Arab News offers an editorial cartoon suggesting how it might view a McCain-Palin administration:
Arab News, as most other Saudi media, had initially taken a strong liking to Barack Obama. The love affair cooled a bit after Obama addressed AIPAC, the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, where he made some remarks about Jerusalem’s being the ‘undivided capital of Israel’. But the general sense is that a Democratic administration would be better than a Republican one. This cartoon, I think, falls in line.
September:06:2008 - 09:10 | Comments & Trackbacks (14) | Permalink
14 Responses to “Pondering a McCain-Palin Administration”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
September:06:2008 - 18:47
Just an opinion, I watched both party conventions. I was terribly disappointed with the republican message. It sounded combative and isolationist. I think the cartoon does reflect how people from the Middle East would view the message McCain delivered. I know there is a more complex view that McCain has, but that was not what came out of the convention. The American people will resolve this through a fair election and I hope the rhetoric gets toned down.
September:06:2008 - 21:13
I’m all for toning down the rhetoric. This is one of the slimier elections I’ve seen, and that goes for both sides. Political blogs are almost unreadable right now.
BTW, that wasn’t the message I took from the Rep. convention, but different ears hear different things….
September:06:2008 - 21:44
I agree on the rhetoric issue on both side. I hope the debates will get the election on the track of discussing the issues not slogans and personalities.
I think how the convention is viewed can be different based on background and issues that matter to the person. Being of Middle Eastern background the convention struck the wrong cords for me. And that is for a person that is a fiscal conservative. I guess I do not belong in the demographic they are trying to reach.
I am looking forward for the debates and taking the show biz out of this. May be the message sounds different to me then.
September:06:2008 - 22:00
Cute. I wonder what type of cartoon Arab News will use to lampoon one of the Saudi political parties during their next election. What’s that …? Oh, right. Never mind.
September:06:2008 - 22:08
Perhaps we’ll live long enough to learn that…
September:06:2008 - 22:36
Also, we need to remember that Obama’s VP choice, Joe Biden, took a position contrary to what Arabs wanted in Iraq. He was the one calling for the country to be split along ethnic and religious lines. See the story from Reuters:
Biden unpopular in Iraq for autonomy plan
September:06:2008 - 23:05
ratherdashing,
That is probably the only sane solution for Iraq. Unfortunately the invasion sealed the fate of the country. What are you seeing now is temporary peace, I do not think it will last. The country has divided along sectarian and nationalistic lines and I do not think it can be put back together unless a new dictator emerges. The Kurds operate as a state within a state. The government has already started arrests of descendants who do not agree with the current structure. The best we can hope for is a federation with high degree of autonomy and an arrangement to divide oil revenue between the different groups.
It is not completely fair to say the US is responsible for the divide between Iraqi’s. It always existed. I saw it when I visited there as a teenager. It is just that the invasion created a vacuum of power that exposed what was boiling underneath. It was a huge strategic blunder.
September:06:2008 - 23:30
Saudi in US,
Call me naive, if needed. But, I have a more optimistic view. With American military presence and the example of how different ethnic & religious groups can work together toward a common goal, I believe Iraqis can maintain a pluralistic society that is based on their common nationality. There are many things that keep a diverse country together. One is a dictator. Others are sports, national news, national songs, democracy, rule of law, independent courts and division of power with a system of checks and balances.
This can all be achieved. I have trust in the Iraqi people to figure it out.
September:06:2008 - 23:57
ratherdashing,
I share your hope and it is not naive. Unfortunately, there are too many external influences involved here, There will always be another country or group igniting the flames. I just do not have a good feeling about Iraq. I could be proven wrong. Time will tell.
September:07:2008 - 09:24
Saudi in US,
I understand your concern. If Iraq were an island in the Pacific where “external influences” had a tougher time reaching them, it would be easier. On the diplomacy front, Iraq is getting more and more connected. Hopefully (again)it is in a good way. See the story below:
Factbox – Regional ties with Iraq start to grow
September:07:2008 - 15:12
Ratherdashing,
You have to think of the situation in Iraq based on internal groups and how the power players interact with them.
1) The Shiia groups: This can also be divided in 2 distinct groups. a) Government players: who may lean towards secular structure, but is full of power hungry and greedy players that will try to gain as much wealth as possible. The issue for this group is they really do not have the loyalty of all the members of the army. on paper they control it, but if a sectarian fight starts you will see defections. That is a civil war in the making. b) the dedicated Shiia that have a cause of establishing a form of government that protects what was a very oppressed majority and a goal of implementing a Islamic rules that comply with their brand of Islam. They have very strong militias like the Mahdi Army.
2) The Kurds: Probably the most united group. They do have differences between different groups, but they are focused on what they consider external enemy. Breaks between groups may be exposed in the future. For now you have to think of Kurds like Palestinians, they have struggled for decades to have self determination and they will never give up control of their territories without a fight. Long term even the most moderate Kurds will have a tough time controlling radicals that will venture into Turkey to conduct operations.
3) Sunni groups and tribes: Yes we minimized the influence of AQ at the expense of arming the tribes. Which has militias now and will not give them up as they know there are counter militias on the other side. Hence they will want autonomous territories that they can protect.
4) The real minorities like Christians, Ismaili’s, Jews (very small now), etc. Some of these groups were under threat of ethnic cleansing and in some ways still are. The challenge for the US is how to protect these groups. I do not think that will be easy and they may be forced out of the country completely.
Sorry this is getting long, but I am really trying to summarize here.
If you look at the above, you will see the country is already dividing into 3 areas Sunni, Shiia and Kurd. The only thing holding the country is a dream of unity that I do not see happening. The central government in many ways have corrupt/greedy politicians that the militias will not accept because they want their share of oil revenue. You will see the government try to appease them through payments, which will be used to buy more weapons. Sorry to say, I do not see nationalistic pride emerging, but more ethnic, sectarian, tribal and self interest running the country. This will take a long time to resolve if ever. I think the safer bet is dividing the country and try to develop a federation.
Regarding the players. I think you can slot those easily:
1) US will support the central government, but will have a hard time staying in country for the long term. Turning power over to regular army will work in the short term, but I do not think this army will be able to remain completely loyal to the central government.
2) Iran: has broad interest in supporting Shiia groups that are anti US and Saudi. They will always put pressure on the central government through support of militias.
3) Turkey: A very powerful military power that will not stand for insurgency of kurds. Turkey has always been wise in applying its military muscle, but will apply it if needed to destabilize the Kurds power in the north.
4) Saudi: will support Sunni tribes with money for weapons. There is also religious groups that will continue sending fighters.
5) Syria: Always under estimated. Syria has always been clever in aligning with different groups to maintain its interest. Their purpose here is to control the Kurds and maintain its alliance with Iran in supporting Hizballah in Lebanon.
It is not a pretty picture. Iraq exposes all the problems and the divisions in the Middle East as it sets in the crossroads of the sectarian divide. Lebanon had a bloody civil war that lasted a decade and it did not solve anything. I am afraid Iraq can turn into an even bigger problem if you consider all the divisions and the amount of money that can be gained by controlling the oil.
Again, I wish I can see a brighter picture here. I just do not think we have addressed the major issues yet. We have patched it for the short term.
September:07:2008 - 17:23
Saudi in US,
I know all of that. The challenges for Iraq are enormous. I see them as a battered child that has to overcome past hurts to move on with life. Every day that we hear hopeful news is another day toward them joining peaceful coexistence in the world. Here is my very quick answer to your point by point analysis of the players and pressures in Iraq. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on any point or fact. I’m no expert.
What concerns me less:
1. Shia militias. They have been largely knocked down by the US military and the IA. Their brand has suffered discredit. Al-Sadr would be on his third or fourth try if he lathers them up again. This includes the Mahdi Army & Sadrists (one in the same?).
2. AQ in Iraq. They’re essentially defeated. Roadside bombs are the measure of their strength and currently IED’s are down 70%. Sunnis have mostly rejected what they had to offer. They’re left to just killing Muslims like how they began. This earns no respect.
3. Kurds. They are gaining heavy international investment and shouldn’t want to screw that up by destabilizing Iraq with a break away attempt. They are also becoming a vacation destination for the middle class in the rest of Iraq. Economics keeps them playing along.
4. Turkey. The US helped them locate the PKK earlier this year when the PKK was causing trouble . This is all part of letting moderate voices prevail and defeating the extremists.
What concerns me more:
1. Corruption & Greed. That is why the second election and independent courts and checks and balances in a new democracy are so important. The 2008 elections are expected to be delayed until early 2009. But, they will be held. Recall these are the Governorate elections that the Sunnis boycotted in 2005. They will participate this next time. Iraq will then have more people with a vested interest in the government working.
2. Iran. Although vulnerable to internal change, they are boxed in and scared. That makes them dangerous. I can see them willing to strike (in Iraq, in Lebanon via Hezbollah, in Israel, in Bahrain, in the Strait of Hormuz) just to create havoc.
3. Syria. I don’t like their president.
Thanks for your input.
September:07:2008 - 21:01
I believe the Biden plan has been misunderstood. Iraq would be have a federalist system. Each territory would have be like a state with some autonomy, but there would be a central government that would divide oil revenue, provide services, and protect the rights of minorities. Bagdad would be every groups capital. Iraq would not be divided.
September:08:2008 - 04:04
Ratherdashing,
I think we probably have a major disagreement on nationalism as a major factor in driving solutions that can overcome these major issues. When you think of nationalism in US terms (I am using the US here because of my familiarity) it is a strong part of the identity of citizens. The country has over 2 centuries of history driving loyalty to a nation. This is not the case in the Middle East where the map of nations was drawn roughly 50 years ago based on which colonial power controlled an area and the timing of withdrawal. Subsequent to that most of the countries were ruled by royals or totalitarian parties. Citizens never felt as part of governing or driving the direction of the nation. The result is citizens had a national identity but never held that as the primary one. Loyalties to sect (in case of shiiat), tribes, heritage (Kurds), and even Ban Arabism are major competitors to the concept of Nationalism. In the case of Iraq only Baathest had strong national loyalty, because they participated in power. Hence I just do not see nationalism will carry the day.
Regarding the areas that concern you less:
1) I disagree that Shiia militias disappeared. They are part of the population and can reorganize when the opportunity presents itself. You have to understand that Shiiat place very high importance on loyalty to religious leaders and their families. Al-Sadar will always have strong support just based on the position of his family. There are a few families that are placed in a position of being almost sacred (for lack of a better word), the Sader is one of them. The loyalty cannot be broken just defeated tactically.
2) I agree that AQ was never going to be a lasting power in Iraq. Their ideology just does not fit. They lasted during the period of weakness of local groups, but they were doomed to failure from the start. Unfortunately, they were able to light the fuse of the sectarian fight during this short period.
3) I agree on the Kurds gaining international support. But that strengthen my view that they will only fit into a federation or a separate country.
I think we agree on the other points.
I still of the opinion that the only way Iraq can be managed is through a federation and segregating the groups. Time may heal the wounds in the long term under that model.