Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On Accusations of Orientalism
Is there a lazier way to dismiss analysis of the contemporary Middle East than by leveling a blanket accusation of Orientalism?
[The] discussion of how events will unfold in post-Assad Syria is riddled with wildly unsubstantiated speculation and pessimism, often tarnished by doses of Orientalism, anti-Arab and anti-Islamic racism [what is the Islamic race? -- Ed.], and plain old-fashioned amateurism and ignorance.
The prevalent speculations I refer to include that Syria will long remain locked in domestic strife; the Alawites will face eternal hostility and revenge; sectarian civil war is likely to break out; the post-Assad struggle for power will be chaotic and perhaps violent; Syria could easily break up into several smaller ethnic statelets linked to neighboring states or compatriots; Syria’s collapse will trigger warfare across the region, and a few other such scenarios.
It occurs to me that learned students of civil wars and insurgencies as phenomena might argue there are ample, non-racist reasons to believe that any of the above might happen in Syria. It also occurs to me that students of the conflicts in Lebanon (1975-1990) and Iraq (2003-present) might also find reason for any of the above to happen in Syria -- but these concerns can safely be dismissed as Orientalist. There is actually nothing to fear, because as Khouri helpfully explains:
The Syrian people are too intelligent, sophisticated, and cosmopolitan to allow themselves to sink into a dark pit of sectarian warfare.
[Editor's note: the history of civil wars, eastern and western, is filled with people too intelligent, sophisticated, and cosmopolitan to fight them.]
Well quite. And of course
Well quite.
And of course history is littered with smoth transitions of power from autocratic strongmen leading a country with sectarian and ethnic divisions to pluralist democracy, especially after flooding the place with weapons.
After all Spain managed it a mere 38 years after then end of its civil war ;)
Russia got there too, minus, you know, the democracy bit....
Just wear it on your sleeve
Just wear it on your sleeve and then you're good.
Carrying the Gun
Even the Orientalists in my
Even the Orientalists in my mind have it wrong: it's not that the the communities are Sunni, Shia, Christian, etc, but that they are different -- and have experienced events that drive them apart (or together) along those lines.
Not sure the Syrians know
Not sure the Syrians know what they want other than change. Syrians will be pissed greatly towards the people who do not help them get want they want hence a riddle is born. Sure someone will come a long and have a different view, which is universal and doesn't need to be proven.
Orientalism? It is just baiting a response.
Some one must be jealous of Russia having influence in the region, so goes the world.
When will China show interest? The circle is complete.
The conflict in Syria is a
The conflict in Syria is a civil war. I'm failing to understand what Mr. Khouri means by "accusations of orientalism." Who is being racist? Forgive me, I have not read the full article. Is he suggesting that those who are not intervening in this conflict are doing so because they are racist, or is suggesting that those who call this a civil war are racist? The Syrian conflict began with peace demonstrations by Syrian citizens who were calling for democracy and greater freedom in what is one of the most repressive countries in the Arab world. As a result, the Syrian government opened fire on them. Would I be mistaken in stating that that sort of behavior, on the government's behalf, is representative of a dictatorship? When the majority of your citizens do not agree with how things are being ran, and they decide to do something about it, that's called a revolution. America had one some time ago, if you don't recall, and we saw that dictatorships will never work unless the people believe in their leader. Obviously, the majority of the Syrian people do not believe in what Assad stands for. Thus, an overthrow of government. The lack of involvement in this conflict has absolutely nothing to do with race or religion. Many people believe that the U.S. should become more involved in the conflict. Why is the United States expected to resolve every world conflict? Why? Yes, we are an extremely powerful country, if not, the most powerful. Yes, we believe in the spirit of democracy. However, we cannot micro-manage the world. The United States is busy enough disposing of insurgents and recovering from an economic downfall. Where are our allies? They supposedly share in our view of respect for the human life. Yet, they sit on their butts and wait for us to make a move. Just once, it would be nice to see another freedom loving country take the initiative. How many American soldiers must die to preserve someone else's democracy? However strongly I may advise against our involvement, I am susceptible to the belief that with great power comes great responsibility. And while many American households suffer from increased taxes in support of our government, it is still our responsibility to preserve the innocent. It would just be nice to have some help from other freedom loving countries. When are these dictators going to learn? You win or die when you play the game of thrones. The trick is not to have a throne. Peace is not won by ruling; it is won by equality, democracy.
Visitor on August 14, 2012 -
Visitor on August 14, 2012 - 5:58am
Think you took the bait. In the ME it is all about action-response.
Any walk of life could look at the Middle East and find just about any human emotion they wanted in the observation.
Read this: http://www.ghazi.de/civwar.html
And consider this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV5wZoKSdP4
Then comes the Calvary to save the day!: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/terror.htm
Not sure if Sabra and Shatila was hate, racism, or just devotion to tactics the people involved are the only ones that answer that question.
The real question is, in the Middle East, what action do you take to help and who is going to kill you to get a response from another group for helping? Continuing the conflict is how the groups involved gain power. To end the conflict is to decide which group controls the others.
That is why they call it a civil war any other day it is just terrorism.
What you call it determines your agenda.
www.cnas.org is amazing
www.cnas.org is amazing website, love to read your content
youtube downloader software
Add your comment