Easy Answers

I don't like easy answers any more than I like hard questions; generally, due to my general loathing of argumentation -- this does not help one in the midst of writing a PhD thesis either! -- I prefer all debate to revolve around my admittedly rather obscure terms, which is, I guess, why I have blog now. If there's anything I wish had an easy answer, though, it's the Middle East situation. However, as much of history seems to bear out, this has also been the perspective of many before me as well; unfortunately, they didn't have a blog, so they replaced that voice with administrative authority, thus fostering along the situation we have today.

Rewind the clock about twelve hours --- in my haste to sign off and go to bed, I forgot to comment another another very interesting article in yesterday's Washington Post that focuses upon Iraq's neighbors and their perspectives of how a war might impact them.

The nations fear a flood of refugees, disrupted economies, the prospect of agitation among their own ethnic minorities – and even the possibility of a more democratic government in Iraq, which could undermine the region's autocratic regimes. And without Saddam, Iraq's oil riches would be unfettered and might flood the market.

After reading this, I knew some of the thoughts sounded vaguely familiar, but I couldn't put my finger on what exactly I was looking for. A evening of sleep has done trick.

Fast forward twelve hours, back to the present -- Douglas Rushkoff has two fine posts in his blog archive that reminds us of the complexites and nuances that ought to underlie much of Western thinking about the Middle East. The first is here:

Bush and his regime are businesspeople, who are doing business with fellow, powerful businesspeople in other parts of the world. They trade mostly in oil, which is why they need to maintain global dependence on oil (rather than helping to develop alternative energy resources). They monopolize these transactions through the exploitation of the poor, which is why they need to implement economic policies (in the US) and dictatorial policies (in the Arab world) in order to maintain power.

The main difference between the tactics of the Bush regime and those of their partners in the Arab world is the particular methodology through which they keep their people stupid enough not to fight back. In the United States, citizens are led to believe that Bush and his team are part of an anti-elitist, populist backlash against the over-intellectualized and effeminate liberalization of government by homosexuals, feminists, anti-Christians, and other democratic party members. Bush will also be 'strong,' and defend us against dark peoples, everywhere.

(Even the wealthy in the United States - the people who advise me at my own bank, in fact - use self-imposed stupidity and denial in order to bring themselves to the point where they can support Bush. It is in their short-term economic interests to do so. So they use whatever mythology they can to convince themselves that Bush's leadership actually makes sense on some Judeo-Christian, ethical, or democratic level.)

In Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia, the people are kept stupid mostly through anti-Semitism. "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is published not by an undeground Nazi press, but by the government. Prince Nayef, Saudi Arabia’s minister of the interior, still tells his people that the 9/11 attacks were part of a Zionist plot. (Of course, the Saudi government also supports Al Qaeda, but this is only to keep the attacks pointing at regimes other than their own. If Israel were to disappear, the Saudis would be attacked next. That's why they need to keep the Jews in everyone's mind as the #1 enemy.)

He then rounds out this particular post with a bit of refreshing, at first glance, just before the frustration sets in, simplicity:

As soon as people can understand this very simple equation:

Bush says Arabs bad.
Arabs says Bush bad.
Bush and Arabs make business deals together at the expense of their people.

. . . things could get interesting.

The second post, an older one is here. It's difficult to excise quotes from it, though, without straining their context, so I'll leave it to you to take a look.