sabah family and guaranteed their continued tyrannical rule. We have a lot of military stationed in Kuwait; they are one of our closest allies. FORGIVE US. According to Wikipedia, "Kuwait has one of the most vocal and transparent media in the Arab World." Women serve in their military. The Islamic dress code is not imposed. It has the highest Human Development Index of all Arab countries. FORGIVE US.

Lebanon: We've never been much of a supporter of Lebanon. Their government is now controlled by a bloodthirsty mob of Islamofascist thugs. FORGIVE US. WE SHOULD HAVE... I dunno'... done something diffrerent. It's GOT to be our fault. Whatever IT is, it's got to be our fault. (Or maybe Israel's.)

Oman: the Portuguese have some history here. (It's amazing the place hasn't blown up.) It seems the use of "forceful British diplomacy" has occurred at least twice in the history of Oman. In one case the Brits helped one brother win out over another. That winner went on to infamy as a slave trader. (I may be confusing son and father - apologies if so - too late at night for me to figure it all out.) I'm getting bored. What evils has the USA committed in Oman? I'm sure they are overwhelming.

Qatar: see Bahrain and Kuwait. This treaty relationship started in 1916, with the Al-Thani family being the beneficiary of enlightened colonialism. Qatar didn't get out from under that treaty until 1971. 1971!! There have been a number of coups since (within the family) but a constitution was adopted in 2005 (while US forces were present - FORGIVE US). Wikipedia: "The current emir has announced his intention for Qatar to move towards democracy and has permitted a nominally free and open press and municipal elections. Economic, social, and democratic reforms have occurred in recent years. In 2003, a woman was appointed to the cabinet as minister of education." The gov't allows churches to conduct Mass. Wikipedia: "Qatar has comparatively liberal laws." The USA, up to it's usual nefarious tricks, has launched a programof subversion undoubtedly sponsored by the worst elements within the CIA:

Cornell University has established a degree-granting branch medical school campus in Doha, and other universities including Texas A&M, Carnegie Mellon University, the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Design, the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, and Northwestern also have branch campuses in Qatar's "Education City" complex.

FORGIVE US! MEA CULPA!! MEA MAXIMA CULPA!

Seriously, Qatar is a monarchy. There are no political parties. I can't say that progress toward a more inclusive political regime has been speedy. We're pretty tough on them when it comes to human rights, however. They get no free pass.

Saudi Arabia: The sordid history of British involvement began in 1916, over 20 years BEFORE massive oil fields were discovered. US influence grew mainly starting in 1975 when Khalid became King, and oil was the main reason. Pretty much the only reason. How much pressure has the USA put on the Sa'ud family to liberalize their governance? Not nearly enough. But we didn't create Saudi Arabia, we no longer have any troops there, and most of their oil does NOT go to the USA. One US administration after another has been supporting the royal family in the name of oil. Why? Two reasons. The first is a question: if not the royal family, who? Wikipedia:

Tribal identity remains strong and, outside of the royal family, political influence is frequently determined by tribal affiliation. Tribal sheikhs maintain a considerable degree of influence over local and national events. The tribal hierarchy in the country is complex, made up of a handful of very influential major tribes and a number of smaller, less-influential ones. Additionally, outside of this polity, the rule of the Al Saud faces political opposition from four sources: Sunni Islamist activism; liberal pro-democracy critics; the Shi'ite minority – particularly in the Eastern Province; and long-standing tribal and regional particularistic opponents (for example in the Hejaz). Of these, the Islamic activists have been the most prominent threat to the regime and have in recent years perpetrated a number of violent or terrorist acts in the country.

If the Sa'ud family fell, how much would you like to bet that it's NOT the "liberal pro-democracy critics" who win power? Reason number two is oil. I've been meaning to start a thread about oil as a natural resource. Why is it worth so much? Petroleum is such a marvelous and amazing substance that religious folks out to rate its existence a miracle. It's by far the most efficient way to use energy on a mobile basis and it's damn clean compared to the cheap alternatives. I think most people realize this, but have trouble fully understanding why energy itself is so important. We tend to think of petroleum and energy as the thing that powers our autos and warms our homes. But as this graph shows, industrial use roughly matches transport use and commercial use roughly matches residential, and a full third of transport is for heavy trucks and aircraft:



What I'm trying to say is simple: oil isn't a luxury item. We NEED it to maintain our economy, to grow food, to build schools, and to keep my hair in place on windy days.

I'm going to sleep. I apologize without explanation for...

Syria

UAE

Yemen

Ricky is Canadian and not British, but otherwise a very informative post.

When did Canada drop out of the empire? Who's that I see on their money and postage stamps?

No doubt a rhetorical question, but the key point is that in 1867 it became as an independent self governing colony.

I've always found it interesting that the US had to fight for its independence whereas the Canadians just patiently waited less than 100 years and got the same result without all the bloodshed. They also managed to avoid a bloody civil war even though their societal divisions are probably greater. But we digress ...

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky is Canadian and not British, but otherwise a very informative post.

Great post, MX!

I eagerly await Ricky's witty and fact-filled rebuttal! This will be an epic battle of titans . . .

Archduke: Egypt will hold parliamentary elections in September and elect a new president by November, according to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces who has been in power since Feb. 11.
Sure there's demonstrations on a daily basis but then in what stable democracy can't one find expressions of political will, like demonstrations? You know like in Wisconsin.
You don't see the military looking to get involved in foreign adventues (say Libya) as a way of distracting the populace. They reiterated their support for the ISrealis peace accord and there is a general feeling that change is occurring...
The bourse reopened for business, and schools and universisties are open again.

Archduke there's not much I take issue with about your history lesson in the Middle East. The problem is, it might matter to you, but it doesn't matter to the people marching in the streets in the mideast today.
Most of the population in the Middle East in under 30. They've grown up knowing what they call social injustice and haven't known freedoms that democracies have...But they've learned what they are, and they also learn how their rulers maintain power.
Do you dispute that they blame the US (and other western nations, but primarily the US) for supporting their rulers? Even if they are wrong in this, (And they are right to some degree in most of the nations) its how they perceive the world. And, the fact is that western money - derived from the oil economy or foreign aid have played a large part in their rulers maintaining the status quo.
Ancient history, which is where you are going, doesn't mean much to a 25 year old marching in Cairo's street. What they want is action now. And what they know is what they've learned from their media about why what they want is denied them.

Now, justifying the support for the ruling family because it makes sense to the West (and I suppose it has economically) doesn't mean anything to young Saudis suffering under the Saudi family.
What everyone fails to do in this is look at the thing only from the eyes of the West and what's best for the West. The young people who are actually striving for freedom don't give a damn about what's best for the West or the US in particular. What they are universally demanding is freedom, democracy and social justice. (Please note that so far, none of the protestors have asked for US involvement. None. Not in Iran, Tunisia Egypt Yemen)
Israel and Palestine have played a role in mid-east politics as both a distraction for the despots And an example of the US playing against Arab aspirations (see UN vetoes). US bases in Qatar, Bahrain etc are examples of US power projected into the region. The fact is Archduke, is the US is the greatest military power, has fought two recent wars in the region, which the young people witnessed through their media , and on which Americans are portrayed as having little regard for the average Arab when the war in Iraq is depicted and reported. (i.e. How do you think the helicopter machine gunning in Baghdad that was wikileaked last year played?)
The urge to control the way regional politics develops is strong when a nation has much power. The British Empire strove mightily as you've documented. So has the US. Because of short term priorities or considerations often both countries worked against the development of democracy. (remember Cuba, Guam and the Philippines? hell, Hawaii) . In the end, it is difficult to maintain an unpopular regime. Without popular support most eventually have failed.
If the US had developed its domestic energy reserves, including oil in the 70's and 80s maybe there wouldn't have been the need to support despots in the Middle East, in fear of the consequences to the short term. But history is what it is, and best intentions pave the way to hell don't they?
Archduke you seem to have difficulty looking at the way American policy is sometimes viewed by others in a dispassionate way. Particularly those directly affected, like the revolting people of the mid-east. Democracies all act hypocritically at times. Usually its due to immediate need trumping long term values. Its unfortunate, I believe, because the long view would also usually work out positively.In the long term. Democracies that arise in the Middle East will still need customers for their oil and will seek stable trading relationships with old enemies. (Viet Nam is doing this..) By the way, I doubt that the American people are seen as enemies, just the policies of the governments

By the way Ray, Archduke is right about Canada being part of the Empire..and supporting its colonial policies. We sent troops with enthusiasm to the Boer War... 1 out of 11 Canadians were in uniform in WWI or in the Merchant Marine as we followed the Empire into war readily ... It was after WWI and the enormous contributions and sacrifices in that conflict that Canada moved to completely take over foreign relations. The Statute of Westminster in 31 ended any ties there. Even then is wasn't till Trudeau repatriated the Constitution (Complete domestic amendment procedure adopted) that we ended the last vestige of "Imperial" involvement in our governance. But we still like the Queen, and pay her expenses when she or the family visit here. Fingers crossed; Will and Kate will come over soon!!! Its nice to have a head of state who isn't also a politician.

Epic fail.

Still blaming the US.

Worse, you misidentify your opponent throughout.

Ricky, you are confusing Archduke and Min X. Are we really blaming Canada for British imperialism in the Middle East? Ehh?

rickyp wrote:Archduke: Egypt will hold parliamentary elections in September and elect a new president by November, according to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces who has been in power since Feb. 11.
Sure there's demonstrations on a daily basis but then in what stable democracy can't one find expressions of political will, like demonstrations? You know like in Wisconsin.
You don't see the military looking to get involved in foreign adventues (say Libya) as a way of distracting the populace. They reiterated their support for the ISrealis peace accord and there is a general feeling that change is occurring...
The bourse reopened for business, and schools and universisties are open again.

This is so insightful. I mean, really, I feel I am walking the side streets of Cairo with you, taking in the smells, sounds--and the political pulse of the populace. Really. Brilliant. I figure you have first-hand knowledge since you give no citation for your data.

Strange thing is . . . I really am confused here . . . the Egyptians don't quite have your knowledge. How can that be??? Aren't they reading the Cairo-Rickyp Times?

The public approval of the constitutional amendments on March 19 provided an early example of Islamist political muscle, the victory achieved in no small part by framing the yes vote as a religious duty. But perhaps the most surprising aspect of the Islamist campaign was the energy invested by religious organizations that once damned the democratic process as a Western, infidel innovation masterminded to undermine God’s laws.

Mr. Zomor, 64, with his bushy gray beard and nearly 30 years in prison, has emerged as a high-profile spokesman for that sea change since he was released on March 12.

He and other Salafis, or Islamic fundamentalists, rhapsodize about founding political parties and forging alliances with the more mainstream Muslim Brotherhood to maximize the religious vote.

Several reasons lie behind this remarkable turnabout, according to senior religious sheiks, junior members and experts.

Foremost is the desire to protect, if not strengthen, the second amendment of Egypt’s Constitution, which enshrines Shariah, or Islamic law, as the main source of Egyptian law. The parliament to be elected in September will guide the drafting of a new constitution.

“If the constitution is a liberal one this will be catastrophic,” said Sheik Abdel Moneim el-Shahat, scoffing at new demands for minority rights during a night class he teaches at a recently reopened Salafi mosque in Alexandria. “I think next they will tell us that Christians must lead Muslims in the prayers!” . . .

At the University of Alexandria, within sight of the sparkling Mediterranean, five bearded Salafi students set up a small table at the Faculty of Commerce on Tuesday to advocate the benefits of an Islamic state.

When a Christian student objected, one fundamentalist argued, “When we launch wars, we do it to strengthen our religion,” he said. “Will you fight alongside us to spread our religion?”

“I will be angry,” replied the other student.

”We cannot put God’s orders to a referendum,” said Ibrahim Mohamed, 21, one of the Salafi students. “Islam says adulterers must be stoned.”

Yeah, those young (and old) Egyptian Democrats seem strangely out of step with you.

How did that happen?

Just for the record... when I wrote "I'm really getting sick of hearing this again and again and again," I meant from Western lefties, not victims of Saudi repression. It's argued that young Arabs aren't able to make fine distinctions based on history; why aren't older Canadians able to make them?

And now I'll make the rebuttal Ricky should have: The USA has always considered itself at least one notch higher on the scale of moral international behavior than any previous great power, not to mention any previous empire or imperialistic or colonial power. The commitment to support peoples seeking freedom from their tyrants, even when those tyrants are internationally recognized as the legitimate government, began at least as early as 1947 with the Truman Doctrine, which states that it shall be "the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." By my own run-down country-by-country almost each one could be seen as involving outsiders or an armed minority. But, truth be told, the TD was aimed at communists. However, both FDR and Wilson before him were more universalistic. Points five and twelve of Wilson's Fourteen Points are on point:

5) A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.
12) The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

FDR's "Four Freedoms" weren't a contractual guarantee to peoples everywhere, but they did form the moral basis under which Americans were convinced to fight Hitler - first - even though only Japan had attacked the USA.

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

I was taught these doctrines in Junior High School and I wasn't alone. What we weren't taught until the Vietnam War neared its climax, was that these commitments or implicit promises - or at the least guiding principles that lend legitimacy (in the eyes of its citizens) to foreign policy in a democracy - have been adhered to at best inconsistently. One could argue that adherence has been the exception. Many have argued that they've been ignored, but that's unfair. During the Cold War, which we fought for reasons very much in accord with these three great sets of ideals, the grand strategy of containment required that the ideals be ignored (often!) at the level of grand tactics.

But when it comes to the Mideast, after the Cold War ended, changes would have been made had it not been for oil. Arabs are difficult peoples compared to Hungarians or Koreans. We found it convenient to cite oil as a commodity of such strategic importance that once again we would be prudent to ignore ideals at a tactical level.

How do you bring the Four Freedoms and the rest to peoples "everywhere"? Frankly, while we're good at mouthing the ideals, we're not amazing geniuses when it comes to the practical work involved. No one is. It would be hard work. It would be especially hard in the Mideast.

The questions are these: are we Americans committed enough to these ideals to suffer for them? We pay homage to "The Greatest Generation" because they were willing. We would have to pay dearly to make oil a non-essential strategic commodity, but not as dearly as that earlier generation paid, or many of the generations before them. So, in short, if I were Ricky I'd say: "Put up or shut up. Either you're idealistic or you aren't; either you're leaders or you aren't. It's okay to just be another nation, but if that's all you aspire to then stop talking big about spreading freedom and democracy. And for God's sake why in hell would you need a military that's stronger than the rest of the world's put together unless you were committed to using it for good, and not just to maintain a high standard of living for Americans and your allies?" That's what I'd say if I were he. In fact, it's what I'd say... period. It's just that I don't for sure know the right answer to the implied questions. Should we be so idealistic? Are we still capable of making great sacrifices? Should we maintain a huge military and be so interventionist? I just don't know.

Min X, I think we have to acknowledge that we have limited resources: financial, military, political. In a perfect world, we would also be intervening in Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Ivory Coast, and at the same time pursue a full court press against Iran, Syrian, and North Korea.

Steve, your "walking the streets of Cairo" post is very funny. You are so modest not even mentioning that you are quoting the New York Times.

Well, I did link it.

Ricky has been pretending the Islamists in Egypt are on the outside looking in. The truth is we won't know for a while. What is clear is they are going to struggle mightily to take advantage of the situation.