The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    David Seaton's picture

    Arab Spring is 1989? Whose 1989?

    By David Seaton on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 3:43pm |

    Barack Obamachev

    In the last decade, America has tried applying our individualistic narrative to the Middle East. Now, as the people in multiple countries there struggle to take greater control for themselves, we want to see our story play out in their efforts, and we worry that it won't.

    Sheena Iyengar - CNN

    Recognize that the last few generations of America's bipartisan leadership have ruined the domestic economy and brought us to war at every turn overseas.  Regarding what is to be done about the Muslim world, we should bend every effort to fix our oil problem and then adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy toward the Muslim world. What we want is Muslims killing Muslims, and Muslims killing Israelis. A pox on both their houses.

    Michael Scheuer - Washington Post

    "The Arab Spring is also a Western Winter." 

    "Do we really want to adopt another Muslim country?"

    Patrick J. Buchanan

    “To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”.

    Henry Kissinger

    Once, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was told that the execrable dictator of the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo, was a S.O.B., he famously replied, "yes, but he is our S.O.B.".

    I wonder if anyone but me has noticed that in the Middle East -- so well stocked with S.O.B.s of every type, size and condition -- it seems that only our S.O.B.s are losing their jobs. Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran are quiet and Qaddafi is showing little sign of going gracefully or even of going at all. No, it is the dictators called -- until the day before yesterday -- "moderates" whose thrones or whatever are seen to be shaky or up for grabs.... as Kissinger said, being an enemy of the USA can be dangerous for sure, but serving America's interests is worth bubkes when push comes to shove.

    Quite a few commentators are comparing the "Arab Spring" with the collapse of the Soviet empire in eastern Europe in 1989... but they don't seem to realize whose empire is collapsing this time.

    Americans live in such a media fog of self-referential "story telling", still envisioning themselves contrafactually as being universal paladins of democracy, that amidst all the gushing, twittering, stories of the "Arab Spring", this one awkward reality is being largely ignored: that those whose prestige consisted in great part of being identified with the USA are the ones going down, in trouble or already out, yet this may be the most significant element that ties all the disparate rebellions together, or at least as far as we are directly concerned. 

    There appears a reluctance to see that the blood soaked but ineffectual interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq or America's inability to get even the most minor concessions from tiny Israel could be perceived as signs of weakness, of the loosening bonds of restraint among peoples repressed by dictators seen to be defending US interests in exchange for American protection.

    And there also seems to be a reluctance to see that democracy is a path, not a goal, a means to self-realization not the end in itself, that different people will use democracy to express different things because their cultures and histories are different. In this respect I find the following paragraph from an article by former CIA al Qaeda specialist Michael Scheur  packed with common sense. 

     Each new regime is likely to host a more open, religion-friendly environment for speech, assembly and press freedoms than did Mubarak and his ilk. So it will be easier for media-savvy Islamist groups - whether peaceful or militant - to proselytize, publish and foment without immediate threat of arrest and incarceration. Indeed, Washington and its Western allies will dogmatically urge the new governments to maintain such freedoms, even as the Islamists capitalize on them. 

    Turkey offers a reassuring example here and at the same time a warning. The vast majority of Turkish people have always been pious Muslims and the American backed Turkish army kept the Islamists out of power for many years. However in order to apply for membership in the European Union, the army had to loosen their control and as soon as they were free to do so the Turkish people voted for the Islamists, who soon distanced themselves from American policies. Reassuring, because the Turkish Islamists show no sign of radicalism and at the same time a warning, because few of Turkey's ex-colonies in the Arab world have either the growing economy or the political stability that Turkey enjoys. Certainly it would be silly to think that Facebook and Twitter have had more of an influence on the Arab Spring than the example of Turkey's steady transition to democracy and prosperity and their sturdy refusal to follow US policy in Iraq or Iran or to bend their neck to Israel. Somehow few commentators see fit to pursue this obvious connection very far.

    As America, though tirelessly meddlesome, proves increasingly unable to control events in its client states, the heretofore more timorous opposition to America's policies will begin to stick their heads out over the wall in every corner of the world. Soon inconvenient people and groups will be coming out of the woodwork everywhere. Ding, dong the witch is dead.

    At the top of this post I have pictured Barack Obama as Mikhail Gorbachev. This is not a criticism of Obama or Gorbachev, president Obama is not responsible for starting the two wars in Muslim lands or for creating America's supine relationship with Israel, just as Gorbachev was not responsible for the condition that USSR was in when he took charge of it. Gorbachev's fatal error was to think that an "evil empire" could ever open its hand and survive and perhaps that is the same error that Barack Obama is making right now.  

    Cross Posted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com

    Comments

    The Monroe Doctrine is dead. Long live The Monroe Doctrine.


    by cmaukonen on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 7:43pm

    When I read the title, Arab Spring, I thought of Appalachian Spring. After reading, I thought Springtime for Arabs is more appropriate. They just have it all backwards. Perhaps Obama should send Mel Brooks over to the Middle East instead of Hilary.


    by Beetlejuice on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 8:04pm

    The darkness of this post becomes you.  

    To my mind Gorbachev was a technocrat who understood that the U.S.S.R. did not have a promising future on the global stage if it did not radically change the apparatus of the Communist party.  But his was not an ideological motivation. Rather he understood as a matter of technical fact the inefficiencies of the Soviet system were economically and socially unsustainable.  I think it is unlikely that G. ever really contemplated the core of the problem, namely the increased cost of fossil fuel, a severe trade deficit, a run-away military budget and foreign debt. These “realities” were hidden by the heady and ambitious times in which he lived.

    Our current President is not of the stature of a Gorbachev I think.  Imagine how much G. understood about the working of his party, his nation and the Soviet system gained from decades working his way up through the hierarchy.  By comparison Mr. Obama’s knowledge of his world is mere “academics.”  He experimented a bit after his formal education but I think it would be hard to find any steel in his world view.  And it is a certainty he does not cultivate a critique of the “system” he heads.  Unlike G., President Obama embraces the party hacks, financial malefactors and the military faction that promote and encourage the “fog” of which you speak.

    I think Mr. Obama is more Brezhnev than Gorbachev.  He is one of the last of a line.  But your point is a good one.  If ever a real reformer rises to national leadership, he/she will probably do no more than preside over the dissolution of the remnants of the American empire. Eventually the “realities” will out.  And much of what we are witnessing in the “Arab Spring” will be repeated here. 


    by LarryH on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 8:26pm

    Hear...Hear ! Great comment Larry.


    by cmaukonen on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 8:37pm

    Wonderful comment! Of course Obama is nowhere near Gorby's class... but I didn't want to put to much emphasis on him. Obama is just another hack... a "PR" phenomenom. The problems are those of chickens coming home to roost.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 12:19am

    Obama is just another hack

    Compared to whom?  What president of the last 50 years or so do you prefer to have the job instead of him? Or other world leader ?


    by Flavius on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 2:19pm

    Eisenhower was better than Obama or Kennedy or Nixon or the Bushes... Johnson would have been very good it he hadn't got trapped in Vietnam. I don't see Obama being much more than a symbol, an important symbol, but little more... a PR phenomenon.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 3:26pm

    I think you have hit upon the basic problem. For some reason people who find themselves in positions of power IE presidents, CEOS, manager etc. think that since they have little knowledge and/or experience in an area(s) that all they need to do is surround themselves with people who do. But how can one know who is right or wrong for each area if one does not have the requisite experience and/or knowledge or some understanding themselves ?

    How does one know whether or not their so called experts are just giving them some cock and bull story that suites THEIR own agendas ?


    by cmaukonen on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 4:18pm

    Thanks for being explicit.   Just to restate the question:

    What president of the last 50 years or so do you prefer to have the job instead of him?

    I grant Eisenhower  was immensely better qualified and his policies did relatively litle harm.

    Comparing Obama to Bush I  their signature achievements, respectively were the ACA and Stimulus vs Desert Storm so it comes down to whether one prefers health care to an intelligently managed war.

     Unlike you I would not prefer the  JFK - who brought us  Vietnam and  lord knows not W whose gifts were  Shock& Awe, Gitmo and the unforgivable fiscal policy which made the Stimulus necessary

    As for  Nixon , be my guest. Not my choice for any position other than inmate.


    by Flavius on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 5:24pm

    I agree on JFK... I think I would prefer health care to war, but Obama seems to be flubbing both.

    Nixon was so deeply flawed as a human being, but he did open to China, which is probably the most important thing to happen in our era.

    Do you notice we both forgot Reagan completely?


    by David Seaton on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 1:33am

    Do you notice we both forgot Reagan completely?

    I for one have been trying to forget Reagan for a very long time. Smile


    by cmaukonen on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 12:44pm

    David:

    You really are one of the best fiction writers I know.  Here, you write:

    "I wonder if anyone but me has noticed that in the Middle East -- so well stocked with S.O.B.s of every type, size and condition -- it seems that only our S.O.B.s are losing their jobs. Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran are quiet and Qaddafi is showing little sign of going gracefully or even of going at all. No, it is the dictators called -- until the day before yesterday -- "moderates" whose thrones or whatever are seen to be shaky or up for grabs.... as Kissinger said, being an enemy of the USA can be dangerous for sure, but serving America's interests is worth bubkes when push comes to shove."

    This is just wrong.  The SOBs in Saudi Arabia are unblemished, as are the SOBs in Jordan, and Kuwait, and Morocco, and a host of other SOB-led countries that have good relations with the United States.

    You're right about, among other things, that Qadaffi clings to power, and he is doing so by slaughtering his own people.   Syria?  Can you say Hama, class of '82?Hezbollah is quiet?  Yes, for now, perhaps, but half of the country hates them and who knows what will happen if those indictments come down.

    I think you just make shit up to fit your narrative, which is cool, and which lots of folks do.  But I hope I'm not the only one who understands that it is fiction and nothing more.  Cheers.

    Bruce


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 10:23pm

    The SOBs in Saudi Arabia are unblemished, as are the SOBs in Jordan, and Kuwait, and Morocco, and a host of other SOB-led countries that have good relations with the United States.

    Sorry mate, but all of the above with the possible exception of Kuwait are trembling in their boots (sandals?) right now, all are busy raising salaries, "reforming", changing prime ministers etc... all doing Mubarak "day one".


    by David Seaton on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 12:24am

    "Sandals." Nice touch. Yuck yuck. 

    Gah.


    by quinn esq on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 12:49am

    The Urban Dictionary says that "only the coolest people" use the world "gah". Congratulations Cool


    by David Seaton on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 1:06am

    David,

    There's lots of trembling going down in the Middle East right now.  For you to contrast the trembling in places like Jordan (a USA SOB under your definitiion) with what is going on Libya (a non-USA SOB), where the military isn't messing around and is killing its own people, is as the kiddies say, awwwkward. 

    I'd love to see true freedom and democracy break out all over the Middle East.  I guess, unlike you, I would hope that it would spread to the oppressed peoples in Syria and Libya and all of your favorite crushing dictatorships. 

    Always a pleasure David.  I've been trying to read more fiction. :)

    Bruce


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 7:10am

    It just seems that anybody that thinks that the USA has got their back should have their head examined. If I were an Israeli I would take notice of this.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 3:22pm

    Which just proves we were never a powerful empire to begin with, just a country trying to influence things in our self-interest, often very badly. Like before Obama Israel jumped every  when we said jump? Ridiculous.

    On this thread you've already contradicted your post several times. Usually you wait til the next post to do that--i.e., ok this theory about the sky falling didn't work out, try another.

    Look, the essential problem with your post is that 1989 was about the Soviet UNION disintegrating, the SSR's leaving and becoming independent. That meant there would no longer be the bipolar configuration of world power we were used to seeing. Nobody with any brains took it to mean more powerful countries would stop meddling in other countries, especially ones with important natural resources.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 4:21pm

    David:

    For the record, I didn't mention Israel, you did!  And from what I know about the Jewish People in the aggregate (and my hunch is that Israeli Jews are the same) in the end we depend on nobody but ourselves.  That's another story for another day, but it's something that a smart guy like you who spends so much time in this area should work hard to understand.   As Frank Zappa once said, that is the crux of the biscuit.

    Bruce


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 6:39pm

    *Sorry, you lose, comparison void and null, put another nickel in and try again!*

    Since we gave up the Phillipines, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, the only comparable "evil empire" your mother country has to lose is Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Northern Mariana.

    BTW, mother Russia,  without its SSR's. is still meddling, sorry no one told you, not too differently from the U.S.A. or many other countries. Hey speaking of, did you hear the one about that Chavez Alba group and Gaddafi....

    All is not lost though. You could put this essay on ice should Alaska or Texas follow through on their occasional threats to secede from the union.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 4:07am

    Art,

    I am not alone in this comparison, quite a few people have made it. What certainly is without doubt is that America's Middle East foreign policy has been flushed right down the Nile and our media are just trying to paint lipstick on this pig with all the Arab Spring business.

    If you don't think the US has an empire, do read the late Chalmers Johnson's "Sorrows of Empire" to bring you up to speed.

    I don't know how important this middle-eastern meltdown is on a scale of one to ten, probably the debt of the different American states is more important for Americans. I understand that if California seceded from the Union it would be able to pay for its school system, pensions and services without much difficulty because if it were an independent country it would be number eight or higher. Tensions like that over the transfer of funds such as those between prosperous Slovenia and Croatia to impoverished Serbia and Kosovo are what caused the break up of Yugoslavia, but of course, American "reality" is unmovable, so it would be silly to worry about stuff like that.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 6:07am

    hehe


    by cmaukonen on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 9:35am

    I am not alone in this comparison, quite a few people have made it

    Er, and your post argues that they have it wrong, to wit your title:

    Arab Spring is 1989? Whose 1989?


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 3:55pm

    The Soviet Union analogy is absurdly hyperbolic of course. The Soviets kept their satellites in check with tanks--as in the Prague Spring. For a more apt comparison, look to the more recent democratic revolts against Eastern European dictators allied with Russia--the Orange and Rose revolutions.

    That raises another question, however. So what? In a real empire, like the Soviet Union or the British Empire, the client states matter. Their resources increase the wealth and military might of the empire.

    But what did Mubarak really do for the U.S. that Egypt's next government won't do? Military threats, such as missiles in Cuba or terrorists in Afghanistan, are of genuine concern, but those are fairly rare and highly unlikely in Egypt. What more often happens is that the U.S. expends enormous resources to maintain its perceived influence by propping up people who don't deserve the props, something like zombie banks. Remember Vietnam? Nicaragua? Chile? Was the loss of our friendly little dictators such a disaster? What about Hugo Chavez? He's as big an enemy as we've got in this hemisphere other than the Castros, but he still sells us oil. So he makes a fool of himself by hollering at us in the U.N. Does it really matter?


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 9:44am

    Genghis,

    Let's examine the following:

    In a real empire, like the Soviet Union or the British Empire, the client states matter. Their resources increase the wealth and military might of the empire.

    Now, if we consider Saudi Arabia a client state of the USA (it has been since FDR) and we consider it the world's largest provider of oil, then certainly it increases America's wealth (and influence in the world, which is convertable into wealth) to be its protector and to control the access to that oil. Being able to enable or to deny access to the world's raw materials is one of the most important tools in America's superpower tool box. This ability is what allows the USA to print huge amounts of what today amounts to funny money and have people still using it as a repository of wealth and if they ever stop using  dollars... best not go there. The danger is that the USA be seen to be a fraud like the Wizard of Oz

    Again, if you wish to learn how America's empire works, you can read Chalmer's Johnson, Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein and save me wearing out my typing fingers copying them.

    But what did Mubarak really do for the U.S. that Egypt's next government won't do?

    Well, if protecting Israel is of no importance to the USA, then perhaps you've got a good point. Certainly it is difficult to imagine a democratic government in Cairo keeping the Palestinians locked in the Gaza cage against all the Egyptian public opinion. Cairo will certainly be a center for any Islamic "renaissance" and soft power, probably more important than Turkey in that respect and I am told that they have the scientists needed to produce an atomic bomb much quicker than Iran ever could... but, again if we forget about Israel (and may our right hand lose its cunning) than perhaps Egypt letting American ships use the Suez canal is the only real interest we have in them.

    The Soviet Union analogy is absurdly hyperbolic of course.

    Actually no it isn't. In fact the only possible comparison to the United State's power today, both soft and hard, is what the U.S.S.R. was and had. I can only think you are too young to remember how powerful they were, how feared and admired they were, how obsessed we were by them and their vision of the future. The only person anywhere that predicted their collapse was the French demographer Emmanuel Todd. Neither the CIA or the State Department had any idea of what was coming. The lesson of the U.S.S.R.'s collapse is that it can happen to any huge acronym... and with the U.S.S.R. gone the only other huge acronym around is the U.S. of A.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 11:46am

    You hit the nail on the head. The U.S.S.R. was the the "whipping boy" for years and our convenient excuse for invading and/or supporting any and all tyrannical governments as long as they were anti-communist.   The real reason of course was for these self same governments to give carte blanche to US business interests at the expense of their populations and of course an appropriate financial stipend for their trouble.


    by cmaukonen on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 11:57am

    Actually Ray Kurzweil correctly predicted the collapse of the USSR as well.

    To me, the Former Soviet Union (FSU) exerted iron control of its vassal states militarily, while the US used a combination of financial aid/economic leverage and military/espionage influence to keep "friendly" states in line.

    China seems to use financial aid/economic leverage in places like Africa, but they do get rough when dealing with close neighbors that they regard as rightfully Chinese.


    by Donal on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 4:27pm

    The U.S. buys products and raw materials from pretty much every country in the world except North Korea, Iran, and Cuba, all of whom would happily sell us their stuff if we didn't have laws against it. We don't need any stinking empires to buy stuff. What ensures our access to Saudi oil is what has always ensured our access to Saudi oil--money.

    Some people think money isn't enough. They spin scenarios in which some new hostile Islamic government, in Saudi Arabia say, refuses to sell us oil, just as Cold Warriors spun out scenarios about the whole world falling like dominoes into the Soviet Empire.

    But these are scare stories designed to justify the country's extraordinary expenditures to maintain American "influence." American-backed governments rise and fall all the time with much hand-wringing but scarcely a ripple in the course of history.

    And you, David, are an obsessive hand-wringer. Of course anything can happen. The U.S. could collapse tomorrow. Or the sun could explode. But just because anything can happen, does not mean that we should believe your incessant evidence-deprived predictions about what will happen.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 5:34pm

    Ah David. I am constantly amazed at the degree of self importance and narcissism that Americans have for themselves and their country expressed here and elsewhere. Which is becoming less and less important by the day.

    Laughing


    by cmaukonen on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 10:50am

    I wish I was as amazed as you are. Wink


    by David Seaton on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 12:01pm

    The funny thing is a lot of leftist arguments that the U.S. is a powerful imperialist hegemon with amazing control over things is just further proof for the "U.S.A. #!1" crowd.  It's quite difficult to incorporate bumbling idiocy arguments with powerful hegemony arguments.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 4:05pm

    Actually, bumbling brutality is a prime characteristic of a decadent empire.Wink


    by David Seaton on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 4:47am

    I wonder if anyone but me has noticed that in the Middle East -- so well stocked with S.O.B.s of every type, size and condition -- it seems that only our S.O.B.s are losing their jobs. Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran are quiet and Qaddafi is showing little sign of going gracefully or even of going at all. No, it is the dictators called -- until the day before yesterday -- "moderates" whose thrones or whatever are seen to be shaky or up for grabs.... as Kissinger said, being an enemy of the USA can be dangerous for sure, but serving America's interests is worth bubkes when push comes to shove.

    This analysis is really faulty. The revolt against Qaddafi has been serious and that's why he has met it as he has. It is quite the same in Iran. A guess might be that, without international support, the regimes in Iran and Libya may be more prepared to repel a rebellion using whatever means at their disposal than regimes that rest on a cushion of American support.

    Also keep in mind that America's bestest friends in Saudi Arabia have yet to face a rebellion. If the wave of revolutions were simply fueled by anti-Americanism, Saudi Arabia would likely be a centerpiece and Libya wouldn't be the player that it is.


    by Orion on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 3:50pm

    There has been talk of a Day of Rage in the Kingdom, but they have spread a lot of cash around, and taken other steps to stamp it down.


    by Donal on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 4:17pm

    I really doubt if rage occurs in mass quantities there that it will be the same kind of rage as elsewhere and it's not just because of bribery of the masses. The simplified version of the story: that country was founded on a devil's pact between Wahabbi clerics and the royal family, where the Wahabbis would do the sociological setup. What they ended up with is a populace that is largely much more conservative than the ruling royal family, i.e., it's the royals that keep trying to push modernization--more modern education, women driving, whatever--and the majority and the clerics that kick and scream about it. They'd like to be where the UAE is, but that devil's pact they made to educate the populace as fundamentalists  has kept them from doing it. Here's an example in the recent news, my bold:

    Saudi prince questions ban on women driving
    Reuters Africa - Ulf Laessing - March 9, 2011

    RIYADH (Reuters) - A senior Saudi prince questioned the need for a ban on women driving on Wednesday and said lifting it would be a quick first step to reduce the Islamic kingdom's dependence on millions of foreign workers....

    I've seen many royals subtly trying to push allowing women to drive for years, they just can't seem to affect it, the majority don't want that change. Not sayin' they are that competent at handling what they got, they aren't. It's just a very unusual situation compared to the rest of the Arab world.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 6:04pm

    Just sweeping up the store here.

    When is an empire not an empire? When the world is divided into military areas and ringed with hundreds of bases and all sea routes are controlled by its navy is when.

    Sample Middle Eastern dialog:

    Joe Biden: Mubarak is not a dictator

    Obama: Mubarak must go

    Mubarak: Arrrgh

    Obama: Qaddafi must go.

    Qaddafi: That's not what your momma told me.

    As to the Soviet Union: of course there are many differences, but what is interesting are the similarities... the imperial self-interest solemnly shrouded in a universalist ideology which gives propaganda cover with which to sanctimoniously violate other nation's sovereignty... just to begin with.

    As to Israel... I wonder what they are going to do... I imagine they are wondering too.

    All for now, got to go to work.


    by David Seaton on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 4:48am

    I confess I didn't get the gist of this entire thread, comments included.  But when I read yesterday the comments denying that the US is an Empire,  I was simply dumbfounded.  Wow.


    by we are stardust on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 7:51am