SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Win Smith who wrote (36712)8/9/2002 4:33:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Pan Arabism has been around for a while, gathering some grand pronouncements now and then but exceedingly little in way of visible results.

For sure. But part of the problem with the Arab world is that much of their politics is seriously disconnected from visible results. They've all got stinking visible results, they are fighting for mindshare. There are three regimes that think they ought to be leading the Arab world, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. All three regimes have done stupid and self-destructive things in the past for the sake of this leadership race. Egypt fought the 1967 war because it could not be "out-Nassered" by Syria. Saudi Arabia funded Al Qaeda, who may be its own downfall. Iraq invaded Iran and Kuwait.

It may seem absurd that Saddam thinks he's in any sort of leadership position, but he had a great triumph when he kicked out inspectors four years ago. If you listened to all the kissy-face coming out of the Arab League meeting, it was clear that he has rehabilitated his position with most of the other Arabs, including the Gulf states (who all hate and fear him, of course). If Saddam were able to face down the US and get us to back off, his prestige would be hugely enhanced. That's why I agree with tek that it's only a matter of time until he stages another crisis. Saddam always plays to the house (the Arab world) and is a bad judge of US reactions.