Secure Mid-East Stability...Ideas:

[Hessian]

Think Tanks may fail to grasp the real power structure over there...

Who can we "Win Over" to maintain some semblance of stability...Checklist:
a) Mullahs and Imams...they declare Jihad at the drop of a fez,...they blast the entire west and sometimes each other...We would be wasting our time trying to find "Moderates"...NOPE

b) Sheiks & Despots...tough irony here: They are jittery about their own radicals and yet need western ties for technology and an oil market. They play both sides of the fence...we have played this before with mixed results (Shah?)

c) Businessmen: YUP.
They have a tremendous amount to win or lose if the populace stabilizes or goes wacko. The crafty ones have managed to weather many storms and in an environment free of harsh bureacracy they can really produce goods & services if the money is there.
SO: Strategy....

Create a "Council of Middle East Economic Development" and invite a broad range of old US friends and questionable wheeler-dealers.
* Have them meet with top Western CEO's (mostly Brit, US, Spanish, Danish, Polish..."the willing")
* The lure of international trade, loans, investments, broader markets is laid before them (eyes light up)
* Get contracts & bids and networking going but...hold the best for last.
* (Dependency is what has either built cultures or destroyed them....) Make it clear in some closed door sessions that if they don't keep their people under control (ie employees)....the western delights will vanish and rumors will be spread about their decadent western lifestyle....POOF.

The days of Government dole to the Iraqi public is over: work, buy, trade, learn...and thrive or: Islamic fanaticism of the 13th century returns followed by brutality, fear, and poverty.

Final understanding: take a few notes from the British in the 19th century and their world empire: NO TECHNOLOGY TO THE NATIVES!!! (ie Sepoy rebellion) Improvements, electricity, sewage, schools, roads, irrigation projects...YES, BUT NO TECH!!!

Usher Achmed out the door with a hardball understanding of capitalism and the futility of Islamic psychos.
(and bug their briefcases!!!!!!)
"Trust...but verify."

 

[Bruzilla]

The biggest mistake that I see Americans make when they begin daydreaming like this is that they usually concoct ways to achieve their goals with Americans, not with the people they're trying to influence. Arabs do not have any concept of equal rights, freedom of religion, equal opportunity, fair trade and access, and trying to devise ways to get them to respond to these American ideals is about like trying to get Americans to go to prayer seven times a day... it just isn't going to happen.

Arab peoples respond to the "Bigger Gun" theory not the "Can't We All Get Along" theory. Whoever poses the biggest threat rules the land and that's why you see so many Dictators running the show out there. If the US really wants to bring peace to the Middle East we need to do three things:

1. We need to be the Bigger Gun. We need to sit on top of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and any other country that doesn't want to play ball. Yes, there will be many who say that's not right or fair, or that America has no right to interefere with the self-determination of another country. But again... these people are still trying to apply American principles and theologies on people who have none.

If these countries were able to resolve their differences and turn the Middle East into the Kumbaya capital of the world they would have done it decades ago. The fact is that local traditions, customs, and religious beliefs will always prevent these people people from finding peace on their own. What they need is a firm but fair hand, just like the one that shaped modern Japan and Europe out of the mud that was Japan and Europe in late 1945, to see that the right roads are taken. There will be whining, rebellion, and screaming from lots of countries for about twenty years (just like in the 50s and 60s), but once the generation of trouble makers are replaced by a generation that has grown up in peace and who truly wishes to maintain that peace, you'll have a Middle East that's as stable as modern Japan and Europe are.

2. We need to focus our efforts on disposing of the trouble makers, not the foot soldiers. Middle Eastern people are even bigger followers than most Americans, thanks in large part to growing up in oppressive regimes all their lives. These people in Iraq who are protesting the US presence would never have come up with the idea of protesting on their own. It's just not in their psyche. They are protesting because some person or group is going about spooling them up, and you can be 100% certain that the motivations of these instigators are money, power, and control. It isn't that they don't like the US, it's just that the US is a roadblock to them getting rich, powerful, and in control so the US has got to go. And if you can't fight us militarily you try to win the war of public opinion.

We need to remember that guys like Hussein, Arafat, Quadaffi, etc., always talk a great story about being fearless and willing to die for their country, and have no problems with sending scores of their people out to die, but when it comes to getting shot at themselves their oft-stated ideas of dying for Allah or country suddenly change to "get me out of this please!!!" Once you start targeting the instigators and rebel rousers the rest of the populace will fall in line. Going out and killing a bunch of foot soldiers or kids with rocks and bottles is a waste of time and lives. You need to kill the people who are telling these kids that killing themselves or causing trouble is the right thing to do.

3. Forget the kangaroo court committees, leadership councils, and other such claptrap. Keep these around if you want to have to keep sending troops into the region every few years to put out another political fire.

We need to sit on these countries until they develop leaders who are endeared to peace rather than war. Doing anything less is just asking for problems forever.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Bruzilla

We need to remember that guys like Hussein, Arafat, Quadaffi, etc., always talk a great story about being fearless and willing to die for their country, and have no problems with sending scores of their people out to die, but when it comes to getting shot at themselves their oft-stated ideas of dying for Allah or country suddenly change to "get me out of this please!!!"

I agree with that, but also, how many times in recent history has a US president sent troops into battle and he went along with a gun in his hand and fought in the trenches. A leader knows he is much more effective when alive.

 

[ThayerP]

Interesting discussion here.

The only problem is that most of the assumptions made are a little bit off the mark.

1. The culture in the MidEast, particularly in the Persian Gulf is dominated by Muslims. The same way that the culture in the US and the West in general is dominated by Christianity. Consequently the religious leaders hold a high amount of influence in the region. This is not to say that they dictate the governments actions because if they did we would never have been able to base troops in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates (UAE) or Oman. Among the religious leaders there are moderates and they will be heard more and more over the next couple of years as the desire for democracy builds in that region.

2. Sheiks & Despots are what the west calls the leaders in that region who they are dealing with.

A Sheik is not necessarily a political leader. There are numerous Sheiks who wield no political power at all. There are also Sheiks who are figurehead leaders of democracies and answer to a parliment. For example Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain are just such countries. They have elected Parliments and the Sheiks/Kings answer to them. Qatar is headed in this direction in the next couple of years. UAE will be headed this way when the current leader, Sheik Zayad who is 95+, passes away. The only country in that region that is going to have a difficult time in this type of transition will be Saudi Arabia. The royal family there has entrenched themselves so deeply into the running of the government that it will be next to impossible to have them removed even if popular elections were held today. The other countries in that region are democratic, regardless of the fact that they may elect readical leaders, it is a reflection of the popular opinion in those countries. Iran for example.

As for Despots we have taken care of the worst of them and the others see the writing on the wall. Basher Assad is not his father, who was a despot on par with Hussein. Basher has already loosened control of the descenting political parties and more of them are being elected to the Parliment at each election. I feel that when the political situation for the descenting parties in Syria has matured to a point where they can field a viable presidential candidate we will see it happen. BTW, Syria taking in Iraqi leaders was simply a play to get political bargaining chips to force concessions from the US and Isreal. They got these, I'm sure, and are now ready to hand over the Iraqi leaders they have.

The Palestinians have had a parliment and a policital structure for decades, it is just not what the US or the West felt was best for the situation there and so was not legitimized by the West. Now they have a PM and maybe things will change, but I seriously doubt it. Without the Isreali-Palestinian situation Isreal would loose a huge portion of their economy and tailspin into disaster.

3. Businessmen. Novel idea that has been tried before with the Oil Companies. This works to a certain extent except when the countries realize that they are being ripped off by a group of greedy westerners. One other minor detail that most people may not realize, but to open a business and operate in most of these countries you need a local partner who is a majority share holder. SO, you open a business and make a good living at it. At anytime the local partner can take that company from you and have you deported with empty pockets ansd he gets all the money. They are not as irnorant as most people think. Thye want the business there to generate income outside of the petroleum business. Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE...all of them are building a business base outside of the petroleum business. For Example, Kuwait is the banking and finance capital of that region. During the Gulf War Kuwait was able to meet all it's fiscal responsibilities and provide funding to the coalition from the income from it's global investments. Bahrain and the UAE are constantly in heavy competion for the cruise ships and tourist money in that region. Yes, they have a huge tuorism industry from Europe, Asia and the former Soviet states. Dubai, in the UAE has almost as much income from Tourism as it has from Petroleum.

Dubai and the UAE have also become the Technology hub for the entire Asian region. They have built tremendous infrastructure to support the high tech industry and given companies opening offices there the ability to be 100% owned Tax-Free by non-nationals inside their "Internet City Free Trade Zone", consequently attracting the ME and Asian offices for such companies as MicroSoft, Oracle and Cisco to name a few. What this has done is to bring more jobs for the locals as well as swelling the expatriot workforce. This workforce creates a ripple affect throughout the economy and they now generate more from these industries that petroleum.

So yes, business is a great way to influence the people. But, the majority of the people still have what is called a "rentier" mindset. They feel that their governments OWE them what amounts to stipends and have become lathargic. This is particluarly visible in Saudi Arabia where they do give each citizen a stipend. Consequently when Saudi went through a phase of firing the expatrior workers running their industries and attempting to replace them with Saudis it didn't work. Not because they could not do the job but because they required substantially higher pay and did substantially less work. Typically working with a Saudi as yur equal requires a lot of drinking tea and discussion of politics and world affairs. Educating for a westerner but frustrating for a company trying to get work done.


Religious freedom is not really an issue in all of this except in Saudi Arabis and even then Christianity is tolerated as long as you don't proselytize the local population. Then you WILL end up in jail and deported after about six months or so. For example, one of my daughters was born in Saudi Arabia and my wife being catholic my daughter was baptised in Riyadh by a catholic priest "attached" to one of the embasies there. The other countries in the region allow other faiths to practise openly and most even have visa categories for the preachers, the same visa catergory for a mullah coming from outside the country.

The ONLY thing that MAY change the atmosphere in the MidEast is the institution of some form of democracy in the countries that do not have it and even then it may not change the atmosphere to the satisfaction of the west. There will be a lot o surprises for the west when this happens.

 

[Hessian]

This is enlightening...it helps to have some posters with direct knowledge of the location...Thanks Thayer

Bruzilla: I also have heard that a strong presence "Bigger Gun" is what dominates the mentality of the people...so the name they chant in adoring devotion can be replaced with the next name in no time at all. Sound like a valid assumption: Sort of the "battered wife" syndrome that makes victims stay loyal and protect the one that abuses them.....

So...let me throw out another page from History...
The European forces that managed to control such a large and diverse colony as India did it not by military conquest (although that played a role in coastal feuds) They set up stable enclaves, protected, prosperous, and accessible.
This lured trade networks and businessmen to the town and soon the town drew laborers, innovation, employment...and order.
The Brits Did NOT force Anglicanism on the locals, did not try to redirect the entire culture but set an example of civilty, schooling, political stability.

Relevance? US enclaves in Qatar, Dubai...may act as enterprize zones and then as Thayer noted...we MUST end the Disasterous Government support program...it breeds laziness and if I may be puritanical: "Idle Hands are the devil's workshop"...left to shift for themselves may produce riots so they MUST be weened slowly off the dole!

the real problem....will we have the time to establish this pattern? Or will Moslem fanatical hoards swarm over all our efforts as the whip themselves silly and cover their women in yards of tapestries?...can we do it in time?

 

[ThayerP]

This is interesting a Brit on SOMD forum...

When you talk about the "bigger gun" mentality in the MidEast it is all good, except, when it is a foreign force that is the "bigger gun", then you run into the situation of the creation of additional animosity against that foreign force. This did occur with the British in the Asian sub-continent. The "Bigger Gun" policy is what created most of the tribal boundaries in the MidEast and those tribal boundaries were what the borders were drawn from after WWII. Although over the course of time the boundaries have changed and adjusted themselves to be more correct based on the tribes. For example, the area of Transjordan that is notw part of Saudi, in particular Mecca and Medina area down to Jeddah and Taif that King Saud took because he felt that the King of Jordan at the time was a psychotic. The area south o jeddah to Yemen was actually not part of Saudi until the 70's where there was a short war between Saudi and Yemen over it. These frictions rose up again during the Gulf War when Yemen was massing tropps on the Saudi Border there and threatening to take that area back while Saudi was "busy" on the other side of their country.

The border between Iraq, Saudi and Kuwait was agrued heavily and was actually decided on in a tent in the desert between the rulers of Saudi and Iraq without the ruler of Kuwait who was later simply told, "This is where your boundaries are". The boundaries were designated by stakes or poles stuck in the ground which were later removed by local bedouins and farmers out of ignorance ow what they were. So you can see why those particular borders are a point of contention between Saudi, Iraq and Kuwait. The other interesting little bit of trivia is the the "no-mans land" declared between Saudi and Iraq, which nobody owns. Look for a diamond shaped area on some maps along that border that designates this area. Till this day it is not claimed or owned by either side.

During this "tent meeting" King Saud actually gave up a large portion of land that he controlled to Iraq in a gesture of friendship to Iraq. This area of Iraq is still quite loyal to the Saud family. This will be a situation that will have to be remembered when the US is builkding a government in Iraq.

As for "Big Gun" policy, King Saud had the ultimate in that area. His typical way of conquering a tribe would be to simply go in with unopposable force, line the males up by age, starting from the youngest ask if the tribe would be loyal to him. If not he would lop off the head, go to the next and repeat until they agreed to be loyal. Then after that he would orchestrate a large celebration and marry the daughter of the tribal leader, thus entrenching his family into the tribe. One story goes that during the battle to actually get into the town, he was injured in the rib area with a spear, he went through his routine and got the tribe to be loyal to him, wed the daughter, consumated the marriage, then allowed someone to treat him. This brought a huge amount of respect for his strength and intestinal fortitude from the people.

The "Bigger Gun" theory works done in the right way, however, using that way in todays timew would bring the wrath of the entire world down on us. Times change and so do what is acceptable in the eyes of the world community. Policy has to change with that.

Next, the need to bring the population out of the "rentier" mindset. This is being done simply by the culture that persists over there. The Muslims strictly forbid abortions and most feel thatthis means birth control as well. They are allowed to have three wives at a time (not such a bad idea really ) and usually have moreby divorcing the wife married to the longest while still maintaing their welfare and all the benefits that go with that. This creates a population growth that is quickly outgrowing the ability of the goevernment to pay the stipend to each citizen. Each year the age at which a person receives the stipend from the Saudi government increases to attepmt to compensate for this. Eventually it will not be able to accommidate the eligible population and then the people will be in for a very rude awakening. This time is approaching quickly and the intellegent Saudis (yes there are some of these) are setting themselves up to be the business leaders in that era instead of the servants (employees). These are the people that will be dictating the directions of the government and future of the country because the general population will not have trust in the Royal family as they did when they were being paid to give that trust. Washington knows who they are, some of them are indeed part of the Royal family (the younger generation), and are dealing with them behind the scenes.

Last, the fanatical muslims. First off remember there are several different sects among the muslims. Sunni, Shia' and Wahabi. The Sunni are the majority of Muslims in the world today. Shia' are an offshoot based on an extremely violent event where Hassan, the grand-son-in-law of Mohammed, was murdered by one of the followers of Wahabi with a sword to his head. This is where the ritual of cutting the head and hitting it repeatedly till the persons whole face and front are covered in blood comes from. The Wahabi's are a sect that originated from the enemies of Mohammed and were the ones who murdered both Ali (hassan's father) and Hassan. Of these three main sects the Wahabi's are the most violent and in some muslim circles seen as the greatest enemy of Islam. The Shites (also pronounced Shia') are the second most violent. These two groups are the ones you will most commonly see behind the terrorism and violence in the MidEast. One little hint, if a Muslim has a dark circle scar on the forehead or that general area, he is a Shite. If you see a Muslim wearing pants or robe that looks about two sizes too small at the bottom, they are generally Wahabi. The rest are Sunni or some variation of Sunni.

The ideals of Islamic law are not altogether bad. For example, when we lived in the MidEast, I could let my 10 and 12 year old daughters take a taxi to the mall and run around town ontheir own whithout worrying about them The one time anybody bothered my oldest daughter, she screames and yelled at him, he was immediatly accosted by several men that were nearby, pulled into a store, police called, arrested, six months in jail and deported. The crime rates among the countries in that region are among the lowest in thw world. This is not to say there are no problems but overall it is MUSH safer than the western society. There is a certain amount of restrictions but there is also a large amount of freedom. Cross the line between that freedom and the restrictions and you will pay a high price.

I've typed enough now. Given enough fodder for the cannons and I'm sure I'll get blasted by somone. But, this is what we are trying to give to the rest of the world. The freedom to openly debate issues and pass information without the fear of reprisals from any government.