In light of events over the last several months, I wanted to get a sense of other's views on why the Middle East is so unstable. I'm also curious if people have changed their views based on the last few months.

I wanted to do a poll, but didn't know how. Here are the options as I see it:

1. The west's history of imperialism and false nation states.
2. Current western imperialism / world's thirst for oil.
3. Arab / Israeli conflict.
4. Sunni / Shia conflict.
5. Islam and it's tendency towards violence / terrorism.
6. U.S. and/or west's misunderstanding of region.
7. Something else.

RJ

I would go with number 5

But it's not worded how I would like, so maybe 7?
I say it's a religious reason because of how religion either runs the state or controls peoples lives so strictly. Similar to the Catholic church so long ago that controlled nations and peoples lives. I would not call it so much Islams embracing of terror and violence, but rather the way it has control of so damned much of everyday life and politics.

Ray Jay wrote:1. The west's history of imperialism and false nation states.
2. Current western imperialism / world's thirst for oil.
3. Arab / Israeli conflict.
4. Sunni / Shia conflict.
5. Islam and it's tendency towards violence / terrorism.
6. U.S. and/or west's misunderstanding of region.
7. Something else.

1 & 2) In broad brush at least everything in these two rationales has been true elsewhere in the world without creating the same degree (or at least type) of instability, so this can't be the entire explanation. If you'd round out the "peculiar history" explanation by including mention of the Ottoman Empire, you'd be a step closer to capturing the full import of this category. Baghdad, Damascus, Mecca, Jerusalem, and most of North Africa spent about 400 years being something like a "colony" of Constantinople. There was a lot of taxation without representation and a more or less steady and continuous decrease in the percent of people working land they owned. A kind of feudalism persisted far longer in this region than in Europe, and tribalism/clannishness is still quite strong.
3) This has been relevant only since the 1920's. It's a symptom of one problem, the cause of others. It certainly hasn't helped bring the Arab world closer to the non-Arab world, but it might have or could have in an alternate universe. Most nations suffer when they experience a massive brain-drain. Imagine if the Arabs had welcomed the Jews as a massive brain-infusion.
4) No. Christianity experienced much more wrenching schism and sectarian violence, at (very) roughly the same time, and recovered from it much faster. Certainly not helpful, but not very explanatory.
5) See below.
6) We also misunderstand Asia, Africa, Latin America... France. You name it. Again: certainly not helpful, but not very explanatory.

Islam and Arab culture: these two, which are very much interrelated, explain a lot. Your question was about instability. Let's therefore first ask what, in the modern world, fosters stability. Here's a list of contributing factors:
1) Liberalism (meaning - as I use it here - the idea that the people, individually and collectively, are sovereign, not some institution, family, or regime.)
2) Progress/Modernism (meaning - as I use it here - a sort of international "keeping up with the Joneses"; the standard of living is comparable to that where it's highest and improves at about the same rate, with embracing of innovation crucially important.)
3) Globalism (meaning, as I use it here - a recognition that international relations and trade are more of a win-win situation than a zero-sum game.)
4) Individualism/Libertarianism (meaning - as I use it here - a sort of public philosophy and psychology that holds that humans as individuals are holders of worth, will, and rights, as opposed to clans, tribes or other institutions.)
5) Humanism (meaning - as I use it here - the widespread belief that helping your fellow man regardless of common identity of race, creed, tribe, etc. is one of the highest virtues.)
6) Feminism (meaning - as I use it here - the belief that gender doesn't affect human worth or potential.)

Now you can argue that stability is also fostered by other factors, but other than those based on brute force I think most can be traced back to these main elements. I'm thinking about things like an independent judiciary, vibrant press, good universal schooling, and so on. In any case these five elements, which are certainly interdependent and interrelated, and which in combination comprise the core of what I might call "Western Political Culture", are IMHO crucial to stability in today's world. A repressive society can seem to be more stable than a vibrantly free one, but when that's true it's always proven to be a temporary situation.

So back to Islam and Arab culture... they are almost the exact counterweights to all these elements. Submission to higher authority; low estimation of the value of individual lives; hostility toward outsiders; rejection or deep suspicion of innovation; female inferiority; and on and on. Some of it's Islam, some pre-dates Islam but still survives. Some can be related to life in a harsh physical environment; some is related to nomadic pastoralism. Some can be attributed to the peculiar circumstance of the Sa'ud-Wahhab alliance, which became culturally influential through control of the sacred cities and then doubly so with the advent of oil wealth.

I'm certainly not saying that Islam and Arab culture are the only problems in the region. There are many other factors. Not mentioned above is the way an oil-production economy does so little for the average fellahin while making the sheiks wealthy beyond imagining; it's perverse and distorting in the extreme. What I'm saying is this: if you're trying to figure out what policy to pursue in the region a failure to grasp the significance of what I've described will be a fatal handicap. Get familiar with all the rest - with everything - but recognize that the easiest element to overlook, because it can be impolitic to focus upon, is Islam and Arab culture.

I'm thinking tribalism. After all Islam just patched over tribal conflicts and united them under the banner of Islam and the Caliphate and the religious laws of Islam. There was never (as far as i'm aware) a truly secular movment in Islam, the only other force in Islamic societies is tribal loyalties.
In Europe Rome supplanted tribalism with a cannonized law, which survived even when Rome fell and had a huge influence on the fiefdoms, kingdoms and empires that rose from it's ashes. And the religious hierarchy and power always had to cope with the competing power interests of secular rulers. That lead to a complex set of rules and institutions to balance competing interests in our societies.
They have Islam and tribal societies made rich by oil and gas.

X

So back to Islam and Arab culture... they are almost the exact counterweights to all these elements.

If you broaden this to "fundamental religion" and "tribalism" you describe the current situation in the Middle East and also describe a point of history in most of the rest of the world.
If one subscribes to the theory that man kind is evolving and that liberal democracy is the furthest point on our evolutionary journey (so far) then the Middle East is simply "behind the curve " a little. (within the scope of our roughly 11,000 year history as a settled species)

I think when Europe erupted in a democratic zeal there were dozens of "revolutions" ocurring within a twenty year period as the people of Europe rose up and took hold of their destinies by claiming a democratic right. They too had to over come tribalism and religion to achieve their liberal democracies. The Middle East seems to be going through that about 175 years later...

Can I also add that one thing that has slowed the Arab evolution is the lack of an educated middle class for so long. Ideas are cultivated by educated minds. Democracy and freedom are basically ideas. When economic inequality, and religious fundamentalism keeps most of the populace ignorant, ideas grow with great difficulty. In an enlightened, educated society ideas have fertile ground.
The oil economy has both helped the feudal societies maintain themselves, and at the same time the inequality in wealth has driven discontent. Witness the Saudis Kings' recent attempt to buy off his peiople with the anounced distribution of Billions...
The history of the Middle East seems to follow the historical trajectory of most of the world with different parameters affecting the vector according to their relative contributions. In a global society,. with communications so immediate and universal, the old ideas of fundamental religion, tribalism and the inequalities of wealth and liberty cannot long be sustained. Its astonishing to watch how quickly this is occurring right now and must be both exilerating to the average Arab and terrifying to the rulers...
By the way, of all the factors J, 3 has the least impact. The Arab Israel conflict has largely been a useful distraction for the feudal Arab leaders. It has served as something to rally the people against while they forget about whats really screwing them in their daily lives. I submit that if there were a resolution years ago we might have seen the situation currently occurring sooner, as the average Arab man focussed on their own injustices.

haha, wow, I actually support the rantings and ravings of Ruffhaus! (well most of it anyways0
This Libya part especially makes me laugh,
According to liberals ...Iraq was wrong
According to liberals ...Libya is just
Could it possibly be because the President during Iraq was a Republican and the President during Libya is a Democrat?
Can the liberals ever disagree with Obama????
The differences are so slight yet we have a very strong difference of opinion. Myself, I'm torn on both issues as both are so similar. I do see reasons to invade Iraq (it was a mess afterwards no doubt) but I also see the same reasons to do as we are now doing in Libya. I can see reasons to not do either as well. Yet the Libs are so united one is good and one is bad, it makes no sense, but their blogs tell them what to think and what to say, so here we have the result showing so obvious.

Kucinich says Obama has committed an "impeachable act". I guess there is the line that you have to cross.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51668.html

It's a great day in history when Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich both agree on something. :)

Decision to attack Libya leaves some in Congress feeling shut out
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 9914.story

RON PAUL: The No-Fly Zone 'Unconstitutional'
http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul ... deo-2011-3

From the LA Times article:

"Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to formally declare war, but the president serves as commander-in-chief with operational control of the military and the mandate to protect the nation. The tension between the two branches has existed in the modern era ever since the Korean War, which, like the Libyan incursion, was authorized by a United Nations Security Council resolution and never certified by Congress."

So, we could potentially get ourselves involved in another war in which Congress has no say... :( I guess the UN is our new Congress.

Thje total number of 'liberals' at redscape = 3, and Chad barely posts in the politics forum. So out of the remaining two, so far as I can tell both Danivon and Ricky have expressed reservations about getting involved in Libya. Certainly they haven't been enthusiastic supporters of the idea. Remind me again where all this hypocrisy is in evidence ?

Oh, and since a lot of you guys like to accuse me of being a leftie as well (which is ridiculous of course), I should point out that I was a strong supporter of the Iraq war at the time. In conception at least, if not in execution.

ruffhaus

I overrule you because you dismiss the Arab 'conflict' with Israel, which you correctly note is a huge distraction from the brutal tyrnanny within the Arab nations. Basically it's the same old story throughout history to blame the Jews for all of mankind's ills. Again as you note the Arab nations of today are simply behind the curve on this. To dismiss the ethnic/racial/religious hatred of Jews (Israel) is to stick one's head in the sand. If they didn't have the Jews to collectively hate they would get on with hating and killing themsleves.

If I'm correct in noting that the "conflict" is a distraction used by the Arab dictators then I hardly dismissed the "conflict". I just put it into context. And the context is that it isn't a vital component of instability.
The early history of the middle east was a history of tribal conflicts...and the Hebrews were amongst those tribes.Sometimes as oppressors sometimes as oppressed. (Usually in some kind of conflict.)
Today, although they are a nation state the tribalism remains.
I'll blame tribalism generally for the middle east's conflicts and be right about Israel. But won't blame the Palestinian conflict and hatred of Jews specifically. Because, I think you're right that without the Jewish tribe reinserted into their midst, they'd still squabble amongst them selves. The reason I refered to the conflict having the least cause for instability is that because one side of the equation represents a stable democratic society. And because the Arab neighbors of Palestine have been happy to leave the situation because it was in their general interests to let it fester. As it distracted their populace from their plight and therefore propped up their feudal states.
Israels contribution to the failure in Palestine we've discussed elsewhere. But I simply disagree with you that the Israel conflict is particularly unique in the context of tribalism within the whole region. Since in todays Middle East they represent a unique tribe they can be a focus for other tribes hatred. But in Lebanon, for example, there are 11 different "tribes" represented in a seemingly never ending conflict. And they usually manage to kill each other without reference to Jews. In Iraq, Sunis, Khurds and Shiite have mananged a perfectly good low level civil war without really needing Jews to hate. (Shall I go on? )
(Go see Incendie. A wonderful talle of modern Lebanon in conflict with a cracker of a story. Should have won for best foreign language film at Oscars.)

Sassenach wrote:Thje total number of 'liberals' at redscape = 3, and Chad barely posts in the politics forum. So out of the remaining two, so far as I can tell both Danivon and Ricky have expressed reservations about getting involved in Libya. Certainly they haven't been enthusiastic supporters of the idea. Remind me again where all this hypocrisy is in evidence ?

Oh, don't go confusing the US conservative with 'facts', Sass. Bombast and repetitive tropes are the ways forward, dontcha know...

Oh, and since a lot of you guys like to accuse me of being a leftie as well (which is ridiculous of course), I should point out that I was a strong supporter of the Iraq war at the time. In conception at least, if not in execution.

You are virtually a communist in their eyes. Ok, so in UK terms you are centre right (I guess you generally support the Con/LD coalition still?), but that's just socialism to a lot of them. Yet they will howl and moan that the USA has become virtually socialist as well...

Anyway, what was the thread about? Oh yeah, not Libya specifically, and hopefully not set up as yet another font of liberal-bashing... It was about 'Why is the Middle East so unstable?'

Well, I understood a lot of what Min X said, and there is quite a lot to it. Yet Europe had quite a lot of the six values in place about a century ago (not as much as now), and yet 1914 proved that Europe was far from stable. Stable isn't necessarily good, either. China seems fairly stable...

I would venture that there are massive power imbalances in the region that do a lot to undermine stability. The fault-lines of those imbalances are often tribal, as well as national, and also sectarian.

danivon wrote:Well, I understood a lot of what Min X said, and there is quite a lot to it. Yet Europe had quite a lot of the six values in place about a century ago (not as much as now), and yet 1914 proved that Europe was far from stable. Stable isn't necessarily good, either. China seems fairly stable...

I would venture that there are massive power imbalances in the region that do a lot to undermine stability. The fault-lines of those imbalances are often tribal, as well as national, and also sectarian.

Actually, I think WWI is a good example to support my thesis. To wit:

1) Liberalism - not in AH, Russia or Germany! (Not as I defined it.)
2) Progress/Modernism - Russia was way behind, as were the Balkans.
3) Globalism - this was huge. Instead of cooperation you had competition for colonies and zero-sum is precisely how all those monarchs saw the game.
4) Individualism/Libertarianism - only west of the Rhine.
5) Humanism - WWI did an awful lot to promote the rise of humanism in that losing an entire generation of fine young men and a few million civilians to boot for no good reason whatsoever spurred poets, philosophers, artists and writers to reassess human relations in its entirety, and even spurred politicians to recognize the futility of war. The fact that humanism rose so much in the wake of the war is evidence that it was lacking in 1914, and indeed it was. Could there be a Kitchner in England today? Someone who would feed men into a meatgrinder with consideration only of their value as soldiers? Of course not.
6) Feminism - was just getting off the ground.

But you're right about stability requiring more and being possible with less. I mentioned brute force being a different kind of promoter of stability. In China you have a combination of three things that promotes stability: 1) a culture that's inured to authoritarianism, 2) the progress/modernism element rocketing off the charts, which in a place that for so long was so poor can make up for a lot of resentment regarding personal freedoms, and 3) a very effective police state.

On the other side of the coin one has to ask whether the USA, which is arguably #1 in the combination of the six elements, is really all that stable. Our problem is that we have it so good we've gotten spoiled. The Tea Party folks think we're not free enough and are suffering under a repressive government, which is totally absurd. We're in hock up to our eyeballs and falling behind in the modernism department. We're not turning out enough scientists and engineers. Nevertheless, we're more stable than China.

I almost included education in the main lost of elements but instead mentioned it as a secondary effect. What kind of educational system fosters stability? That would be an interesting topic for discussion. But I'll tell you what kind doesn't foster stability - the kind that leads to a headline like this: Hamas protests UN plans to teach Holocaust in Gaza.

Differences in childrearing methods and standards is one of the main ways ethnologists (AKA cultural anthropologists) classify cultures. Is childhood curiosity encouraged or restricted? Is the plasticity of the young mind exploited for political purposes or protected from excessive early ideological indoctrination? Are families at all open/democratic or is the father an absolute ruler whose decisions cannot be questioned?

It's possible to engender old-style stability by teaching kids to question nothing, explore nothing, risk nothing. To submit, starting at age four or five. And hate can be a powerful unifier that strengthens old-style stability. But the age of old-style stability is over. New-style stability requires, even for the USA and our peers, more of the six elements I listed than we currently have.

x

But you're right about stability requiring more and being possible with less. I mentioned brute force being a different kind of promoter of stability. In China you have a combination of three things that promotes stability: 1) a culture that's inured to authoritarianism, 2) the progress/modernism element rocketing off the charts, which in a place that for so long was so poor can make up for a lot of resentment regarding personal freedoms, and 3) a very effective police state.

If you accept the theory that all humanity is moving towards democracy and freedom - just at different speeds and in different trajectories - then China is by definition unstable.
I mean this in the way a geological fault is unstable. Maybe you havn't had an earthquake of late but the pressure is building up and when it comes... China is still largely a peasant society. Though its middle class is enormous now in raw numbers as a percentage of the populace its still not like the West. As it continues to develop and the middle class grows as a percentage of the populace and as the middle class is exposed to other ideas and ways of doing things there will be increasing pressure for change.
I think its inevitable.
I've read that the Chinese take the view that the Communist Party is allowed to remain in power as long as they continue to improve the living standards. Should progress stall or the need to have what people in the West have - namely the freedoms they are currently denied - change will explode.

x

On the other side of the coin one has to ask whether the USA, which is arguably #1 in the combination of the six elements, is really all that stable.

This is quite a presumption. One thing that the US is, unlike most of the liberal democracies in the world is more religious. With a large percentage of the populace that are fundamental in the faith there are pressures and influences that one doesn't see in many western liberal democracies. I suspect the "instability" you sense is essentially the tension between fundamental religion facing up to a modern world of science and liberal thought. For example; fundamental religion is more authoritarian.

Its also the ongoing tension between the incredible liberal document that is your constitution with the application of it over the time since written. Civil rights, for instance, was a scarring episode in the US . In other western democracies there have been struggles for equality and acceptance by minorities but seldom with the same emotion, tension and angst,