Yeah, someone pragmatic would realize that, eventually, opressive regimes usually fall. Being realistic is more than the immediate needs, it also mean knowing that your actions have far reacing consequences, something the US really, really sucks at.
Well, they were pretty resilient for the better part of the last century. The Arab Spring is frankly kind of an aberration, though it's not hard in retrospect to spot the factors that boiled over at once -- it's just that those factors didn't appear overnight, and why things boiled over in December of '10 and January of '11 is an open question.
The Arab Spring didn't automatically signal the end of authoritarianism as a regime type. There're still plenty of authoritarian regimes in the world now, and it's not like we can just drop our strategic interests in those parts of the world (securing oil, cooperation in the GWOT, economic ties, etc.) and back an Occupy Riyadh/Beijing/Moscow/Rabat/Oman.
I don't speak for realists collectively, or anything (and personally I'm more of a liberal anyway), but they would basically tell you that it really becomes a purely academic question whether or not authoritarian regimes eventually fall if your own country is too fucked economically or otherwise to care, because you chose to stick to your principles instead of working with what you had.
We've also got, right now, many what we'd consider the best examples of "anti-oppressive regimes"--that is, the members of the Eurozone--whose governments have their backs to the wall because of financial disaster.
I'm not going to claim that there will be no Germany in twenty years, but in the area that it matters--the actual "regimes", that is, the governments and political coalitions--may not survive, and they may be replaced by groups with very different objectives.
Of course, this is something of an exceptional time.
I also heard that between the Muslim Brotherhoods "Freedom and Justice Party" and a major Salafist party, Islamists have around 60% of the vote at this point, though I don't think counting will finish until the new year. The Muslim Brotherhood is quite moderate, though their internal politics must have changed entirely in this last year. Before the revolution they were split between the old guard and the youth wing, couldn't decide on policies, whether or not to run in elections and so on. Hard to know how they'll act in a parliamentary system.
The Salafaist parties are going to be super worrying to, well, most anyone that doesn't directly support them. The West in particular wont be a fan, even though apparently the parties are getting mad funding from the Saudis. They want to ban bikinis and segregate men and women and all that jazz. Until the revolution they spurned democratic politics but now seem to be all about it. The revolutionaries certainly wont be happy with an extreme religious group getting much power.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I also heard that between the Muslim Brotherhoods "Freedom and Justice Party" and a major Salafist party, Islamists have around 60% of the vote at this point, though I don't think counting will finish until the new year. The Muslim Brotherhood is quite moderate, though their internal politics must have changed entirely in this last year. Before the revolution they were split between the old guard and the youth wing, couldn't decide on policies, whether or not to run in elections and so on. Hard to know how they'll act in a parliamentary system.
The Salafaist parties are going to be super worrying to, well, most anyone that doesn't directly support them. The West in particular wont be a fan, even though apparently the parties are getting mad funding from the Saudis. They want to ban bikinis and segregate men and women and all that jazz. Until the revolution they spurned democratic politics but now seem to be all about it. The revolutionaries certainly wont be happy with an extreme religious group getting much power.
Fortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be honest to Allah moderate, and promised they will create a coalition with some secular parties.
I also heard that between the Muslim Brotherhoods "Freedom and Justice Party" and a major Salafist party, Islamists have around 60% of the vote at this point, though I don't think counting will finish until the new year. The Muslim Brotherhood is quite moderate, though their internal politics must have changed entirely in this last year. Before the revolution they were split between the old guard and the youth wing, couldn't decide on policies, whether or not to run in elections and so on. Hard to know how they'll act in a parliamentary system.
The Salafaist parties are going to be super worrying to, well, most anyone that doesn't directly support them. The West in particular wont be a fan, even though apparently the parties are getting mad funding from the Saudis. They want to ban bikinis and segregate men and women and all that jazz. Until the revolution they spurned democratic politics but now seem to be all about it. The revolutionaries certainly wont be happy with an extreme religious group getting much power.
Fortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be honest to Allah moderate, and promised they will create a coalition with some secular parties.
I'm inclined to agree. Before the election they announced that they wouldn't run a candidate in every riding. Not because they couldn't; they had more than enough members to run everywhere. But they figured it would give them an unfair advantage, recognizing that that they must work with others in order to do anything useful in Egypt. I don't know how it went down in the elections, but it is a noble sentiment, one usually lacking from politics.
I just don't know what the Brotherhood even looks like now. They've become pretty friendly with the military since the revolution, and may see the revolutionary youths as a political enemy.
Things aren't over in Egypt yet, not by a long shot.
Lest anyone in discussing "rational actors" forget the kind of backwards bullshit that actually happens over there.
I'm not sure what isolated cases that the leaders ignore for rational reasons have to do with the actions of governments.
On the one hand yeah that is true. I doubt any member of the house of Saud thinks that charge was anything other than bullshit. And if they could get away with it, they would probably stop that shit.
But on the other this is an official judiciary court. If that kind of thing happened in America today, I would want the court burned to the ground. Then I want the ground salted. THEN NUKED FROM ORBIT.
I think the Sauds have fed a monster. In all likelihood the monster will eat them.
If there's one overarching Moral to glean from the experience of and in the Middle East, it's this:
Every single decision you make will come back to haunt you in a decade or two.
Not every decision. But at the very least all of the ones you made for political expediency.
No, basically every single one. :P
Shit, even that one night stand??
Especially that one night stand.
On saudi: hell, they confuse me too, but as a rule when trying to understand what the hell is going on down here, think populist religion vs reformest religion. the populist's are all friendly with saud while reformests are all about the overthrow, to make an even MORE religious state.
Oh, the populists are the ones killed the wicked witch, so you know the reformests are just gonna push it to the limit.
If there's one overarching Moral to glean from the experience of and in the Middle East, it's this:
Every single decision you make will come back to haunt you in a decade or two.
Not every decision. But at the very least all of the ones you made for political expediency.
No, basically every single one. :P
Shit, even that one night stand??
Especially that one night stand.
The last outside decision made by anyone that no-one regretted was Nikita Khrushchev pushed the button with Nassar opening the Aswan Dam more than fifty years ago.
Mon Dec 19 2011 5:49 AM
"Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, an investor in some of the world's top companies, has bought a stake in Twitter for $300 million, gaining another foothold in the global media industry."
I couldn't find a good link, and my google fu is failing me, can anyone make sure? If this is true, its not cool.
If there's one overarching Moral to glean from the experience of and in the Middle East, it's this:
Every single decision you make will come back to haunt you in a decade or two.
Not every decision. But at the very least all of the ones you made for political expediency.
No, basically every single one. :P
Shit, even that one night stand??
Especially that one night stand.
The last outside decision made by anyone that no-one regretted was Nikita Khrushchev pushed the button with Nassar opening the Aswan Dam more than fifty years ago.
Dam's not environmentally neutral: Every damming decision is damned.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Mon Dec 19 2011 5:49 AM
"Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, an investor in some of the world's top companies, has bought a stake in Twitter for $300 million, gaining another foothold in the global media industry."
I couldn't find a good link, and my google fu is failing me, can anyone make sure? If this is true, its not cool.
Its being reported on BBC. I find this a curious investment. I assume they're doing this so as to better their ability to shut down/censor local tweeters, especially in the event of unrest in the country.
Mon Dec 19 2011 5:49 AM
"Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, an investor in some of the world's top companies, has bought a stake in Twitter for $300 million, gaining another foothold in the global media industry."
I couldn't find a good link, and my google fu is failing me, can anyone make sure? If this is true, its not cool.
Its being reported on BBC. I find this a curious investment. I assume they're doing this so as to better their ability to shut down/censor local tweeters, especially in the event of unrest in the country.
Or it could just be another example of Saudi diversification. Why would would owning (some percentage of) stock in Twitter mean they were suddenly able to censor it in the KSA?
Mon Dec 19 2011 5:49 AM
"Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, an investor in some of the world's top companies, has bought a stake in Twitter for $300 million, gaining another foothold in the global media industry."
I couldn't find a good link, and my google fu is failing me, can anyone make sure? If this is true, its not cool.
Its being reported on BBC. I find this a curious investment. I assume they're doing this so as to better their ability to shut down/censor local tweeters, especially in the event of unrest in the country.
Or it could just be another example of Saudi diversification. Why would would owning (some percentage of) stock in Twitter mean they were suddenly able to censor it in the KSA?
yeah, the paranoia over arab investors is a little annoying. Like when that Dubai company (that runs many ports around the world) tried to buy a stake in some American ports, and everybody flipped out. Honestly, they just want to make some money that isn't dependent on the price or availability of oil.
Mon Dec 19 2011 5:49 AM
"Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, an investor in some of the world's top companies, has bought a stake in Twitter for $300 million, gaining another foothold in the global media industry."
I couldn't find a good link, and my google fu is failing me, can anyone make sure? If this is true, its not cool.
Its being reported on BBC. I find this a curious investment. I assume they're doing this so as to better their ability to shut down/censor local tweeters, especially in the event of unrest in the country.
Or it could just be another example of Saudi diversification. Why would would owning (some percentage of) stock in Twitter mean they were suddenly able to censor it in the KSA?
I don't, really. Or at least I'm not aware of a mechanism by which they could do that. It just seems like a peculiar investment for such a repressive regime.
I don't, really. Or at least I'm not aware of a mechanism by which they could do that. It just seems like a peculiar investment for such a repressive regime.
If I had large quantities of money, and wanted to increase it without actually doing any work buying twitter stock seems like a reasonably safe way to do it. I doubt that being a member of a repressive regime is the end goal for this guy, I suspect its something more like making money and then spending on ridiculous things. In that case, both the regime and the stock are just means to the same end.
An Iraqi judicial committee has issued an arrest warrant for the mainly Shia Arab country's Sunni Arab Vice-President, Tariq al-Hashemi.
Maj-Gen Adel Daham told a news conference that confessions by suspects identified as his bodyguards had linked him to killings and attacks on several Iraqi government and security officials, Reuters news agency reports.
The move comes the day after US troops withdrew from the country and two days after the al-Iraqiya parliamentary bloc, which represents most of Iraq's Sunni Arab community, withdrew from parliament.
They have accused the Shia Arab Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, of monopolising power.
The president of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani, earlier called for urgent talks to prevent the "collapse" of the national unity government, warning that "the situation is headed towards deep crisis".
Interesting, though I must admit I don't know enough to really speculate on what this means. I knew the Iraqi government is barely fit to hold the title, and is highly unstable. I expected it to fall or be taken over... but over a year or two, not in a couple days. Are we already seeing a consolidation of power here, or is this a more minor event?
The Iraqi vice-president has called an arrest warrant issued against him a "political attack", categorically denying allegations that he was plotting against other politicians.
Hiwa Osman, a freelance journalist who was on the same flight, said the takeoff of the plane was disrupted as army officer ordered everyone to leave the plane, with "very senior brigadiers and generals around the airport".
"The atmosphere felt like a coup", Osman said.
For more than a year now, Maliki has effectively controlled the interior and defence ministries, which oversee the police and military, while conflicts between Sunni and Shia politicians have delayed the appointment of permanent ministers.
This is quite an important development. The Sunni vice-PM is currently in "Kurdistan" - the northern Kurdish region which, incidentally, had a great deal more autonomy than I'd realized, warranting the -stan name and having its own president. Apparently it took some political wrangling for him to be allowed to get there in the first place; and now he's willing to stand trial- in Kurdistan. Somehow I don't think he'll be making his way back to the capital any time soon.
The article also mentions bringing the Arab League into mediate. Far from some neutral body, the League is made up of Arab-Sunni countries, which are importantly not friendly to Iran. I've heard it on good authority that Malaki is nobody's lapdog, but I have a difficult time believing he'd grab power like this without Iranian support, or at least consent. This would also be the time when al-Hashimi will try to mobilize his Sunni base and get them into the streets to stop this thing. We shall see how it goes.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Do Iraqis even have attachment to Iraq as it is now? It's my, admittedly poor, understanding that Iraq as it is now was just drawn up after one of the world wars and the Kurds don't even really want to be a part of Iraq anymore. Would the south care that much if the north went off on its own.
Of course, I imagine it'd be easier for Iran to exert influence over multiple smaller countries rather than one semilarge one. Of course there's little love lost between Iraq and Iran.
Iraq was fromed in the early 20s as the UK and France (and a bit of Russia) divided up the Ottoman empire between them. It wasn't independent until the 50s or so.
I'm not sure how much nationalist sentiment there is. The sectarian strife has certainly limited it. However, I don't think many would want the north to break away. For one, it has oil. It isn't the most oil rich part of the country, but there is enough around to make it worth keeping. The Kurds have wanted their own state for some time, and really should have gotten one at the same time Iraq was formed. But that didn't happen. It would be difficult to do now because a lot of Kurdish territory is inside Turkey, and they are absolutely not giving up any territory. There is some in Iran as well, and they also will not give up any territory. As it happens there has been an elevated amount of violence in the Kurdish areas, with Turkey and Iran co-ordinating their military efforts against the rebels, and Turkish forces have gone into Northern Iraq several times to attack Kurdish bases there.
So the Kurds want it, and will continue to fight for a state, but I don't see it being in the interest of any of the regional powers to make it happen, quite the contrary.
There's no love lost between Iran and Saddam. The Shia majority of Iraq were brutally oppressed by Saddam, and many see Shia Iran as something of a bigger brother. There is a huge amount of cross border tourism (visiting shia religious shrines and the like) as well as huge economic and political ties. The Sunnis of Iraq you can bet still hate the crap out of Iran, and the Kurds too probably. But Iraq is like 70% Shia; I think it is quite firmly within Irans sphere of influence now.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Iraq was fromed in the early 20s as the UK and France (and a bit of Russia) divided up the Ottoman empire between them. It wasn't independent until the 50s or so.
I'm not sure how much nationalist sentiment there is. The sectarian strife has certainly limited it. However, I don't think many would want the north to break away. For one, it has oil. It isn't the most oil rich part of the country, but there is enough around to make it worth keeping. The Kurds have wanted their own state for some time, and really should have gotten one at the same time Iraq was formed. But that didn't happen. It would be difficult to do now because a lot of Kurdish territory is inside Turkey, and they are absolutely not giving up any territory. There is some in Iran as well, and they also will not give up any territory. As it happens there has been an elevated amount of violence in the Kurdish areas, with Turkey and Iran co-ordinating their military efforts against the rebels, and Turkish forces have gone into Northern Iraq several times to attack Kurdish bases there.
So the Kurds want it, and will continue to fight for a state, but I don't see it being in the interest of any of the regional powers to make it happen, quite the contrary.
There's no love lost between Iran and Saddam. The Shia majority of Iraq were brutally oppressed by Saddam, and many see Shia Iran as something of a bigger brother. There is a huge amount of cross border tourism (visiting shia religious shrines and the like) as well as huge economic and political ties. The Sunnis of Iraq you can bet still hate the crap out of Iran, and the Kurds too probably. But Iraq is like 70% Shia; I think it is quite firmly within Irans sphere of influence now.
Interesting. For some reason I thought because of the war the regular Iraqis were pretty pissy as well. But like I said, poor understanding of the situation on the ground.
Thanks for the info! Any recommendations on further reading?
If there's one overarching Moral to glean from the experience of and in the Middle East, it's this:
Every single decision you make will come back to haunt you in a decade or two.
Not every decision. But at the very least all of the ones you made for political expediency.
No, basically every single one. :P
Shit, even that one night stand??
Especially that one night stand.
The last outside decision made by anyone that no-one regretted was Nikita Khrushchev pushed the button with Nassar opening the Aswan Dam more than fifty years ago.
Dam's not environmentally neutral: Every damming decision is damned.
I'll rephrase. Moscow never regretted pushing the button, nor has it ever come back to haunt them (even when their relationship with Cairo went to shit). But yes, I wouldn't claim that everyone was happy with the decision from the start.
Iraq was fromed in the early 20s as the UK and France (and a bit of Russia) divided up the Ottoman empire between them. It wasn't independent until the 50s or so.
I'm not sure how much nationalist sentiment there is. The sectarian strife has certainly limited it. However, I don't think many would want the north to break away. For one, it has oil. It isn't the most oil rich part of the country, but there is enough around to make it worth keeping. The Kurds have wanted their own state for some time, and really should have gotten one at the same time Iraq was formed. But that didn't happen. It would be difficult to do now because a lot of Kurdish territory is inside Turkey, and they are absolutely not giving up any territory. There is some in Iran as well, and they also will not give up any territory. As it happens there has been an elevated amount of violence in the Kurdish areas, with Turkey and Iran co-ordinating their military efforts against the rebels, and Turkish forces have gone into Northern Iraq several times to attack Kurdish bases there.
So the Kurds want it, and will continue to fight for a state, but I don't see it being in the interest of any of the regional powers to make it happen, quite the contrary.
There's no love lost between Iran and Saddam. The Shia majority of Iraq were brutally oppressed by Saddam, and many see Shia Iran as something of a bigger brother. There is a huge amount of cross border tourism (visiting shia religious shrines and the like) as well as huge economic and political ties. The Sunnis of Iraq you can bet still hate the crap out of Iran, and the Kurds too probably. But Iraq is like 70% Shia; I think it is quite firmly within Irans sphere of influence now.
Interesting. For some reason I thought because of the war the regular Iraqis were pretty pissy as well. But like I said, poor understanding of the situation on the ground.
Thanks for the info! Any recommendations on further reading?
I've never read anything specifically about Iraq, so I can't say much. I will say A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin is a very informative book that, like the title suggests, talks about how the fall of the Ottoman Empire lead to the creation of the Middle East as we know it today. It is really quite a depressing read, since you realize that not only were the people drawing the borders idiots, with little idea of what they were doing, but they were also actively trying to spite their allies and so making the borders fucked up on purpose. However, it isn't a beginners book for the region; you'd be better off reading it when you already have a base knowledge of history to work from. It doesn't have a lot on Iraq specifically but I think I recall that some of the first examples of aircraft bombing cities took place when the British put down Iraqi rebellions in the 20s or 30s. **shrug**, maybe Ham or someone else has more specific book recommendations for you.
Iraq is ~60% Shia last I checked; a majority, but not an overwhelming one.
Iraqi nationalism/anti-Iranian sentiment among both Shia and Sunnis is very high; you don't fight a 8 year war against your neighbor (in which chemical weapons were employed by both sides, iirc; and where the Iranians successfully got the Kurds to rebel in the north) and not walk away with lingering bitterness and enmity. It might be expedient for Iraqi politicians in the short run to be soft on Iran (for economic gain or political support) but in the long-run it's an untenable position given the mood of the Iraqi public.
As to whether nationalism is a potent enough force to inoculate Iraq completely from Iran's sphere of influence remains to be seen.
Iraq is ~60% Shia last I checked; a majority, but not an overwhelming one.
Iraqi nationalism/anti-Iranian sentiment among both Shia and Sunnis is very high; you don't fight a 8 year war against your neighbor (in which chemical weapons were employed by both sides, iirc; and where the Iranians successfully got the Kurds to rebel in the north) and not walk away with lingering bitterness and enmity. It might be expedient for Iraqi politicians in the short run to be soft on Iran (for economic gain or political support) but in the long-run it's an untenable position given the mood of the Iraqi public.
As to whether nationalism is a potent enough force to inoculate Iraq completely from Iran's sphere of influence remains to be seen.
You really think being "soft" on Iran in untenable in the long term? Why is that? I don't see why regular Iraqi's would be ok with it now, but less so in the future. Also, do you have any resources that show this anti-Iranian sentiment? I kinda infer my positions, for example al Sadr the younger has a very large political following, yet has spent the last several years mostly in Iran. Hardly a good move if the population views Iran as unfriendly. Iran's huge political influence comes from somewhere; it had virtually none while Saddam was still in power, so some elements of Iraqi society welcome Iranian influence. Then we have the huge economic deals that are being made...
I'm having some trouble finding the NPR story I heard on-air specifically about anti-Iranian sentiment in Iraq, but here's something similar, plus a Wiki on Iraqi nationalism (with mention of its irridentist outlook vis-a-vis certain parts of modern Iran). I'd also pull out my Politics of the Middle East textbook, but that's honestly too much work for having just come back from the gym. :P
Also: I am sooo jelly of the kinds of speakers major international universities get. The London School of Economics got Sadek al-Azm (who I didn't know before, but who has a really interesting academic background) to discuss Arab nationalism and Islamism vis-a-vis the Arab Spring (there's also a podcast).
Conspiciously absent from the Arab Spring and from its Tahrir Squares and its revolutionary focus in Syria are the traditional cries, slogans, demands and banners of good old Arab nationalism, especially as we have known it over the famous nationalist period of the last century. It was in its heyday in the early post-colonial era in Egypt and Syria. So just as no banner was raised anywhere from Tunis to Cairo to Tripoli, Libya to Sanaa to Manama, Bahrain and to Homs, Syria, no banner was raised saying ‘Islam is the solution’. Similarly, no banner was in sight either saying ‘Arab unity is the solution’. Actually, it is remarkable that what was on exhibit through the Arab Spring are metamorphosed and both more interesting and more sublimated expressions of a different kind of Arab unity than usual or than we have been accustomed to. First, the Arab regimes being put to the test by the intifadas of their peoples showed a peculiar kind of official Arab unity after years of vociferous rhetoric about the basic unity of Al Umma Al Arabiah – the Arab nation –and about its unifying historical commonalities such as language, religion, ethnicity, culture and shared destiny and all the rest. These same Arab regimes seemed united in going on a rhetorical binge emphasising Arab particularities, peculiarities, uniquenesses, singularities and so on.
The transcript is only of the first 30 minutes or so, but he elaborates on the last sentence by referring to the Arab states' insistence that "Egypt is not Tunisia, Libya is not Egypt and Tunisia," etc.
He also goes into a lot of Marxist stuff about needing to "strike at the root," so to speak, of traditional Arab identity in order to enact revolutionary change -- that root, in the Marxist view, being religion. He seems to agree with Marx's assertion that all political criticism requires criticism of religion as a necessary prerequisite.
I'm having some trouble finding the NPR story I heard on-air specifically about anti-Iranian sentiment in Iraq, but here's something similar, plus a Wiki on Iraqi nationalism (with mention of its irridentist outlook vis-a-vis certain parts of modern Iran). I'd also pull out my Politics of the Middle East textbook, but that's honestly too much work for having just come back from the gym. :P
Hmm, interesting, though I don't know if they back up your argument too well. It mentions very briefly that, yes, Sunni's are not fans. That Shiites who lost relatives in the war have some bad memories. It talks about a flowering Iraqi nationalism, though says nothing else about it. Between these parts the article says how Iran does infact seem to be the "the big winner", and how they do have huge influence in Iraq, especially with Shia political parties.
So, sure, Iraq isn't going to be annexed by Iran any time soon. It is its own distinct nation, with different language and ethnic groups from Iran. I'd still bet big on hugely increased Iranian influence in Iraq, in the short as well as long terms. And I think a lot of the Iraqi population, specifically the Shia part of it, will mind all that much.
If we're still talking about Wikipedia, I'd be a lot more surprised if the article on Iraqi national didn't suck--just like the ones pertaining to Belarusian nationalism, or Armenian nationalism, or Mongolian nationalism.
Unfortunately, unlike those particular three, there isn't an alternative-language gateway on Wikipedia that does a better job--except, perhaps, the Arab language portal for Wikipedia.
Nigeria conflict: Boko Haram battles 'kill at least 50'
This is clearly not a nation in the Middle East, but here we have an Islamic group fighting and blowing shit up. I think Nigeria is a pretty interesting place myself, and worth following. Actually, does anybody have any resources on Nigeria they'd like to tell me about?
Remember Hashemi, the vice president who has an arrest warrant out for him? Well now he is accusing the Malaki government of orchestrating the bombings in Baghdad recently, and more generally of encouraging a return to sectarian violence. He's calling Malaki a new dictator. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16325282
The speed at which his escalated still shocks me. For years I'd been thinking that a US withdrawl from Iraq would signal the fall of the government. More recently, over the past few years, I'd decided that wasn't likely anymore since the violence has largely subsided. But now the PM and the vice president are in open conflict. Hashemi is now chilling with the President Jalal Talabani in the Kurdish region, where apparently he can avoid arrest. I can't say I know where this is going, but it certainly demolishes the facade of the wonderful free democracy that the US has left behind.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Remember Hashemi, the vice president who has an arrest warrant out for him? Well now he is accusing the Malaki government of orchestrating the bombings in Baghdad recently, and more generally of encouraging a return to sectarian violence. He's calling Malaki a new dictator. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16325282
The speed at which his escalated still shocks me. For years I'd been thinking that a US withdrawl from Iraq would signal the fall of the government. More recently, over the past few years, I'd decided that wasn't likely anymore since the violence has largely subsided. But now the PM and the vice president are in open conflict. Hashemi is now chilling with the President Jalal Talabani in the Kurdish region, where apparently he can avoid arrest. I can't say I know where this is going, but it certainly demolishes the facade of the wonderful free democracy that the US has left behind.
Did anyone think we left behind a free democracy there? I now for most Americans I talk to, we knew what's coming. I think only George W. thinks we left a stable democracy behind.
Posts
Well, they were pretty resilient for the better part of the last century. The Arab Spring is frankly kind of an aberration, though it's not hard in retrospect to spot the factors that boiled over at once -- it's just that those factors didn't appear overnight, and why things boiled over in December of '10 and January of '11 is an open question.
The Arab Spring didn't automatically signal the end of authoritarianism as a regime type. There're still plenty of authoritarian regimes in the world now, and it's not like we can just drop our strategic interests in those parts of the world (securing oil, cooperation in the GWOT, economic ties, etc.) and back an Occupy Riyadh/Beijing/Moscow/Rabat/Oman.
I don't speak for realists collectively, or anything (and personally I'm more of a liberal anyway), but they would basically tell you that it really becomes a purely academic question whether or not authoritarian regimes eventually fall if your own country is too fucked economically or otherwise to care, because you chose to stick to your principles instead of working with what you had.
I'm not going to claim that there will be no Germany in twenty years, but in the area that it matters--the actual "regimes", that is, the governments and political coalitions--may not survive, and they may be replaced by groups with very different objectives.
Of course, this is something of an exceptional time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16229863
I also heard that between the Muslim Brotherhoods "Freedom and Justice Party" and a major Salafist party, Islamists have around 60% of the vote at this point, though I don't think counting will finish until the new year. The Muslim Brotherhood is quite moderate, though their internal politics must have changed entirely in this last year. Before the revolution they were split between the old guard and the youth wing, couldn't decide on policies, whether or not to run in elections and so on. Hard to know how they'll act in a parliamentary system.
The Salafaist parties are going to be super worrying to, well, most anyone that doesn't directly support them. The West in particular wont be a fan, even though apparently the parties are getting mad funding from the Saudis. They want to ban bikinis and segregate men and women and all that jazz. Until the revolution they spurned democratic politics but now seem to be all about it. The revolutionaries certainly wont be happy with an extreme religious group getting much power.
Fortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be honest to Allah moderate, and promised they will create a coalition with some secular parties.
I'm inclined to agree. Before the election they announced that they wouldn't run a candidate in every riding. Not because they couldn't; they had more than enough members to run everywhere. But they figured it would give them an unfair advantage, recognizing that that they must work with others in order to do anything useful in Egypt. I don't know how it went down in the elections, but it is a noble sentiment, one usually lacking from politics.
I just don't know what the Brotherhood even looks like now. They've become pretty friendly with the military since the revolution, and may see the revolutionary youths as a political enemy.
Things aren't over in Egypt yet, not by a long shot.
On the one hand yeah that is true. I doubt any member of the house of Saud thinks that charge was anything other than bullshit. And if they could get away with it, they would probably stop that shit.
But on the other this is an official judiciary court. If that kind of thing happened in America today, I would want the court burned to the ground. Then I want the ground salted. THEN NUKED FROM ORBIT.
I think the Sauds have fed a monster. In all likelihood the monster will eat them.
Edit: And yes I am aware that we fed the Sauds.
Every single decision you make will come back to haunt you in a decade or two.
Not every decision. But at the very least all of the ones you made for political expediency.
No, basically every single one. :P
Shit, even that one night stand??
Especially that one night stand.
On saudi: hell, they confuse me too, but as a rule when trying to understand what the hell is going on down here, think populist religion vs reformest religion. the populist's are all friendly with saud while reformests are all about the overthrow, to make an even MORE religious state.
Oh, the populists are the ones killed the wicked witch, so you know the reformests are just gonna push it to the limit.
The last outside decision made by anyone that no-one regretted was Nikita Khrushchev pushed the button with Nassar opening the Aswan Dam more than fifty years ago.
After that, nothing but regrets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4iboFV-yeTE&skipcontrinter=1
"Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, an investor in some of the world's top companies, has bought a stake in Twitter for $300 million, gaining another foothold in the global media industry."
I couldn't find a good link, and my google fu is failing me, can anyone make sure? If this is true, its not cool.
I think the Sudan has misgiving over the dam, as they're the ones experiencing siltation on their bits of the Nile.
http://www.ilec.or.jp/database/afr/afr-19.html
Dam's not environmentally neutral: Every damming decision is damned.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Its being reported on BBC. I find this a curious investment. I assume they're doing this so as to better their ability to shut down/censor local tweeters, especially in the event of unrest in the country.
Or it could just be another example of Saudi diversification. Why would would owning (some percentage of) stock in Twitter mean they were suddenly able to censor it in the KSA?
yeah, the paranoia over arab investors is a little annoying. Like when that Dubai company (that runs many ports around the world) tried to buy a stake in some American ports, and everybody flipped out. Honestly, they just want to make some money that isn't dependent on the price or availability of oil.
I don't, really. Or at least I'm not aware of a mechanism by which they could do that. It just seems like a peculiar investment for such a repressive regime.
Interesting, though I must admit I don't know enough to really speculate on what this means. I knew the Iraqi government is barely fit to hold the title, and is highly unstable. I expected it to fall or be taken over... but over a year or two, not in a couple days. Are we already seeing a consolidation of power here, or is this a more minor event?
This is quite an important development. The Sunni vice-PM is currently in "Kurdistan" - the northern Kurdish region which, incidentally, had a great deal more autonomy than I'd realized, warranting the -stan name and having its own president. Apparently it took some political wrangling for him to be allowed to get there in the first place; and now he's willing to stand trial- in Kurdistan. Somehow I don't think he'll be making his way back to the capital any time soon.
The article also mentions bringing the Arab League into mediate. Far from some neutral body, the League is made up of Arab-Sunni countries, which are importantly not friendly to Iran. I've heard it on good authority that Malaki is nobody's lapdog, but I have a difficult time believing he'd grab power like this without Iranian support, or at least consent. This would also be the time when al-Hashimi will try to mobilize his Sunni base and get them into the streets to stop this thing. We shall see how it goes.
Of course, I imagine it'd be easier for Iran to exert influence over multiple smaller countries rather than one semilarge one. Of course there's little love lost between Iraq and Iran.
Iraq was fromed in the early 20s as the UK and France (and a bit of Russia) divided up the Ottoman empire between them. It wasn't independent until the 50s or so.
I'm not sure how much nationalist sentiment there is. The sectarian strife has certainly limited it. However, I don't think many would want the north to break away. For one, it has oil. It isn't the most oil rich part of the country, but there is enough around to make it worth keeping. The Kurds have wanted their own state for some time, and really should have gotten one at the same time Iraq was formed. But that didn't happen. It would be difficult to do now because a lot of Kurdish territory is inside Turkey, and they are absolutely not giving up any territory. There is some in Iran as well, and they also will not give up any territory. As it happens there has been an elevated amount of violence in the Kurdish areas, with Turkey and Iran co-ordinating their military efforts against the rebels, and Turkish forces have gone into Northern Iraq several times to attack Kurdish bases there.
So the Kurds want it, and will continue to fight for a state, but I don't see it being in the interest of any of the regional powers to make it happen, quite the contrary.
There's no love lost between Iran and Saddam. The Shia majority of Iraq were brutally oppressed by Saddam, and many see Shia Iran as something of a bigger brother. There is a huge amount of cross border tourism (visiting shia religious shrines and the like) as well as huge economic and political ties. The Sunnis of Iraq you can bet still hate the crap out of Iran, and the Kurds too probably. But Iraq is like 70% Shia; I think it is quite firmly within Irans sphere of influence now.
Interesting. For some reason I thought because of the war the regular Iraqis were pretty pissy as well. But like I said, poor understanding of the situation on the ground.
Thanks for the info! Any recommendations on further reading?
I'll rephrase. Moscow never regretted pushing the button, nor has it ever come back to haunt them (even when their relationship with Cairo went to shit). But yes, I wouldn't claim that everyone was happy with the decision from the start.
I've never read anything specifically about Iraq, so I can't say much. I will say A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin is a very informative book that, like the title suggests, talks about how the fall of the Ottoman Empire lead to the creation of the Middle East as we know it today. It is really quite a depressing read, since you realize that not only were the people drawing the borders idiots, with little idea of what they were doing, but they were also actively trying to spite their allies and so making the borders fucked up on purpose. However, it isn't a beginners book for the region; you'd be better off reading it when you already have a base knowledge of history to work from. It doesn't have a lot on Iraq specifically but I think I recall that some of the first examples of aircraft bombing cities took place when the British put down Iraqi rebellions in the 20s or 30s. **shrug**, maybe Ham or someone else has more specific book recommendations for you.
Iraqi nationalism/anti-Iranian sentiment among both Shia and Sunnis is very high; you don't fight a 8 year war against your neighbor (in which chemical weapons were employed by both sides, iirc; and where the Iranians successfully got the Kurds to rebel in the north) and not walk away with lingering bitterness and enmity. It might be expedient for Iraqi politicians in the short run to be soft on Iran (for economic gain or political support) but in the long-run it's an untenable position given the mood of the Iraqi public.
As to whether nationalism is a potent enough force to inoculate Iraq completely from Iran's sphere of influence remains to be seen.
Iraq used chemical weapons, I've never seen evidence that Iran did as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Iran.E2.80.93Iraq_War
You really think being "soft" on Iran in untenable in the long term? Why is that? I don't see why regular Iraqi's would be ok with it now, but less so in the future. Also, do you have any resources that show this anti-Iranian sentiment? I kinda infer my positions, for example al Sadr the younger has a very large political following, yet has spent the last several years mostly in Iran. Hardly a good move if the population views Iran as unfriendly. Iran's huge political influence comes from somewhere; it had virtually none while Saddam was still in power, so some elements of Iraqi society welcome Iranian influence. Then we have the huge economic deals that are being made...
The transcript is only of the first 30 minutes or so, but he elaborates on the last sentence by referring to the Arab states' insistence that "Egypt is not Tunisia, Libya is not Egypt and Tunisia," etc.
He also goes into a lot of Marxist stuff about needing to "strike at the root," so to speak, of traditional Arab identity in order to enact revolutionary change -- that root, in the Marxist view, being religion. He seems to agree with Marx's assertion that all political criticism requires criticism of religion as a necessary prerequisite.
Hmm, interesting, though I don't know if they back up your argument too well. It mentions very briefly that, yes, Sunni's are not fans. That Shiites who lost relatives in the war have some bad memories. It talks about a flowering Iraqi nationalism, though says nothing else about it. Between these parts the article says how Iran does infact seem to be the "the big winner", and how they do have huge influence in Iraq, especially with Shia political parties.
So, sure, Iraq isn't going to be annexed by Iran any time soon. It is its own distinct nation, with different language and ethnic groups from Iran. I'd still bet big on hugely increased Iranian influence in Iraq, in the short as well as long terms. And I think a lot of the Iraqi population, specifically the Shia part of it, will mind all that much.
Unfortunately, unlike those particular three, there isn't an alternative-language gateway on Wikipedia that does a better job--except, perhaps, the Arab language portal for Wikipedia.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16326276
This is clearly not a nation in the Middle East, but here we have an Islamic group fighting and blowing shit up. I think Nigeria is a pretty interesting place myself, and worth following. Actually, does anybody have any resources on Nigeria they'd like to tell me about?
Remember Hashemi, the vice president who has an arrest warrant out for him? Well now he is accusing the Malaki government of orchestrating the bombings in Baghdad recently, and more generally of encouraging a return to sectarian violence. He's calling Malaki a new dictator.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16325282
The speed at which his escalated still shocks me. For years I'd been thinking that a US withdrawl from Iraq would signal the fall of the government. More recently, over the past few years, I'd decided that wasn't likely anymore since the violence has largely subsided. But now the PM and the vice president are in open conflict. Hashemi is now chilling with the President Jalal Talabani in the Kurdish region, where apparently he can avoid arrest. I can't say I know where this is going, but it certainly demolishes the facade of the wonderful free democracy that the US has left behind.
Did anyone think we left behind a free democracy there? I now for most Americans I talk to, we knew what's coming. I think only George W. thinks we left a stable democracy behind.