Tragedy Of The Arabs

[abu afak]

TRAGEDY OF THE ARABS

By RALPH PETERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 30, 2003 -- TV networks in the Arab world gloat as they broadcast pictures of American prisoners executed by Saddam's thugs. They report every Iraqi lie as if it contains unassailable truth, while mocking each report of allied success. They promise their viewers Iraq is winning the war.
They betray their own people by doing so, setting up Arabs for yet another psychological catastrophe.

Our natural response to the Arab world's phenomenal lies is anger: We resent their indecency in glorifying murder and war crimes. We cannot understand how anyone can believe these gruesome fairy tales for adults.

My advice is to ignore the Arabs. Hand-wringing about Arab TV disinformation or about the rage of the Arab street is a waste of our time. We cannot convince them and we cannot force them to change.

The best we can do - even for the Arabs - is to get on with America's agenda of liberation.

The most important thing for Americans to grasp about the impotent fury of the Arab world is that it isn't really about us. It's about their own internal demons.

The absurdities broadcast and printed throughout the Arab world are symptoms of a once-great culture's moral desolation, of the comprehensiveness of Arab failure. The Arabian Nights have long since turned into the Arabian nightmare.

The inability of the Arab world to compete with the West in any field of endeavor (even their efforts at terrorism ultimately fail) has been so devastating to the Arab psychology that they are desperate for someone to blame for what they and their grotesque leaders have done to their own culture.

Without the United States - and, of course, Israel - as excuses for Arab political squalor, Arabs might have to engage in self-examination, to ask themselves, "How have we failed so badly?"

They prefer to blame others, to sleepwalk through history, and to cheer when tyrants and terrorists "avenge" them.

On one level, Arabs know that Saddam Hussein is a monster. They know he has killed more Arabs than Israel ever could do. Saddam has been the worst thing to happen to Mesopotamia since the Mongols razed Baghdad. But Arabs are so jealous and discouraged that they need to inflate even Saddam into a hero. They have no one else.

Try to understand how broken the Arab world must be, how pitiful, if the celebrated Arab "triumph" of this war is the execution of prisoners in cold blood and the display of a few POWs on TV.

We would be foolish to descend to their level and gloat. The world would be better off were Arab civilization a success. We all should pray that the Arab world might, one day, be better governed and more equitable, that Arab peoples might join us in the march of human progress, instead of fleeing into reveries of bygone glories.

But the obstacles Arabs have erected for themselves are enormous. For all of the oil revenue that has flowed into the wealthier Arab countries, consider the overall state of the Arab world:

* It does not produce a single manufactured product of sufficient quality to sell on world markets.

* Arab productivity is the lowest in the world.

* It contains not a single world-class university.

* The once-great tradition of Arab science has degenerated into a few research programs in the fields of chemical and biological warfare.

* No Arab state is a true democracy.

* No Arab state genuinely respects human rights.

* No Arab state hosts a responsible media.

* No Arab society fully respects the rights of women or minorities.

* No Arab government has ever accepted public responsibility for its own shortcomings.

This is a self-help world. We can't force Arab states to better themselves. If Arabs prefer to dream of imaginary triumphs while engaging in fits of very real savagery, they're their own ultimate victims.

Is there any hope? Yes: Iraq.

While building the Iraq of tomorrow must be done by the Iraqis themselves, we would be foolish not to give them every reasonable assistance.

With their oil reserves, a comparatively educated population and their traditionally sophisticated (compared to other Arabs) outlook, the Iraqis are the best hope the region has of building a healthy modern state.

It isn't going to be easy, and it is going to take years, not months. But the Iraqis have the chance to begin the long-overdue transformation of Arab civilization.

For all the shouting and hand-waving in the Arab world, the truth is that Arabs have a deep inferiority complex. They're afraid they really might not be able to build a successful modern state - to say nothing of a post-modern, information-based society.

If Iraq could do even a fair job of developing a prosperous Arab democracy that respected human rights, it could be an inspiration to the rest of the states in the region - and beyond.

The Arab world desperately needs a success story. Let us hope, for the sake of hundreds of millions of our fellow human beings in the Middle East, that Iraq provides that example.

In the short term, though, the Arab world is in for a shock. By lying about Saddam's atrocities and promising an Arab victory, those Arab media outlets are doing all Arabs a cruel disservice.

Imagine the impact on the Arab world when Saddam lies dead and the oppression-stunned people of Iraq begin to tell their stories of suffering under his regime. What will Arabs do when their own fellow Arabs tell them Saddam's glory was all a big lie?

My prediction: They will turn on the Iraqis and accuse them of being tools of the United States.

But be patient. The cliché is absolutely true: Nothing succeeds like success.

Baghdad was once the center of Arab culture, of science and the arts, and a beacon of human progress. It should be our sincere hope that Baghdad one day might play that role again.

Ralph Peters is a retired military officer and the author of "Fighting For The Future: Will America Triumph?"

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/72148.htm

[andak01]

Yes, Abu, by not spending over 300 times as much on their military, as have the Americans, the Iraqis have fallen into a situation where they are no longer able to defend their country. What a lesson this is to the other petty dictators of the world? If only they had obtained nukes like the North Koreans, they could have purchased some respect. The new world order of might makes right applies to them.

[Mediocrates]

Through 1991 Iraq had the 5 - 6th largest military budget as a fraction of GDP in the world. Outspent by the US, England, Russia, China and Iran. Today they spend about a billion a year which is about 5% of of their oil revenue.

In FY1960 the USA appropriation for defense was 43 billion dollars which is quite a bit larger as a fraction of the size of the economy than todays 340 billion dollars..


It's probably a mistake to think that the DPRK is the 'same thing' or that their situation is analogous. Their threat is probably not that they will stream south. Their threat is that they will sell technology to whomever has the cash. Saddam is/was not really interested in the cash in lieu of simply procuring those weapons and either using them or blackmailing us with them. Moreover Iraq really does have a greater ability to destabilize both it's own region and world economies than does the DPRK.

So the question you have to ask yourself in Iraqs case is do you feel comfortable with them having an army, money, oil and chemical tipped ballistic missiles. And the DPRK's case the question you have to ask yourself is do you feel comfortable having a completely unaccountable country sell unknown quantities of technology to god knows who.

[andak01]

The question Bush asked himself was, "Can I get reelected by fighting a country backed by China or by beating up on a country backed by nobody." "Which is easier, defeating a country that has few or no WDMs and pretending they do, or defeating a country that has them AND has vowed to use them?" Finally, "Which is the most profitable method to end our economic woes, deposing of Korea or taking over Iraqi oil and paying my buddy Dick to fix it.

[Revkha]

Originally posted by andak01
Yes, Abu, by not spending over 300 times as much on their military, as have the Americans, the Iraqis have fallen into a situation where they are no longer able to defend their country. What a lesson this is to the other petty dictators of the world? If only they had obtained nukes like the North Koreans, they could have purchased some respect. The new world order of might makes right applies to them.

Life is not a tennis court where we serve the ball over the net in defensive postures. What do you truthfully think about this article. We can all find fault with policies both in the US and with other countries. But we need to find workable answers, solutions. Dialogue. We can continue on this path until doomsday which is right around the corner unless we are willing to put our prejudice aside and examine the ills that give rise to the current problems. The finger pointing/blame game has to stop. Responsibility for the terror has to be identified and dealt with by those who have the courage to stand up against it. It does not help that misleading information is fed to the Arab population. This morning MSNBC reported a headline in a Arabic newspaper that said that the US had dropped an atomic bomb on Baghdad. This is totally irresponsible.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
Yes, Abu, by not spending over 300 times as much on their military, as have the Americans, the Iraqis have fallen into a situation where they are no longer able to defend their country. What a lesson this is to the other petty dictators of the world? If only they had obtained nukes like the North Koreans, they could have purchased some respect. The new world order of might makes right applies to them.

Military Budget of Iraq?

Nice attempt (this time) at deflection, as opposed to your more common apologism or You-too-ism.
The article is a Commentary on the entire Arab Civilization ...or lack thereof

[Mr. Pumps]

What is the key problem here is that they take their religion far to seriously.

I have a Christian name and a Christian background, but do I go to Church or read from the Bible or sing songs to god.....Nope!.

So if you are born in a religious background and have a religious name.....do you have to follow all the teachings that religion gives?......not at all. The Islamic/Arab world needs ALOT more of that openness and free from hardcore radical elements.

I hope Islamic leaders know religion is about much more individualism and personal enlightenment than mass enforcement, the Middle East would be alot happier and they would fit in better in the world in general.

[andak01]

That's kind of ironic. The democratic system is supposed to allow us religious freedom, not mold us with a cookie cutter. It makes for a place where the Hasidim and the snake handling Christian and the Voodooist can all live side by side. If the Muslim nations of the world today don't practice that kind of tolerance, it is a step backwards from times past and needs to be addressed.

When you say openness, what do you equate that with? Our own media bombards us with images of sexual licentiousness and alcohol consumption. When such 'openness' is imposed where it isn't wanted, that's another form of intolerance. I'm not bisexual. But some may consider me a prude for that. So openness is in the eyes of the beholder. Someone may consider you closed minded for not worshipping Jesus or Buddha. You consider them closed minded for doing so.

[Mr. Pumps]

I t is not Ironic. What I am saying is that modern religions don't have any type of control and should ever have any controls on anybody. What Islam is practicing right know is a carry over from days when people were not enlightened and religion given huge role in everything. Am I suppose to hate Israel as a Roman Catholic because the church and bible told me too....no because Israel is a cool place and the Church has been given a small insignificant role which is great. Israel has Christian allies because the Jewish people are a free, democratic people, something the Arabs have'nt changed into so it is no wonder we ally with Israel. If Israel was all religious hardcore state then I would see more problems ....but as she is, her religion, Judaisim, is a modern religion of different people who have different levels of commitment and open ended and personal like every other....the way it should be. So Israel and Judaism is in the mainstram society and religious club and that is fine by me.

[paulo]

In this article written by Ralph Peters he cites these reasons for the so called failure of the Arab civilisation.
1. No Arab state is true democracy.
Neither is America - Over the last 50 years the rate of workers in active unions has dropped from 53% to 13%. In place of this has grown the coporate structure, perhaps the biggest challenge to democracy since Communism. Then there's the presidental election, where esentially a millitary Junta has taken control of the most powerful country in the world.
2. No Arab state genuinely respects human rights.
Not this week it has come to attention of the world media that the U.S is keeping under age convicts in Camp X-ray, without trial. The youngest is thirteen.
3. No Arab government has ever accepted responsibility for it's own shortcomings.
Before the war - George Bush: We know exactly where the WMD are in Iraq and how much Saddam has. Our best caluclations show that Iraq could lauch these weapons in 15 minutes.
After the war - Donald Rummesfeld: It could take up to a year to find (evidence?) of the WMD.

The Arab world is in such a mess because it has been raped and pillaged by first the British Empire and then the U.S in the name of democracy, moderninty and progress.

The biggest threat to the world is the monster that calls it's self America and the lunatic who rides the beast.

Up untill 1990 Saddam was friend of the West. The U.S gave him the abillity to produce weapons of mass destruction. The U.S and Britain are alone in the world as regarding him as a threat to internal security. Over the last ten years the ecconmic stanctions have killed an estimated 1 million children under the age of five. Which Mis Rice called has 'collaterial damage.'

I call the Americans cowards for their actions in Iraq over the last ten years, and it should stand as testiment to Ralph Peters that before he calls the Arab culture a failure, he should look in the mirror at his own country's 'failures.'

[andak01]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
If Israel was all religious hardcore state then I would see more problems ....but as she is, her religion, Judaisim, is a modern religion of different people who have different levels of commitment and open ended and personal like every other....the way it should be. So Israel and Judaism is in the mainstram society and religious club and that is fine by me.

Judaism is almost point for point the same as Islam. We have the same Prophets with the exception of Jesus (SAW) and Muhammad (SAW). We recognize the Torah as a revelation from God. We worship the same G_d and nothing else. There are Muslims that have different levels of commitment.

[red crabtree]

paulo, it is a shame that you do not understand what my country is. Yes, we are a democracy, but in truth we are a republic. Having labor unions or not have nothing to do with the US being a democracy or a republic. It is unions who cut off their own heads. I say this as someone who lives in a state that has been highly unionized through the UAW, and has a husband who is a member of the UAW. In the beginning unions were a way to gain basic rights for workers, such as a reasonable work week, reasonable wages, reasonable health and safety conditions. All of this has basicly been achieved and done so quite some time ago, for most areas of labor. However as time went on, the union officials became just as corrupt and without thought as you accuse business of being. A for instance. Why should any business be forced to pay a day's work for a employee to take their birthday off? Yet it is a normal part of a UAW contract. Why should a member be able to go to work with obvious signs of drunkenness or drug use and not be able to be fired without massive documentation repeatedly? This member will be instead, protected by the union. The lazy are too often also protected by the union. It is this that has led to less support of unions by the general work population than anything that business has managed to do.
The American Nurse Association has in the last couple years, set up it's own labor arm to get nurses into unions. This has been more or less a failure for a couple reasons. One-only 7% of RN's belong to the ANA anyway as they are more or less an elitist organization who believe that unless one is a 4 year degree nurse than you are not a 'professional' nurse. That means they also will not recognize LPNs are "nurses". Two-the southern part of the country is not and has not been supporters of unions and stated they would disaffliate from the national ANA if they were forced into becoming bargaining units. This widened a split that already existed. Third-the vast majority of nurses are not interested in unions. We do not believe that what is essentially a blue collar way of viewing things is a model that works well in the health care setting. We deal with human lives not machines, we do not have the option of shutting down our patients like a machine. Fourth-most of what is the problems in healthcare that has adversely affected nursing and prompted the national nursing shortage in this country, could have been averted had the American Nurse Association stood up and said hey! for the bedside nurses, they would have gained membership and clout by nurses speaking for nurses. Instead they opted to go with unions headed by people who are not nurses, have never worked in health care and will never understand the intricacies of what we do. They have made things worse not better, by virtue of having people at each other throats instead of working together.
Unions are not all that, by a long shot, and may have outlived their usefulness by a number of years. Do not judge this country by how many unionized members there are here. And just for clarification, I am not in management. I have very little use for unions and what they have become.

Lastly the Arab world is not a mess because of "rape and pillage by the British and then the US"(you forgot the role France played after WWI) Like most people you go back in time only to the last few major events in history. It is a misnormer to do so. The time the Brits, French or US had been in the region is a very small microscopic moment in time, compared to the sway of the Ottoman's. A Muslim empire yes? And frankly it is always, always easier to blame outside forces for the things in a society that is not working. Always. Not any different than a single person who chronically blames bad luck, ex wives, ex husbands, bad childhoods etc.. instead of having to look at their own lack of judgement and own actions in order to change that which is not working in their own individual lives. Arab states and it's people may go ahead and point to all the shortcomings of the US, Britian etc if they wish, but it will not change the shortcomings of their own. It will however, delay a reckoning that is needed. You know the shortcomings of the US only because we acknowledge them quite publicly. If we behaved like the vast majority of Arab states then you would never know about them.
Those in glass towers should not throw stones. I suggest you read further back in history than the end of WWI.

[elke]

Red Crabtree, your insight and ability to express yourself on every subject you have approached so far, - are stunning! Way to go!

[andak01]

paulo, there is no 'military junta'. There is a shift towards militarism and a philosophy that military action can solve all of our problems. There is also a lot of pressure on people like myself who are critical of the present government to silence ourselves. We are called unpatriotic for not supporting the president in time of war. Well, evidence is in that the time of war is going to be almost continuous through Bush's term in office. Therefore, following this logic means we cannot criticize Bush period. Equating criticism of the government with a lack of patriotism is a very slippery slope. Add to that, equating criticism of government with support of terrorism and we have a formula for abuse.

I have a solution for this. To those Americans who feel that they are no longer represented by their government, regiem change. It's called voting.

[red crabtree]

oh, now andak. To use the words regime change is poor. You like John Kerry do you? Personally I think the man is a dolt.

To quote Teddy Roosevelt-Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.

I've always felt that was a great definiation of patriotism. Now do you really care if George Bush thinks you are a patriot if you are critical of his policies? It's not as if he is having the FBI round up everyone who has something critical to say. Otherwise I believe they'd be knocking on my door already. See the thing is this. You have the right to say anything you wish to say, the constitution provides for anyone to stand in town square and spout what they will, foolish or not. What it does not provide for is the right to have others agree with you. If you don't like the policies of Bush, then say so. Get out there and work for a campaign, sign up voters, go door to door for your candidate. Do not hide behind some of the assine things that the President or his people have said and pretend that the country suddenly fell into a "regime" by virtue of having a man that is not all that bright as it's president. We've had presidents that were not all that bright before and we survived them. Hell, if you wanted to you could even start a petition to pull him from office. Now, you may not get too many signatures or you may have people laugh at you, but remember the constitution does not give anyone the right to have others agree with them. That however does not mean that you can't do or say something that would disagree with the policies of GB.

I don't particularly care all that much for George Bush. I have the tendency to feel he is not all that bright, and has a terrible ability to articulate what he wants to put across. I believe his domestic policies suffer from a total lack of reality. However at present there is not one person from the democratic party that I would care to dance with either. Including John Kerry and his atrocious way of expressing his desire to be President. Regime change indeed. That would have been funny, had it not been so obnoxious. To me what he said did little more than show his own inability to express himself with any forethought or intelligence. After some interaction with you on this board already that I enjoyed a great deal I would like to think that you have a better ability to express your discontent with GWB than parroting John Kerry.
I do not believe there is evidence that GB's administration has plans for continuous war. It may be your opinion but nothing more. To quote another great man -If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War. George Washington
To do less andak is inviting the barbarians in through the gate.

And elke, thank you so much for your kind words.