The reasons the Arabs are part of a degraded civilization is manifold. They are imitated in part by the west in places where conquest has left the people with no social structure and will to build a civilization based on merit and learning and industry. Instead the social skein is based on tribal associations entirely or ruling class nepotism and tyranny. Rebellion agains this is hard to foster if weapons cannot easily be built and living off the land and hiding is not an option. Only by co-operation could the Arab survive.
Like the Mongols, they expanded east and west, to control a vast empire through their very potently simple and enduring religion. Their decline started after the crusades when the Arabics of Suleiman where beaten and subjugated by a less civilized but more fecund, resource rich and vigorous Europe. In that gap came hill tribes, a group very warlike and limited in social development who displaced the crusaders and the enlightened Arabic ruling classes. After that the Turks invaded and subjugated large parts of eastern Europe and the Arabic empire. This cut off the eastern parts from trade and so their wealth and influence declined. This occupation, destruction of learning and resistance continued up until modern times where the religions was used as a cruel and despotic means of social control. The Turks were a poor empire in later years and were weak in comparison to the combined might of Europe. This is because they never developed their infrastructure except to influence military control. They desired to keep the subject nations poor and this became a great expense. So the Arabic world became frozen behind the Turkish curtain of ignorance and feudal values. When they were thrust into the a developed modern world, they were little better than slaves of the middle ages.
The thing hampering all the Arabic world is that the only source of their wealth was the sea trade or the silk road. Once the Europeans had found a route to spices by the sea, the silk road died and the Arab wealth waned. Resource and technology poor, they could not sustain an infrastructure in such a hostile land environment. They had little wood, water, and not much fertile land. In the greater part, the Arabic world of Mohammed had expanded to seek these resources. Religion is a great rallying cry, but there is no use subjugating dirt poor tribemen when the Mogul emperors have more gold and souls too.
The Europeans lived in a relative paradise in comparison, and the resultant degree of conflict over land led to their greater continual development in order to support large armies. The Arab, in his world of sand and rock could not compete. Only those in coastal areas enjoyed wealth but without hostile invaders threatening they did not develop a great defense and were easily pushed out by the Spanish and Portugese who came later with highly developed war technology.
Once the oil boom came the Arabic wealth magnified immensely. Naturally they sought to control this wealth and the US hampered them at every turn. The Greeks tried to control its flow with Onassis and they too were beat back. It's the people with the biggest guns who won. The empire builders in this case with the hereditary wealth of trade by slavery, Britain, were the ones who did that. The Greek empire had waned 1900 year before, and their navy was non existent except as merchants. Again war machines won the day, and no doubt the war machines had God on their side that time. God seems to favour large armies with good equipment.
With few resources and what he had being stolen by the west while his leaders were assassinated or deposed, the Arab has little choice but to co operate to win again. Hence much later came consolidations of power, burying of old animosities and national movements. Nasser, Mossadegh, taking the canal, and revolt in Algeria. Independence that oil would afford him was the inspiration, not Mohammed. No sense riding camels to die against oppressors when he can ride jeeps and tow artillery. The latter is just as suicidal but more successful. His flag may be Islam but his guide is eminent practicality.
Thus it is no surprise that the Arab is pointed to the west. His tenuous hold on civilization is bound by crude oil. Without it he is lost. With it he has enough means to strike at his oppressors. His perceived oppressors are even more dependent on the Arab's oil. It is a strange conflict, like two stags with locked horns. Only if they stop fighting can they eat the grass they stand on.
The one way to stop the conflict is to stop the flow of wealth. Like the dying of the silk road the conflict would die. Without money to sustain it, the flow of weapons would stop and the inherent support that allows the exporting of conflict would crumble too. The best strategy the US and Europe has is to develop their own sources of energy. More oil exists in The tar sands of Australia, Venezuala, Canada and Russia than in ten Arabias. Then there are sea bed hydrocarbons with 100 times more energy still. There is no reason to fight over flowing crude. Without a money source the Arab is doomed to return to the status of survival as he has little else to offer the world. This will happen in time anyway so if he looks ahead the Arab will see he has to concentrate his resources to build an infrastructure that is sustainable in his environment.
EC<:-} |
