It is a sad reality that due to its political nature there is in Washington both 'analysis' and 'spin'. The latter seeks to look like the former, but its purpose is to affect policy. Truth and balance are not a necessary component of spin: it is part of the mammoth lobbying effort that permeates Washington. Lobbyists are, at best, one sided, but to politicians who are largely ignorant of substantive issues and not too particular about procedural or substantive integrity, effective lobbyists can sometimes take on quasi-staff roles with the politicians.
The Saudi presentation was in the spin category, a collaboration between Perle et al, and the presenter. It's utility lies in the impact has on the thinking of policy-makers. Officially, Perle is not a policy-maker; he issuccessful only through influence, so leaking a presentation whose credibility he builds up by having it preseneted to his advisory group is the only way he can move Washington opinion against the Saudis. WHY he and the other neo-conservatives would do so is another matter. > The comment that can be made here is that the Muslim countries of the > Middle East are as different from one another as, say, west European > countries still are, despite almost parallel industrial develoment for a > century or more. Yes, this is absolutely correct. But understanding these vital differences requires study and understanding, something that the 'instant experts' who eagerly follow governmental interest from crisis to crisis are short on. You cannotr imagine the number of heretofore unknown 'experts' on terrorism have descended on Washington, eager to receive contracts! The Middle East field is now deluged with these charlatans; they learn enough to acquire a bit of a vocabulary, and sniff out some patron to serve. Those who are good at self-promotion and energetic enough can end up with considerable influence. If the government seems to be following naive and incoherent policy, you now know why. > However, I think most scholars would agree that the common feature of them > all is that, for subtle reasons that no-one has yet adequately > explained or > agreed upon, the Muslim Empire -- highly civilised, liberal, prosperous, > inventive, with great trading routes from Spain through to Asia -- started > retreating 500 years or so ago and has subsequently reacted with > increasing > anger against western civilisation rather than being able to reform (with > the possible exception of Turkey -- where the secularisation brought about > by Kemal Ataturk is now in some danger even after half a century of being > implanted). Yes, this question has been the subject of several books, recently, and some of them are pretty good. In part, it is simply a matter of why empires come and go -- nothing specific to Islam, and in part it has its unique Islamic components. This is a subject that I would love to discuss further, but I think it may radically exceed the scope of this list... > The reaction in most instances has taken the form of falling back to an > intensely puritanical form of Islam as the only way of retaining their > dignity and self-respect. We've seen this fairly recently in the case of > the rapid rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan -- which, I suggest, is far > from being defeated (I notice, most women are still wearing burkas!) Nothing wrong with burkas, Keith -- except that the Western feminist movement has labelled them oppressive. I haven't heard any feminist say 'Ooooops, maybe we were wrong. Maybe our Afghani sisters really DO like to wear burkas, in the same way that we Western women have our own clothing habits, rules and taboos. Hmmmmm," our enlightened feminist would go on to say, "I wonder what our Afghani sisters say about our high-heels, our display of skin, our make-up, our tight-clothing.....is it possible that they don't see, whith all these things, how advanced and sophisticated we western women are???" > This is particularly so in Saudi Arabia where, indeed, the present Saudi > royal family came to power by mounting a jihad in 1902 with the assistance > of the Wahhabi sect, and have been indebted to them ever since. 1922 perhaps? It wasn't a jihad -- it was a tribal war vs. the Hashemites. The Saudi tribe WAS Wahhabi -- they didn't do it with the assistance of such a 'sect'-- it is simply a desert tribal Arabian school of Islam. And, yes, Wahhabism is a strong social and moral force in Saudi Arabia, and does stand in variance to modernizing -- meaning, for better or worse -- westernizing forces Generally, the oil-rich countries -- and not just the Arab ones -- have tended to become dependent on foreign labor, manual and professional. Oil revenue money is distributed freely, in effect, to nationals of the country, and they do not have to do any work. So the nationals become dependent on the foriegn workers, and fail to develop as a work force of their own. This is the reality behind many of the symptoms you point to. This is a very hard nut to crack. Saudi over-spending has left them in debt, and so this pattern is being severely challenged -- and for simple economic reasons and not religious ones. Will Saudi Arabia and the others, find a way, despite their wealth, to evolve a competent diversified indigenous workforce? This is, IMHO, the number one issue before them. I did a detailed study (including a large public opinion survey) several years ago of this stuation in one such country (not SA) and was impressed by how hard it was going to be. With this inmind, I have renamed our thread. Best regards, Lawry
