- This topic has 5 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
Niall Ferguson has done it again in a new piece in Newsweek. He raises the question of whether the current wave of rebellion in the Middle East will go the way of 1776 America or 1789 France, 1917 Russia, or 1949 China. He argues, I think correctly that the latter examples are more likely if they are successful than that these revolutions will end in peaceful democracy. He also correctly points out that it is entirely too soon to do more than just guess about what the Middle East will look like in ten years. The last bit he does not mention is the old military maxim that the West better hope and plan for the best but have a plan in place for the worst-case scenario.
Very interesting article… I agree, the last bit where Ferguson said, “Worst of all, out of that war could emerge an enemy as formidable as Napoleon?s France, Stalin?s Soviet Union, or Mao?s China” is real, tangible and something that I really think our current administration has absolutely no understanding of.
Interesting articele, but I think he's way off. Yes, it's too early to tell where it's going to go, but most evidence so far points to an Islamic theocracy at best and extreme Islamist terrorist states at worse…either one is incredibly bad. There is no stability in any Middle Eastern or Northern African nation and we should do nothing less than prepare for all out war because even a best case scenario is going to be dangerous to Israeli, European, and American interests. It's time to completely withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and start rebuilding our military capabilities.
Interesting articele, but I think he's way off. Yes, it's too early to tell where it's going to go, but most evidence so far points to an Islamic theocracy at best and extreme Islamist terrorist states at worse...either one is incredibly bad. There is no stability in any Middle Eastern or Northern African nation and we should do nothing less than prepare for all out war because even a best case scenario is going to be dangerous to Israeli, European, and American interests. It's time to completely withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and start rebuilding our military capabilities.
My reading is that is kind of the point he is trying to make. All the likely outcomes of the current events in the Middle East say that whatever the end result is, the regimes that emerge will be even more inimical to the west than what was there before. He is also saying that the West, and America in particular, has absolutely no plan right now beyond hope.
Can you say Muslim Caliphate? I can. 🙂
That is the Elephant in the corner that nobody in a position of authority wants to say out loud. I think the belief is that if they stick their heads in the sand and ignore it that it won't happen.
Can you say Muslim Caliphate? I can. 🙂
Yeah, no kidding. :-
That is the Elephant in the corner that nobody in a position of authority wants to say out loud. I think the belief is that if they stick their heads in the sand and ignore it that it won't happen.
1- You (generally as westerners) subscribe way too much power to the notion of the Caliph and the caliphate. Altough in theory it should work to unify Sunni muslims everywhere this has never been the case, you guys as historians maybe know this even better then I. I believe The caliphate should be thought of like the papacy in medieval times; it's just another tool to influence other nations for a certain nations national interest, and even then it wasn't very successful. An example: When the Ottoman Empire entered World War I the Sultan was also the Caliph. And by virtue of this title he declared a real and "legal" Jihad against the enemies of the Caliphate. Of course the fact that when he did this he was also declaring muslims from the sub-continent of India enemies of the Caliphate but declaring Christian Germans allies. This was of course nothing more than a ploy to cause unrest amongst the muslims of India who were fighting on the sides of their colonial rulers and stem the tide of independance amongst the Arabs that was beginning to take hold.And as you all would know; it didin't work. The arabs threw their lot in with the "infidel" and some of the most blody wars the Empire fought was in the Arabian peninsula. 2- Even if it was something more than what I've described above; I really can't see any way the caliphate is coming back in any meaningful shape or form.Let's take a look at some facts:The caliphate was abolished by the Turkish Republic close to a hundred years ago. Since then as far as I know there hasn't been a significant political movement in any Sunni country to bring it back. The two strongest countries in the middle east (Iran and Turkey) are strongly against resurrecting the caliphate. Iran for secterian reasons and us for obvious reasons. I believe the mistrust for Turkey that has been growing in recent years (as I see it this is the which is the main reason for these fears of a caliphate) stems from the political party in power, and some of it is understandable. However a fairly recent survey by TESEV, a prominent Turkish think thank, showed that only 7% of Turks want to live under an Islamic state with sheria etc. When the question was asked again but with emphasis on the more gruesome aspects of sheria (stonings etc.) that figure fell to 2% percent. So the 47% that voted for the current government are not for bringing back the Caliphate. I know cause I am one of them. I'll take it one step further; I'd bet my house that the 2% percent did not vote for the current government. So who exactly is going to bring the caliphate back in spite of opposition from Iran and Turkey? Only Egypt and Pakistan are potentially strong enough to be able to do that and I just don't see it happening.I believe in the long run the uprisings will help the region. I'm not sure how they will affect the regions relationship with the west but honestly putting that concern over the local popular sentiment is one of the main reasons behind the uprisings so I don't think it should be a determining factor one way or the other.
Fair enough, but I'm not really agreeing with you about Iran. They have on numerous occasions stated their desire for a caliphate. And it wasn't just Ahmadinijad who said this.Also, if there is no stable government in line to replace the recently ousted governments, the Mid East could fall into the wrong hands (like al Qaeda or the Taliban). The Horn of Africa is a good example of this.
I don?t think the Caliphate that folks like Ahmedinajahd. Al-Qaeda, the guy in Yemen, and the Muslim Brotherhood call for bears any resemblance to the historical Caliphate. They are more calling for an idea, Muslim unity if you will. The concern from a western perspective is that the fall of regimes such as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. opens the way for the gradual takeover by fanatics. There is a very real perception in some western countries that Turkey is an exception and the wider Muslim world is not capable of supporting democracy.I know people will point to Iraq but democracy in Iraq only survives because of massive foreign aid and troops. The other supposed democracies in the Arab world are pale imitations at best. The tribal and religious element in Arab, not Turk, but Arab society is hugely influential. I think that many non-Arabs do not understand the strength of tribalism in the Arab world. It is not an Islam only issue; it is an Islamic Arab issue. If anything, Turkey proves that Islam is not incompatible with democratic principles. It does not however, prove that Islamic Arab democracies are workable. As long as someone feels they can resort to violence to get their way then democracy is doomed to fail. Democracy requires that people work for change from within the system. to do that requires trust in the system in the first place. Arabs don't trust their governments in the first place, what makes you think they will trust them after they are installed by force. Corruption, tribalism, and mistruct are massive hurdles to overcome in establishing democracy.The most likely outcome of the current unrest I see is a mix of failed states and repressive/surface democracies. I hope I am wrong but fear I am not.
Fair enough, but I'm not really agreeing with you about Iran. They have on numerous occasions stated their desire for a caliphate. And it wasn't just Ahmadinijad who said this.Also, if there is no stable government in line to replace the recently ousted governments, the Mid East could fall into the wrong hands (like al Qaeda or the Taliban). The Horn of Africa is a good example of this.
Yes but the Caliph he is referring to is not the Same Caliph. Otherwise it would be like the protestants calling for the reunification of the Holy Roman Empire under the Pope.
I don?t think the Caliphate that folks like Ahmedinajahd. Al-Qaeda, the guy in Yemen, and the Muslim Brotherhood call for bears any resemblance to the historical Caliphate. They are more calling for an idea, Muslim unity of you will. The concern from a western perspective is that the fall of regimes such as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. opens the way for the gradual takeover by fanatics. There is a very real perception in some western countries that Turkey is an exception and the wider Muslim world is not capable of supporting democracy.I know people will point to Iraq but democracy in Iraq only survives because of massive foreign aid and troops. The other supposed democracies in the Arab world are pale imitations at best. The tribal and religious element in Arab, not Turk, but Arab society is hugely influential. I think that many non-Arabs do not understand the strength of tribalism in the Arab world. It is not an Islam only issue; it is an Islamic Arab issue. If anything, Turkey proves that Islam is not incompatible with democratic principles. It does not however, prove that Islamic Arab democracies are workable. As long as someone feels they can resort to violence to get their way then democracy is doomed to fail. Democracy requires that people work for change from within the system. to do that requires trust in the system in the first place. Arabs don't trust their governments in the first place, what makes you think they will trust them after they are installed by force. Corruption, tribalism, and mistruct are massive hurdles to overcome in establishing democracy.The most likely outcome of the current unrest I see is a mix of failed states and repressive/surface democracies. I hope I am wrong but fear I am not.
Even if religious fanatics take over a single caliphate cannot be established. The Calpihate was always supposed to be the seat that united all muslims but it didn't even succeed in an era where religion was the predominant identity of the people. Now the most likely result would be 3-4 different Caliphs would sprout one in Cairo, one in Riyad, one in Istanbul etc. and we would be at each others throats before you know it 🙂 Your second paragraph is a very very good point and this is really my biggest concern regarding the ME. The only thing that can curtail the historic tribal reflexes is the communication and education of the gen. pop. over there. Because as I see it tribalism is the most basic form of xenophobia, and the best way to combat xenophobia is communication. Libya is a very good example actually; what's going on over there is more a tribal war against a madman then a popular uprising against a madman.
Yes, historically, the Caliphate was only strong when there was a strong Caliph. In the absence of strong central authority, the Caliphate degenerated into loose confederation of independent satrapy's. I think what we will see and be hailed as a return to the Caliphate is a modified version of the 1960's United Arab Republic (UAR). I am still waiting for the riots to start in Syria, but that depends on how much out in front the Syrian secret police get on this. I find it curious that we have not heard a peep out of Syria.You are absolutely correct that education is the key to sustainable democracy. That makes sustainable democracy a generational project in the Arab World. It has to start with literacy, but literacy is no help when all people have to read is fundamentalist tracts. It also matters what they read and unfortunately, Islam does not have anything remotely resembling the philosophical tradition of Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Jefferson, Madison, or Martin Luther King. Where will the ideas for toleration of the individual come from in Islamic society? There is no analogue to the Magna Carta in Islam.Democracy in the Arab world is a long way off I am afraid. The issues preventing it?s rise are just as much cultural as structural.
I agree with nkuler that we won't see a return to the Golden Age of Islam. We might see something closer to what scout mentioned though. I can see Arab unity working to create a Pan Arab Union in a similar model to the European Union. Iran won't be a part of it unless they can dominate it like Germany does Europe. But if the Mullahs and Ahmedinajad are overthrown by Iran's dissidents they can be included as well. Interesting times we live in.
