
How the Arab World Came Apart - s3b
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/11/magazine/isis-middle-east-arab-spring-fractured-lands.html
======
6stringmerc
How did it come apart? Almost exactly like Dick Cheney thought it would 20
years before cheering for the invasion. From an episode of Meet The Press in
2014[1]:

 _CHUCK TODD:

All right, let me ask you a couple of quick questions. I want to play for you
an interesting clip of you 20 years ago about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Take a
look.

DICK CHENEY (ON TAPE):

That's a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central
government in Iraq you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part
of it the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of Eastern Iraq the
Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north you've
got the Kurds. And the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey then
you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go
that far._

[1] [http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-
transcript-...](http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-
december-14-2014-n268181)

~~~
webXL
Eerie he's so prescient there. If only youtube was a thing then we could have
all been sending this around.

To give backers of the war the benefit of the doubt, a whole lot of shit
changed after that video. Hindsight is 20/20 and we can't back test strategies
like the stock market. It would be nice if we could.

~~~
6stringmerc
Hoping this is phrased well by me, but I'm fairly certain some brief dives
into historical tales of power dynamics will show that deposing an entrenched
"Strong Man" leader results in a power vacuum, which can be filled by another
of the same tactic, or, in the case of the region in discussion, a quagmire of
sorts. I know an Army Captain (since Middle School), Psy Ops I'm pretty sure,
and his experience on the ground in Iraq was that the local populations had no
conception of how to function without the Strong Man. Essentially, for most
all of their lives, the process was "Saddam says this, we do this," so
concepts of self-governance were extremely foreign and somewhat troubling.
Anecdote for sure, just hope it fits with our subject!

------
sevenless
The NYTimes itself is also a considerable part of the reason, considering
Judith Miller, Friedman, Krauthammer and many others propagandized hard for
invading Iraq.

~~~
jcbeard
The invasion of Iraq was stupid. It was likely illegal, based on false
pretenses, and well....shouldn't have happened. The invasions initial
execution was beautiful (first few days). The US Military performed
splendidly. The follow through (driven by political leaders) was idiotic.
Stupid decisions like not listening to his generals (Bush), disbanding the
Iraqi security forces (Paul Bremer), and the odd focus on turning on the oil
taps as soon as possible after the invasion doomed any hope of short term
success (yeah, sure, lets pay for the invasion with oil...that'll work,
right). Many generals argued for an occupation force in the millions to keep
the peace. If the occupation were modeled after the plan for Germany in WW2
where the allies planned for a prolonged insurgency (that never really
appeared, see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf)),
we should have had more troops than were available in the entire US Military
combined. Likely given a real, concerted effort (Marshall Plan-like) to re-
build Iraq after we'd destroyed it, we might have had a chance. Oil never
lasts, it's not sustainable, and in every country where natural resource
mining is dominant, we see a rise of more despotism. We never understood the
cultures of Iraq, nor will most people. To defeat an enemy you have to
understand them (see Sun Tzu). NYT isn't the only problem. Our pride was the
problem. We thought we could fix everything, do it better. The US was led by a
person (Bush) who spouted all kinds of wonderful nationalistic straight talk
(sounds like somebody that's running for president this year). Bush had no
real plans and he unfortunately didn't listen to his experienced military
leaders. He, as the commander in chief, is where the buck should stop for
Iraq...and the long slow disaster that followed. Sure, we're all to blame for
going along, but short of impeachment from our congress there is nothing the
American people could have done to stop it.

~~~
tdkl
> (sounds like somebody that's running for president this year)

Someone else running for president this year has pledged that the first act of
her address would be removing Assad.

Which brings us back at the beginning of stupid actions.

~~~
rm999
Do you have a source? I just searched and see no such pledge. All I'm finding
are vague statements from her allies and advisors that they think she'll
prioritize Syria.

~~~
chishaku
State Department policy on Syria is regime change going back to at least 2011.
The method/means is still fluid.

See the article and State Department testimony below, emphasis mine.

NYT, from 2013:

"Last summer, as the fighting in Syria raged and questions about the United
States’ inaction grew, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton conferred
privately with David H. Petraeus, the director of the C.I.A. The two officials
were joining forces on a plan to arm the Syrian resistance.

The idea was to vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied
with weapons. The plan had risks, but it also offered the potential reward of
creating Syrian allies with whom the United States could work, both during the
conflict and ___after President Bashar al-Assad’s eventual removal___.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus presented the proposal to the White House,
according to administration officials. But with the White House worried about
the risks, and with President Obama in the midst of a re-election bid, they
were rebuffed."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-
scen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-scene-blows-
and-triumphs-sense-of-clinton-future.html)

From 2011, testimony by Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near
Eastern Affairs, State Department:

"But we take the advent of the [Syrian National Council] very seriously, and
we support the broader opposition’s efforts to focus on the critical task of
expanding and consolidating its base of support within Syria by articulating a
clear and common vision and ___developing a concrete and credible post-Assad
transition plan.___"

[http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jeffrey_Feltman_...](http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jeffrey_Feltman_Revised.pdf)

~~~
acqq
> back to at least 2011.

At least to 2006, ten years ago, thanks to the US Embassy cable published by
Wikileaks:

[https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html](https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html)

Some coverage:

[http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/10/wikileaks-
cabl...](http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/10/wikileaks-cables-shed-
light-on-us-foreign-policy-failures.html)

"The cables also show that U.S. support for efforts to overthrow the Syrian
government beginning in 2011 _were not a response to the Assad government’s
repression of protests but rather a continuation of a years-long strategy by
more directly violent means._ "

Without that cable, this would be impossible to prove. Helps understanding why
Manning who leaked that was 9 months in solitary confinement, stripped naked:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/11/stripped-
naked...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/11/stripped-naked-
bradley-manning-prison)

~~~
wbl
Or you could look at the sanctions the US has had in place against Syria for
years. That the US doesn't like Syria is well known.

------
return0
Long piece , but it fails in that it does not give a coherent message. Pieces
of stories here and there are not history. First of all , lets stop calling it
Arab Spring. If anything it's the arab Autumn of civil wars, where all arabs
are united only in their resentment of the west. Secondly, let's talk about
people, their souls, aspirations, and culture instead of political history.
Given that these states were built as western protectorates, their history
should not be a good guide for their future. Clearly the approach to
colonialism/interventionism that the US takes is a failure, compared to the
colonialism of the British for example (e.g. Jordan). The arab world has
always been far too divided to able to draw clear borders around their states.
Their only hope for peace is long-term economic prosperity and transition to
secularism. Until then, tyranny worked.

This piece may be fun to get through your flight, but it should offer a
holistic perspective.

~~~
gotchange
> "where all arabs are united only in their resentment of the west"

Is that how you view the political movements happening in the Arabic-speaking
majority world - Sorry for the pedantry - from 2011 onward that we're consumed
by resentment toward the West?

It's gotta be about you, right?

> "The arab world has always been far too divided to able to draw clear
> borders around their states"

I had no idea that these political movements and the resulting turmoil were
about border disputes between states, and not primarily domestic political
issues. The more you know ...

> "Until then, tyranny worked."

Could this explain your theory the perceived resentment in the Arabic speaking
world towards the West?

At least now, it would be warranted and well earned since you wish on other
people harm, maybe you should get paid for this in kind.

The US is likely to be able to dodge the Trump bullet and skirt falling into a
populist authoritarian rule coming November but this doesn't preclude this
from happening in the future.

Maybe you should get some taste for how tyranny can turn your life upside down
and experience it firsthand before you could wish it onto others.

Anyhow, I still don't wish harm on innocent people but if they're full of hate
toward others to the point of blinding them to fall into a trap this big and
this wide, I wouldn't help them to avert it or save them.

~~~
return0
I think you know what i mean, but you like to twist my words.

I m not american. This is a cynical view from Europe. Believe it or not it's
closer to the truth rather than believing that having elections suddenly would
fix all the problems in countries like egypt, libya, syria.

~~~
gotchange
If you think that this was an unfair characterization of your comment, can you
please refute the points that I raised in my counterargument?

Because just taking your word for it won't cut it, sorry.

> "elections suddenly would fix all the problems in countries like egypt,
> libya, syria"

I'd take ballot-box-only democracy and majoritarianism over tyrannical
strongman rule or military dictatorships anytime of the day but this is just
me, a Middle Eastern native who really cares for the future, prosperity and
the welfare of people living there.

I think that I also have the right to express and strive to achieve these
political goals without interference or the "guardianship" of outside players.
Since I can't tell you how you should run your countries, I expect this to be
reciprocated too when it comes to running ours, and I think that this is a
small thing to ask for.

It's very intriguing that for "Arab Spring" skeptics to only focus on failures
like Libya and not success stories like in Tunisia. It just detracts from
their credibility and makes their viewpoints look very partisan.

It is not the fault of the countries in the Eastern part of the Arabic
speaking world that they're surrounded by reactionary forces in the region
like the oil sheikhdoms or nationalist-led Israel that they would do
everything they can to undermine the then-nascent democratic experiments to
protect their interests and save their thrones but this is the topic of
another article.

~~~
kobayashi
>It is not the fault of the countries in the Eastern part of the Arabic
speaking world that they're surrounded by reactionary forces in the region
like the oil sheikhdoms or nationalist-led Israel that they would do
everything they can to undermine the then-nascent democratic experiments to
protect their interests and save their thrones but this is the topic of
another article.

Woh, woh, woh, what on Earth does _Israel_ have to do with this? Israelis
haven't done anything to undermine the "democratic experiments" in any of its
neighbouring states. In fact, Israel is the only regional country to
consistently support Kurdish democracy, which it has done for decades.

~~~
gotchange
Are you really denying that the Israeli govt had nothing to do with supporting
the military takeover in Egypt back in 2013 and then the military-led regime
that took shape after that whether internally or abroad?

If so, I don't see that there's any point of arguing over facts like these.

It's OK to have reservations about the democratic experiments in the region
but if you could call "Talibani vs Barazani" a democracy, then I think it's
fair that I get to call what happened in Egypt or Tunisia a democratic
experiment.

Speaking of Kurdish democracy, I believe that opening channels with other
players in the region is good strategy to secure the interests of the Kurdish
people or elite, but excessive pandering to one particular player at the
expense of others in the region would be very shortsighted move esp if you're
planning to stay in this neighborhood for long time.

A balanced and well thought-out approach to foreign policy in the region would
be a better alternative to the Kurdish people for whom I wish good luck for
their legitimate political aspirations.

~~~
kobayashi
>Are you really denying that the Israeli govt had nothing to do with
supporting the military takeover in Egypt back in 2013 and then the military-
led regime that took shape after that whether internally or abroad?

Yes. That's a ridiculous assertion. To think that Israel (population: 7
million) has the power, influence, or will to "undermine the then-nascent
democratic experiments" of a country like Egypt (population: 82 million), is
ludicrous enough. To assert such a ludicrous statement as fact, without _any_
supporting evidence is a wild conspiracy theory.

Your last three paragraphs have virtually nothing to do with the argument at-
hand.

------
anonu
My view on the Middle East: it has been a playground for the powers of the
world to muck around. The fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end WWI allowed
the region to be carved up between the French and the British. Secret
agreements like Sykes-Picot cemented borders that should never have been
there. After WWII a considerable amount of support was put behind Israel (and
rightly so). However, the ongoing conflict and lack of a 2-state solution to
this day continues to be a rallying call for millions of Arabs against the
West. To keep the Arabs in check - the West continuously undermines their
governments (which may be led by strongmen - but this is better than the
alternative which we have seen). In addition, the West assumes it understands
the intricate complexities of the demographics on the ground. Mucking around
only exacerbates the problems.

~~~
alanwatts
Pretty accurate description for the last 100 years. But this fighting has been
going on for thousands of years between the 3 Abrahamic religions, perpetually
fighting over the Holy Land and between their own respective sects.

~~~
pm90
And even before that: the epic Roman-Persian and Greco-Persian wars.

------
DanielBMarkham
So far this is good. There's a lot of depth.

One nit:

 _" Much as the United States Army and white settlers did with Indian tribes
in the conquest of the American West, so the British and French and Italians
proved adept at pitting these groups against one another, bestowing favors —
weapons or food or sinecures — to one faction in return for fighting another.
The great difference, of course, is that in the American West, the settlers
stayed and the tribal system was essentially destroyed."_

I think it's a mistake to only back up to the end up WWI and start running the
tape there. The Arab world has a rich and nuanced history full of the exact
kinds of tribal tensions we see now going back hundreds of years. There's a
reason the Ottomans were the way they were -- and it has nothing to do with
Colonialism. There are also great parallels between what's happening with the
Arab spring and what happened when other great powers consolidated their hold
over the Arabs and then left. Just citing one example seems like a tremendous
disservice to the history. Also the meme of "It was the Sykes–Picot Agreement"
has some truth but is extremely easy to lean too much on. With this amount of
verbiage being produced, I'm expecting some alternative lines of reasoning to
be explored.

Looking forward to more of the series!

(Apologies -- looks like the entire thing is here? Wow! I've heard of long-
format writing before, but this is kindle material. Tremendous amount of work
here.)

~~~
jcranmer
The problem with blaming Sykes-Picot for everything is that almost none of the
modern borders are due to that agreement (well, the Jordan-Syria border does
seem to match up, but that's it).

More likely a better explanation lies in the importation of the Western idea
of a nation-state (that a country should be coterminus with cultural
boundaries), which tends to strongly reject the idea that countries can have
multiple countries, combined with the failure of the Ottoman Empire to
synthesize a durable Ottoman culture. The latter failure is arguably due in
large part to, you guessed it, European meddling: the Ottoman state had
largely functioned, and kept peace among fractious religious sects, by keeping
its Islamic nature as a core of its identity (basically being a dual Turkish-
Arab state). One aspect of this was the basis that most obligations of civic
duty (particularly military duty) was borne solely by Muslims, with the non-
Muslims (predominantly Christians) paying an extra tax, an arrangement
generally accepted by both groups. European powers considered this intolerant
[1], and forced a series of capitulations on the Ottomans in part to guarantee
the security of Christians (which basically leads to the Armenian Genocide).

With the idea of a state centered on Islamic identity increasingly a failure,
the Young Turks instead focused on a narrow, Turkish-based state, which
alienated pretty much all minorities (including the Arabs) save the Kurds
(their bid for nationalism started mostly post-WWI). After the Armenian
Genocide, many Arabs suspected that similar treatment awaited them, but they
largely kept to showing support for the regime during the exigencies of WWI.
The Iraqis in occupied Mesopotamia didn't cooperate with the British (not that
it saved them from retribution), for example. The Bedouin did offer support to
both sides, but they were not reliable allies to either side. Only the
Hashemites (who controlled Mecca and Medina) revolted, successful only due to
the aid of the British, who gave them Jordan and Iraq as victory spoils (their
original Kingdom of the Hejaz was conquered by the Saudis, another British
ally, in the interwar period).

[1] Side note: the Ottomans generally forbade the Muslims from proselytizing
to the Christian groups, whereas the capitulations generally forced the
Ottomans to accept Christian missionaries attempting to convert Muslims.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Thank you. Much-needed context.

This rabbit hole goes down deep. Too much for HN. There's a lot of ground to
cover: gates of Vienna, and the fall of Constantinople, the Second Crusade,
and so on.

As one can imagine, depending on where you choose to focus, you can fall back
on western meddling or not. Sadly, this is the case for most arguments in the
Mideast. Some things never change.

Suffice it to say that we could continue. For some time. It's a mixed bag, and
nobody is either entirely innocent or entirely culpable. Simplifications --
even those in comment threads like ours -- invariably give the wrong
impression.

------
hedonistbot
This piece was a huge waste of time. Following the personal stories of a
number of individuals in most of the Middle East countries does not give any
information to the reader about any of the geopolitics or power plays in the
region. It just leaves the reader confused and depressed that nothing can be
done and we should probably leave this matters to people more knowledgeable.
Is this some new form of journalism. And to see this in a NYT publication...

Also NY Times has so much *to answer for in their coverage of the events that
it kind of make sense that they are avoiding any real analysis of the issues.

~~~
hedonistbot
To expend further - not a single mention of Saudi Arabia as a major actor and
sponsor of radical Islam (Wahhabism), Israel is mentioned in passing and
Turkey is only mentioned as an emigration destination and a "porous" border,
not a major actor with huge interest and ambition in the region. Full
disclosure: I stopped reading after part 2 and searched for the relevant
actors and that's what I found. Correct me if I've missed some hidden gem of
insight from the NYT "journos".

------
not_a_terrorist
tl:dr 100 pages:

1) People are fucking poor and hungry (extreme wealth inequalities) 2)
Salafi/Wahhabi (Saudi) funding of islamism 3) Antediluvian hatred between
people (it goes, way, way, way farther back than Sykes-Picot)

~~~
hacker42
It seems they are missing an important factor, namely 4) the personal,
cultural and economical impairment due to the religion of Islam. Nobody has
time to thrive when they have to pray five times a day, when almost every
thought and action is dictated by an old book and when half of their human
potential is hidden in cloth bags.

~~~
_delirium
Is there much evidence for the specific choice of religion as a casual factor?
Methods of blending a traditionalist religion with modern life seem much more
important than which religion you start with. For example, Judaism imposes an
extremely strict set of rules that govern almost every conceivable aspect of
daily life. And indeed you find that strictly observant Orthodox Jews are
mostly unable to function in a modern society; a large percentage of those
living in Israel are unemployed and supported by state funds. However a large
number of Jews have chosen to be somewhat looser in their adherence to Jewish
law, which seems to be the key, rather than Judaism itself being more
compatible with modernity.

~~~
Retric
There is clear evidence that Catholic areas have lower levels of economic
growth than Prodestent areas even within same country. So, religion really
does impact economic growth. But, I don't think there is hard evidence to
brake it down to specific causes within each religious group.

PS: While you may disagree with this, there is a lot of research into this
topic:
[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=religion+economic+devel...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=religion+economic+development&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKqM7dw7nOAhXGOxQKHfyoARIQgQMIHDAA)

~~~
maze-le
Do you have any sources for that claim? I would be genuineley interested in
the methodology of this research. Its just anecdotal, but here in Germany it
is the other way around. The Catholic south is prosperous, whereas the
protestant north (east) is poor. I can think of examples where the opposite is
true (Belgium) but I highly doubt that there is a casual connection. In
Belgium for example the catholic (and more important industrialized) wallonia
was very prosperous during the 19th century, in opposition to the more
agrarian flanders. Nowdays its flanders that is more prosperous, and the old
industrial regions in the south suffer from the effects of
deindustrialisation.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
The Protestant northeast suffered from being part of East Germany. A hundred
years ago Prussia was much more powerful than Bavaria.

~~~
maze-le
This may be true, but Bremen, Niedersachsen and Schleswig Holstein are not in
a very good shape either (at least compared to Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg).
But what all of this shows, is that there are a whole bunch of historical and
socio-economic factors at play that have no connection with religion.

------
pipio21
For me it is extremely simple: They have an extraordinary amount of
oil:Iraq,Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, natural gas: Libya,Iran or they are in
the middle of strategic places to build oil ducts: Syria, Afghanistan.

[http://www.energybc.ca/images/profiles/oil/reserves.jpg](http://www.energybc.ca/images/profiles/oil/reserves.jpg)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_g...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves)

The West needs much more energy that what they have. They have industry and
without energy their society will collapse.

Anything else is secondary. Most of those places are desert, and have not
enough technology to protect themselves from Western (or Eastern)plundering.

Those countries can only life in peace as protectorates from powerful
industrialized countries, like Saudi Arabia(de facto protectorate of USA, its
oil can only be paid in USD), or Iran(protectorate of Russia and China) or
Syria(Russia).

Libya itself had a lot of Chinese civilian presence, but not military. So UK,
USA and France thought it was going to be easy to take the country by force,
like they did.

They also tried with Syria, but Russia had an army there. They tried hard,
remember Assad having chemical weapons so the West needed to "save" and "free"
the country? Putin reacted fast to that. The need of creating a fly exclusion
zone(prior to the invasion, like in Libya), again Putin reacted faster sending
his own airplanes.

~~~
pipio21
One of the most interesting things traveling to African countries is lots of
locals considering oil a curse.

There is a great relationship between having huge resources and war, violence
and crime.

The countries in Africa with less resources are the richest ones, because they
had peace for a long time. War destroys any wealth people have and give it to
a few guys. It also destroys al civilization and social structures.

~~~
maverick_iceman
> One of the most interesting things traveling to African countries is lots of
> locals considering oil a curse.

Don't see any of them in a rush to give up their 'curse'.

------
Salamat
This is just another propaganda piece to obscure what is really happening.To
make sure that no Arab spring takes place, the US has sold all its allies all
the weapons they might need to crush any opposition to their fiefdoms. The New
York Times never explains to us who those moderate rebels are. "The alliance
says it is fighting “terrorists,” a name it uses for all of Mr. Assad’s foes,
from the extremists of the Islamic State to more moderate rebels who came out
of the Arab Spring protest movement against his rule."
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/world/middleeast/syrian-
fo...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/world/middleeast/syrian-forces-and-
russian-jets-attack-rebel-held-towns.html?ref=todayspaper) "Donald Trump
Praises Dictators, But Hillary Clinton Befriends Them" "Clinton has described
former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak and his wife as “friends of my family.”
Mubarak ruled Egypt under a perpetual “state of emergency” rule that involved
disappearing and torturing dissidents, police killings, and persecution of
LGBT people. The U.S. gave Mubarak $1.3 billion in military aid per year, and
when Arab Spring protests threatened his grip on power, Clinton warned the
administration not to “push a longtime partner out the door,” according to her
book Hard Choices. After Arab Spring protests unseated Mubarak and led to
democratic elections, the Egyptian military, led by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi,
staged a coup. El-Sisi suspended the country’s 2012 Constitution, appointed
officials from the former dictatorship, and moved to silence opposition. Sisi
traveled to the U.S. in 2014 and met with Clinton and her husband, posing for
a photo. The Obama administration last year lifted a hold on the transfer of
weapons and cash to el-Sisi’s government....Egypt is far from the only
military dictatorship that Clinton has supported. During her tenure as
secretary of state, Clinton approved tens of billions of dollars of weapons
transfers to Saudi Arabia – including fighter jets now being used to bomb
Yemen. Clinton played a central role in legitimizing a 2009 military coup in
Honduras, and once called Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad a “reformer.” And in
return for approving arms deals to gulf state monarchies, Clinton accepted
tens of millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton
has also boasted about receiving advice from Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger, who was notorious for his support of dictators. According to
records from the National Security Archive, Kissinger oversaw a plot to
assassinate the Chilean President Salvador Allende and install the brutal
dictator Augusto Pinochet."

~~~
hx87
So did the US foment the Arab Spring or did it try to stop it? I'm having
trouble getting all these conspiracies straight...

------
jomamaxx
Ha ha ha ... ha ...

The 'Arab World' was never together. Ever.

All of the 'Anti-American Imperialism' kids here should remember that the bulk
of the 'Arab World' is 'Arab By The Sword'.

Arabic is spoken across North Africa, in particular because of _Arab
Colonialism_ of the 9th-12th centuries.

Not since then has the 'Arab World' been anything resembling 'together'.

The Turks kept them (and there was not much of them) under the thumb, after
that the Europeans tried to maintain some degree of balance, now the
Americans.

The most recent and damaging decision by the US was Obama's withdrawl of
troops in Iraq. Of course, invading in the first place - but Obama simply by
virtue of having 10K soldiers sitting on a base 'behind the wire' doing
nothing, could have kept forcing Malaki to play nice with the Sunnis. The
moment Obama withdrew, Malaki purged Iraq of Sunnis, and the Sunni tribes
decided that ISIS was 'less worse' than their own government and there you
have it.

As far as Syria ... this is a function of the 'Arab Spring' more than
anything, and I don't think anyone can say anyone else is directly responsible
for that. Other than the standard: Assad, Saudis, Iran etc...

Once things stabilize in Syria, maybe things can start to settle down.

~~~
reitoei
> Once things stabilize in Syria, maybe things can start to settle down.

OT, but do you see this happening soon? The only way it seems that Syria can
stabilize is for the regime to retake control. That's beginning to look like
the most likely outcome. Could there ever be a path back to pre-Spring peace?
Anything is better than what they have now :(

~~~
return0
290.000 deaths later and 1/3 of the population fleeing the country. Even if
the US knows that the return of Assad's tyranny is the only quick path to
peace, they (US) will not be willing to bear the blame of the damage created.

~~~
nickik
US is not really to blame directly in this case. The US by now is willing to
accept Assad for a limited time. Russia has also shifted and might accept that
Assad has to go in the middle to long term. Their is a chance that they could
agree.

However local powers, Turks, Saudis, Iranians are not that flexible. Iran
really needs Assad in power, they really want to crush ISIS. The Turks don't
want the Kurds to form their own country. The Saudis want Assad gone and don't
want ISIS completely destroyed.

------
susi22
Slightly off topic:

Clicking "Simplify Page" on the google chrome printing dialog makes this a
fantastic formatted PDF. I'm impressed (be it Chrome's doing or NYT's).

~~~
awqrre
Reader view in Firefox looks better the original layout too.

------
bogomipz
"The Arab World" \- What does that even mean? Arab is a language distinction,
a language of which there are many dialects. As Arabic is spoken from Western
Sahara all the way east to Oman that pretty much disqualifies Arab World from
having geographical significance. Arab also does not denote religious faith as
there are Arab Jews, Arab Christians(Coptic) and of course Arab Muslims.

There was once briefly a concept of Pan-Arabism but that died when Gamal Abdel
Nasser died in 1970.

Does a Muslim Arabic speaker from Morocco really have any sense of kinship
with an Arabic Christian(a Coptic) from Egypt? I am going to say probably not.
Probably not any more than two Slavic language speakers in different parts of
Europe do. Have the Saudis taken in any Arab refugee "brothers" from Syria and
Iraq? No. Have the Arab Emirates? Again no.

So what is this "Arab World" that the NYTimes and the rest of the media are so
fond of using as a point of reference? Countries carved up as part of the
Sykes Picot agreement? Can they not come up with a more meaningful
distinction? This matters.

~~~
metaphorm
are you actually confused about which people are being referred to though?
seems like you're just getting pedantic here.

Every single country profiled in the piece is majority Arab (ethnically),
majority Arab (linguistically), and majority Muslim (religiously).

what more meaningful distinction would you make that clarifies things? "Middle
Eastern countries currently on fire"? They are certainly all countries that
can be fairly described as Arab.

~~~
bogomipz
I am not confused at all. I am pointing out that it is a BS term, with no
accepted definition. That's hardly pedantry.

And no you can't just say "Middle Eastern counties, the countries of the
Mahgreb are "on fire" and they are not geographically part of the Middle East.

So according to you the meaningful distinction is that its "currently on
fire"? What happens if its not on fire or stabilizes politically? Does its
status change?

How about Mauritania, the Comoros, and Morocco. Majority Arab and Muslim and
generally not front page news.

Why does this matter? Because it's incredibly reductionist. There are tribal
dynamics at work in all of the countries mentioned in this article that
extremely difficult for a casual observer to understand. These are tribal
affiliations that predate Islam. And there is no analog for them in the
Western world from which the term "Arab World" springs. It's very hand wavy to
just say "The Arab World" and this propagation of an Arab singularity is
itself a source of problems.

~~~
metaphorm
yeah yeah I've read Edward Said as well. Sure, its Orientalism and Imperialism
crystalized into a language idiom. That's how language and culture works. We
can find it distasteful all day but there's not much good to come from arguing
semantics on the internet.

~~~
bogomipz
You are the one that suggested pedantry and then when given a a response now
want to go suggest semantic arguments. It's as if you arguing with yourself.

------
giis
Just last week, I watched this documentary called "Saudi Arabia Uncovered" to
understand its current state. Its on youtube.

~~~
anonu
Yes - its quite well done. It is a PBS Frontline Documentary:
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/saudi-arabia-
uncovere...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/saudi-arabia-uncovered/).
Also, more salient to the NYT article, I would strongly suggest
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-secret-history-
of...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-secret-history-of-isis/) .
The synposis on the latter is: The Bush Administration was so intent on
proving the existence of WMD's in Iraq that they inadvertently gave power to
what was soon to be ISIS.

~~~
acqq
Also worth seeing is "Why We Did It" \- The Invasion of Iraq.

------
punnerud
To get pictures in the article, remove the last part of the url:
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/11/magazine/isis-...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/11/magazine/isis-
middle-east-arab-spring-fractured-lands.html)

------
known
Triffin dilemma. [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-
untold...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-
behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret)

------
d23
I wish long form, informative articles like this had a way to donate a small
amount of money to show appreciation. I don't read any particular news outlet
enough to get an exclusive subscription with them, but I'd love to reward them
for good individual pieces.

~~~
clydethefrog
Blendle is exactly like that.

------
Hortinstein
I really hope this gets put into a podcast/audio format, would love to ingest
it on a commute

------
nowey
I think even farther back with the overthrow of the Shah in Iran it started

------
Cyph0n
It's fun to see the armchair historians and political theorists pop up. HN is
becoming more like Reddit by the day. Stick to discussing technology guys ;)

------
ishener
tl:dr

------
mms1973
I recommend to read Raphael Patai's classic "The Arab mind" to try to
understand. Don't drink the NYT koolaid.

~~~
fsloth
Some sources claim the book is racist and not backed by solid research. Any
opinions on this? (looking for a good book on the topic).

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Some sources claim the book is racist_

Funny thing - given how easy it is to get an "racist" label these days, I'd
treat this as a signal that the book may be touching on some controversial
topics or reaching unpopular conclusions.

~~~
fsloth
Funny, I get the exact opposite vibes. Given how crackpot racism has a strong
historical background it's very hard not to treat it as a signal of being a
produce of crackpot racism.

"Race" does not explain anything - although, many people would love it to
because that would make it easier to comprehend the world. There is very dark
history of this in european pseudoscience. There is far more genetic variation
in average within population groups of same 'race' as there are between
'races'.

There are cultures with obviously harmful practices - take female circumsision
for example - but to the way to respond to those is to make it clear it is not
acceptable, and not to use it as an example of the barbarism of individuals
belonging to the culture in question.

There are wide variations in cultural sensibilities, and actual painpoints
between interactions of populations. There are well known, and actually
difficult problems to solve. Adding crackpot theories to the mix based on
opinion and imagination does not really help the world to evolve.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I"m not referring to racism per se, but to _accusations of racism_. It's way
too easy to get a "racist" label nowadays.

~~~
fsloth
But that generally does not happen in mainstream literary critique of academic
texts, unless for a reason.

------
transfire
Just ask Lawrence. Same shit, different day.

~~~
rublev
Who is Lawrence?

~~~
ars
Lawrence of Arabia.

