Mideast Rules To Live By

[The Reaper]

Interesting perspective worth consideration.

TR

Mideast Rules To Live By

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: December 20, 2006
NYT

For a long time, I let my hopes for a decent outcome in Iraq triumph over
what I had learned reporting from Lebanon during its civil war. Those hopes
vanished last summer. So, I'd like to offer President Bush my updated rules
of Middle East reporting, which also apply to diplomacy, in hopes they'll
help him figure out what to do next in Iraq.

Rule 1: What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant.
All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language.
Anything said to you in English, in private, doesn't count. In Washington,
officials lie in public and tell the truth off the record. In the Mideast,
officials say what they really believe in public and tell you what you want
to hear in private.

Rule 2: Any reporter or U.S. Army officer wanting to serve in Iraq should
have to take a test, consisting of one question: "Do you think the shortest
distance between two points is a straight line?" If you answer yes, you
can't go to Iraq. You can serve in Japan, Korea or Germany - not Iraq.

Rule 3: If you can't explain something to Middle Easterners with a
conspiracy theory, then don't try to explain it at all - they won't believe
it.

Rule 4: In the Middle East, never take a concession, except out of the mouth
of the person doing the conceding. If I had a dollar for every time someone
agreed to recognize Israel on behalf of Yasir Arafat, I could paper my
walls.

Rule 5: Never lead your story out of Lebanon, Gaza or Iraq with a
cease-fire; it will always be over before the next morning's paper.

Rule 6: In the Middle East, the extremists go all the way, and the moderates
tend to just go away.

Rule 7: The most oft-used expression by moderate Arab pols is: "We were just
about to stand up to the bad guys when you stupid Americans did that stupid
thing. Had you stupid Americans not done that stupid thing, we would have
stood up, but now it's too late. It's all your fault for being so stupid."

Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas - like
liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes,
Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in
this war. It's the South vs. the South.

Rule 9: In Middle East tribal politics there is rarely a happy medium. When
one side is weak, it will tell you, "I'm weak, how can I compromise?" And
when it's strong, it will tell you, "I'm strong, why should I compromise?"

Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil
war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with
a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon
civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps
everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If
we don't want to play that role, Iraq's civil war will end with A or B.

Rule 11: The most underestimated emotion in Arab politics is humiliation.
The Israeli-Arab conflict, for instance, is not just about borders. Israel's
mere existence is a daily humiliation to Muslims, who can't understand how,
if they have the superior religion, Israel can be so powerful. Al Jazeera's
editor, Ahmed Sheikh, said it best when he recently told the Swiss weekly
Die Weltwoche: "It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small
country as Israel, with only about seven million inhabitants, can defeat the
Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The
Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West's problem is
that it does not understand this."

Rule 12: Thus, the Israelis will always win, and the Palestinians will
always make sure they never enjoy it. Everything else is just commentary.

Rule 13: Our first priority is democracy, but the Arabs' first priority is
"justice." The oft-warring Arab tribes are all wounded souls, who really
have been hurt by colonial powers, by Jewish settlements on Palestinian
land, by Arab kings and dictators, and, most of all, by each other in
endless tribal wars. For Iraq's long-abused Shiite majority, democracy is
first and foremost a vehicle to get justice. Ditto the Kurds. For the
minority Sunnis, democracy in Iraq is a vehicle of injustice. For us,
democracy is all about protecting minority rights. For them, democracy is
first about consolidating majority rights and getting justice.

Rule 14: The Lebanese historian Kamal Salibi had it right: "Great powers
should never get involved in the politics of small tribes."

Rule 15: Whether it is Arab-Israeli peace or democracy in Iraq, you can't
want it more than they do.

[rubberneck]

That is the first thing I have ever read by Friedman and I've got to admit it scares me a bit.

[CPTAUSRET]

TR:

Don't imagine you care much for #8.



"Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas - like
liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes,
Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in
this war. It's the South vs. the South."

[The Reaper]

TR:

Don't imagine you care much for #8.

"Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas - like
liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes,
Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in
this war. It's the South vs. the South."

If you mean the comparison between our War Between the States and the Iraqi unpleasantness, or that our war was about tribal rule, then I do not find that flattering.

If you mean the concept of a war within a war, well, there was a war within the Confederacy of sececessionists or rebels versus loyalists, and I think he missed the irony of his analogy.

I liked the piece, found it thought provoking, and wondered what others thought of it.

TR

[CPTAUSRET]

I meant the first! I do not believe Lincoln is on your "favorite Presidents list"!

Indeed, it was thought provoking.

[Team Sergeant]

Personally I believe a few in the MSM are just now getting around to understanding what it is to be "tribal" and more importantly what it means being part of a specific tribe.

Some of "us" have stated for years that most middle easterners have been killing each other because of tribal differences, not just ideology. While their arrogant religion motivates them its not what drives them to kill, I believe it’s their tribal beliefs that encourage the killing.

Like our "gangs" here in the United States, their ideology is not to blame for the murderous acts they commit it’s their member or tribal affiliation. IMO the same dilemma holds true for many of the nations in Africa i.e. tribal conflicts.

I believe we as a nation have been attempting to negotiate peace with an assumed “western civilized” people when in fact we are actually dealing with a handful of powerful tribes, complete with tribal leaders, elders etc. We have not negotiated with tribes for a 100 years and I would assume we no longer have the ability to do so. The US military fought the Indians quite a few years until we came to an understanding. I've little doubt we’ll be fighting the middle eastern tribes for a few more centuries or at least until;

a. we kill them all

b. we stand back and let them kill each other until one
dominant tribe rules

c. we send the right people to negotiate with the tribes

Who would I send in to negotiate? These guys, the National Congress of American Indians NCAI, IMO the right people for the right job.

That’s my .02

TS

[incommin]

Who holds the most control....tribal elders or the religious clerics?


Jim

[CDRODA396]

Who holds the most control....tribal elders or the religious clerics?


Jim

This is a good question. I think that the clerics in a sense, "establish policy," while the tribal elders "execute it" so to speak, so long as it is in keeping with their "tribal goals and objectives." So rarely is there a power struggle between the two, or at least this is my observations...thoughts?

[Team Sergeant]

This is a good question. I think that the clerics in a sense, "establish policy," while the tribal elders "execute it" so to speak, so long as it is in keeping with their "tribal goals and objectives." So rarely is there a power struggle between the two, or at least this is my observations...thoughts?

I do not think it matters as the tribes that are being discussed here are tribes because of their religious beliefs.

As mentioned, this is akin to South vs. South, same general ideology different tribes.

[incommin]

My gut feeling is the clerics have the most influence.............

Jim

[SRT31B]

Can't speak for Iraq, but as to Astan I would propose that the tribal elder is the ultimate authority regardless of what the religious leaders say. Just as in France, the cardinal "spoke for God," but the king was still the ultimate authority.

My basis for that statement would be a REPAT program in place now in theater that returns individuals to their home village, but only if the village/tribal elder will agree to "sign for them" and be held responsible for that individuals actions. If they ever mess up again, not only is that individual held accountable, but also the elder who took this person back. Both of these people will get to meet me and my friends...

Also, according to one of the MI guys I work with, in their culture, the elders are ALWAYS respected and obeyed by the younger ones. I have personally seen this in action. I would further that to say if thats the norm, I would only guess that the tribal elder is the ultimate authority.

If it were possible to talk to all the elders and try to work out all the differences between them, then perhaps the fighting could stop, But IROA has been tyring that for a while now with little progress. Not many are willing to attend the presidents "jirgas." It doesn't get any better when you try and bring Pakistan into the picture either. The two are like polar opposites. Both can see that there is a problem there but because of their differences are unwilling to work things out. It could change over time, but I'm not sure how.

Just my opinion/personal observance, could be wrong. Not an SME on foreign affairs...

[GreenBeret65]

I spent five years traveling and working in Euope, the Middle East and North Africa in a senior management position with a major American Hotel Chain. The part I loved about the job is so many things entered into your daily interactions, eg, politics, religion, foreign currency, culture and many other issues. One thing I believe that the Arab probably does better than anyone else in the world is HATE. The Arab can hate for generations over a perceived insult that no one necesarily even remembers and yes I do believe that tribal connections are everything.. I do not know about now but in the eighties a very common Arab expression was "after three days". I first went there believing that my objective, usually collecting money would be achieved in three days. What it actually meant was you were definitely not going to receive what you requested in three days--hence the "after three days". After three days you may receive it in 3 months or 3 years or never but very definitely not in the next three days. Many conversations are circular and there is no separation of church and state because the church, in essence, is the state.

My point here is the difficulty in understanding the Arab mind for the Westerner. The conceptual view is so radically different from our experiences.
In this case "know your enemy" is very difficult. I clearly remember the "religious police" in Riyadh and Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

IMHO the rule to live by is "flexible". You must be able to understand the other person's views. It is very difficult for us as Westerners to accept some of the ordinary social norms in that part of the world.