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: stockman_scott who wrote (55527)10/29/2002 3:26:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
This one-sided view of history (with all Arab-started wars neatly airbrushed out or revised), and all American interventions, even pro-Arab ones, ascribed to pure imperialism, might be amusing if I wasn't sickened by the thought of how many young & ignorant students he has taught it to.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (55527)10/29/2002 5:47:29 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Respond to of 281500
 
One thing remained consistent and was omnipresent in their successive attempts to readjust borders and consolidate hegemonies: the availability of local demons to justify the frequent strategic reshaping and remapping.

No doubt about that... There have always been an abundance of petty warlords looking for foriegn powers to give them an advantage, either economic or military, over their rivals. And usually their rivals were funded by other foreign powers, generally a rival of another foreign power.

And these warlords had a grand old time playing one foreign power off against the other.. That is, until their "patrons" turned against them in favor of some other local warlord..

One hundred and seventy years ago, Mohamed Ali of Egypt was declared a threat to free trade and was overthrown in favor of weak successors.

Funny.. I don't think he's even "Egyptian".. Let's do a search and see how HE came to power:

redsealive.com

Mohammed Ali, an Albanian officer, was sent by the Ottomans to Egypt in an attempt to drive the French out. In the disorder that followed the departure of the French, he gained power, and established himself as Viceroy in 1805. To avoid any later confrontation, Muhammad Ali exterminated all of the remaining Mamluks. Muhammad Ali also realized that as long as his army was stronger than the Ottomans, he would be able to stay in power. Thus he worked on strengthening the Egyptian army, modeling it on the French..

Yeah.. what a beautiful example of how the British always "meddle" but the Ottoman Turks were always "benevolent".

And what's even more amusing is that Ottoman Viceroys replaced Ali until the Suez Canal was built and the British, who had provided little support for it, decided it was crucial to their control over the Mediterreanean Sea (which they didn't want the French or Ottomans to possess).

Nasser was declared a mad man bent on wanting to throw the Jews in the sea.

That and someone who attempted to extort money out of the western nations over use of the Suez Canal. But in addition, he was a paid CIA asset who we "influenced" to overthrow King Farouk (reasons for which I'm unsure of)..

And let's skip down now...

Containment now belongs to a by-gone era. It is passé for the Wolfowitzs and Perles of the world. Their world and that of their "boss" is a Hobbesian world, where the landscape is rough and evil all around, calling for a strong hand.

Yep... definitely agree there.. There are many forces trying to "reshape" the landscape in the middle east, exerting their own version of a "strong hand" approach.. Or more appropriately, prying open the fingers of the fist that already exists there... A "fist" not entirely of American's making.. And one where, when it finally opens, we want to have a hand in "holding" rather than it clenching for some other more despotic power.

And like Nadine, I also find it odd that this fella goes to such lengths to expound upon Western influences in the region, yet says nothing about the Turks..

I guess he must feel that 400 years of Ottoman rule was far preferable to the current situation..

Makes me almost think it's a good idea to let the Turks reclaim their empire, should they have the desire to do so..

Bottom line?? I agree that the US might just call for a reshaping of the middle east if we're not able to contain Islamic militancy.. I don't believe it's the first preference, but I'm sure it's being considered as an option...

And I, in my opinion, believe the demographics of the region are require such a reshaping on a massive scale.

Hawk