Concerns on Modernizing Yemen

Views in Yemen

Yemen has become a hot bed for Al Qaeda and loosely affiliated organizations and it has returned to the spotlight after the so called underwear bomber incident last Christmas (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was trained in Yemen). It is fast becoming a main focal point for our battle against terrorism. CENTCOM is proposing supplying 1.2 billion dollars in military aid so that the 50% illiterate and 35% unemployed Yemen can combat Al Qaeda. In other words, there is a proposition to modernize Yemen in hopes that is will suppress radical Islam and give the government the means to effectively fight back. We have seen a version of this story many times in past 60 years: Iran, Iraq, Libya. While I am of course not privy to all the details and do consider Yemen to be a hotbed, I am still concerned about this constant theme that continues to infiltrate American foreign policy and strategy: modernization, money, and "seeing the light" will bring developing countries in the Middle East to an understanding and agreement with the United States.

The idea that "modernizing" a country will bring stability is not a new strategy in our foreign policy though it gets touted a lot as some new counterinsurgency strategy. Does this sound familiar?

"The wave of revolutionary nationalism in the Middle East that crested with Nasser's seizure of the Suez Canal helped persuade U.S. leaders that the academic experts who frequently advised them that the restless societies of the Third World were likely to become the principal battle grounds for the Cold War during the decades ahead" (Little 2008, 195).

Truman later supported connections between stability and economic aid, etc. which was encapsulated in his Point Four Program. Kennedy and others would continue on this line of thinking. However, after a good portion of Africa, Latin America, and Asia seemed to be heading in the opposite direction Kissinger noted that "Economic aid, by accelerating the erosion of traditional (frequently feudal) order, often made political stability even harder to achieve" (Little 2008, 196).


America invested significantly in Iraq during the Eisenhower era and it was the foundation to the Baghdad pact which sought to promote cooperation among Middle Eastern states and defense against Soviet aggression. It was a shock to see the prowestern government overthrown by Qassim. The US also funded the shah of Iran for years believing that Iran would be a moderate Middle Eastern state with heavy Western influence. We all know what happened in the end: the shah was seen as a tool of Western power by his people. There was plenty of available ammunition for Khomeini to build the case that the shah had betrayed traditional Islamic values. Alas, all that modernization effort produced an Islamic revolution. These are just two of several examples of a similar story. While each of these cases are different, they still carry in them a certain lesson and theme that I think the US has never really learned. Investment, economic aid, or military modernization does not automatically bring about a desired course of events and often brings about the exact opposite because we have naive and sometimes arrogant expectations.

Be careful what you wish for?

To quote Douglas Little in American Orientalism, "Why has America's quest for the Muslim equivalent of Thomas Jefferson been met so often with the likes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Qaddafi, and Ayatollah Khomeini?"

Again, I am not suggesting that the US abandon efforts in Yemen as it is obviously a location of great concern. I only hope we are being real in our expectations and our strategy before we decide to spend another billion dollars of tax payer money during a time when are national deficit is probably the most dangerous threat to our national security. I hope we are asking ourselves many questions. Is it somewhat arrogant for the US to assume that they can control what occurs in Yemen through modernization? Has this philosophy worked for us in the past? Are we still stuck in the somewhat naive rut of thinking thinking that "enlightenment" and "modernization" will bring the people of the world to seeing our point of view and not another prospective? And if they come to this "other prospective" do we really think events will always work in our favor?

I henceforth define "Orientalism" as...

A typical orientalist image.

My definition: Any description or observation made by a non Arab/Persian/Turk/Berber (you get my point) that has negative connotation or the potential thereof about Arabs/Persians/Turks/Berbers/etc and/or Muslims. Or any description of observation by the former about the later that implies any sort of responsibility on the part of sovereign nations in the Middle East and greater area for some of the problems that exist both domestically in those countries and in the international arena.

Some people might view that as an extreme definition but this definition is what I believe the term "orientalism" has begun to truly encapsulate. Now, of course, I do not discredit Edward Said for his observations made nearly 40 years ago. It is true that his version of Orientalism did and still does exist to an extent. However, it seems that in the academic community of the Middle East (at least here in Egypt) uses this term anytime anyone says anything disagreeable about the current state of affairs. Usually this "anyone" is a foreigner from the West. There are, however, a good number of students from the Far East who study Middle East politics and I plan to seek out their opinion on this current trend of discrediting anything disagreeable as "orientalist."

I concede that truly orientalist stereotypes and imagery still persist in the United States, such as Disney's Aladdin. As Douglas Little points out in American Orientalism, the love story is about "two rather Westernized Arabs, Aladdin and Princess Jasmine, whose English was flawless..." surrounded by "other inhabitants of their imaginary oriental sheikdom" depicted "as frightful thugs sporting turbans, daggers, and thick accents." Additionally, you cannot discount the lyrics of the opening song:

Oh I come from a land

From a far away place

Where the caravan camels roam

Where they cut off your ear

If the don't like your face

It's barbaric, but hey, it's home

Yes, this is most arguably a racist stereotype otherwise known in this context as "orientalist." I would, however, point out that this example comes from a Disney movie that is by no means supposed to be taken all too seriously. You can argue that we are subliminally implanting racist messages in our children but then again, perhaps Disney is also guilty of propagating gender stereotypes:

"Cinderella is a beautiful woman who cleans her house and does all of the chores that her evil stepmother (another gender bias) tells her to do. She is dependent on finding a man to come and sweep her off of her feet and save her from this terrible life. Prince Charming is of course the man to do it. He is handsome and everything that a girl could want in a guy. He is nothing short of perfect.

The perfect woman.

"Cinderella is forced to rely on a man to help her have a good life, even though she is smart, determined, and a wonderful girl, she cannot break out of her stereotypical lifestyle. The evil stepmother is a character that Disney likes to use often. The woman is typically the villain: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 101 Dalmatians, Cinderella, ect. Women are constantly portrayed as helpless creatures who lie around waiting for a man to save them from whatever predicament they got themselves into."

I will also concede that previous movies are also guilty of "orientalism" or reenacting the stereotype of the "white mans' burden." Lawrence of Arabia and even Indiana Jones fall into this category. I would also argue that the highly popular Avatar (extremely popular here in Egypt for its not so subtle analogy to the US invasion of Iraq) is yet another example of the noble savage stereotype. The tribes cannot save themselves without the help of the white man from the invaders. He is their savior and he is the only person who can ride their sacred bird. 

But, I do not agree that observations made in the realm of foreign policy always revolve around "orientalist" stereotyping. Cultural observations, while not perfect (they cannot be perfect considering that they are always subjective), are not always racist. Political observations are the same. I do not agree that I am being an "orientalist" if I observe that Egypt has no true method of animal control and that there are a preponderance of stray animals, often rabid, running the streets of Cairo. I'll take this a step further. If I want to analyze previous Arab wars and why they were potentially lost, I will need to make observations that often include cultural analysis. While this has the potential to seem racist because I may not a write a glowing report about why wars and battles were lost, this does not mean I am in some way degrading an entire race of people. The piece "Why the Arabs Lose Wars" is a great example of this phenomenon and is surely to be called "orientalist" in most academic circles. 

Now I will proceed with my "orientalist" and opinionated observations. The Middle East, particularly in the academic circles that should be leading the way for social change, is in a culture of victimization. No one is arguing that the colonial past was appropriate or justified. The very boundaries of nations created by the haggling between Britain and France at the conclusion of WWI are an example of the enormous influence and oppression Western powers projected onto the Middle East. However, the Middle East cannot continue to languish in the past and the injustices done. It produces very little results just as it produces very little results to blame most current injustices on the United States and Israel. The argument as to whether the accusations are true or not is not the point. If the Middle East continues to view themselves first and foremost as victims of Western powers who are unable to control their own destiny then there will be little reason to make an effort to change the current status quo. Constantly seeing yourself as a victim takes power out of your hands to change what you do not like. If it is America's job to fix the Middle East and resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict then this by default removes the agency and the power from the hands of the people here. If the Middle East has had no ability to stop the injustices committed against it or alter the current state of affairs, then this is in affect a type of racism. It denies Arabs/Persians/etc the ability and power to effectively address their current situation. It denies them the ability to seek change themselves. In this world, no one is going to fix your situation for you even if they should. In the end, you will have to take charge yourself. Constantly bemoaning the past will not produce anything for the future.  

Cheating on the Middle East with China

I am cheating on the Middle East today and having a scandalous affair with China and the US strategy in place or rather, the continuing status quo in the region. There is an insightful and balanced article in this month's edition of Current History by David Shambaugh ("A New China Requires a New US Strategy") that outlines US insufficiency in the region and possible steps forward for correction. Unfortunately this article is not viewable online unless you have a subscription to the digital version Current History (another extra 10 bucks for print subscribers...geez). He notes, and I agree, that one of the more alarming dynamics of the relationship occurs between the two sides militaries and intelligence agencies. Both sides are currently in a reactive cycle of interpreting the each other's defense for offense and so on. The cycle is dangerous and might eventually spin out of control.

I am no stranger to China paranoia and the anxiety caused by constantly observing their military development, particularly in the form of Anti Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) and Ballistic Missile capabilities. Their military actions do not seem to mesh with their diplomatic rhetoric. "Recent Chinese actions -- including the denial of safe harbor for U.S. naval ships, the surfacing of an attack submarine within striking distance of American warships, the buzzing of a Japanese navy ship by a Chinese helicopter in waters close to Japan, and the harassment of the USNS Impeccable, among others -- have all contributed to this dynamic" (Abraham Denmark and Zachary Hosford). However, the question in the back of my mind has always been whether or not we are fueling their reactions and vice versa in a vicious cycle. Of course this dynamic occurs somewhat but to what extent? Are we driving ourselves towards a confrontation? What is the US national strategy on China? What does the US want China to look like in the future? Regardless of some of these goals, there are some factors that the US should accept. Most of these go along with Shambaugh's article. 

Regardless of all the talk about the "China bubble" as one of my Japanese colleagues calls it, China is going to continue in economic growth. Perhaps the population crisis (also discussed in this month's Current History by Wang Feng) will come into play later down the road but China is not the only country dealing with an aging population issue. The young, cheap, labor market will perhaps not be an option for them in the future but this is not necessarily an inherent show stopper. So, China is going to keep growing economically. It is already a regional power in Asia and and is a rising global actor though not necessarily a truly global power. In fact, most of China's ambitions outside of its desire for natural resources seem to center around making itself THE power in SE Asia, extending into the South China Sea and the Pacific. This focus is still somewhat regional and not yet one of a power trying to seek global dominance. However, China is certainly not fully cooperating or approving of the current international systems and laws in place today and has not completely joined the community as a true team player. As many people point out, they may try to be a "revisionist" power in this Western dominated arena. In my opinion, this is where the most important "battlefield" with China is located. In light of China's status these days, the US should probably stop its general parental and patronizing attitude it often has in the international arena. China needs to be treated with respect (and caution) and as a global actor. It needs to have an excuse to come out of its "victimization" complex.

I agree with Shambaugh in that the contention over Taiwan is no longer a truly relevant issue. As he says, "game over." Taiwan and China are going to keep warming towards each other in the future. Taiwan's President actually said this year, "we will never ask the United States to fight for Taiwan." Maybe we should stop selling weapons to Taiwan and make China happy at least on that front. I am not sure we would be losing more than we would gain. I believe the US eventually wants to build mutual trust and agreement with China so that they are content with their inclusion and role within the international system. 

Returning to my original point, the cycle playing out between US and China militaries and intelligence communities is particularly worrisome. How do we stop this cycle from continuing? While I am much too cautious to advocate a cessation in our activity in the South China Sea (as Shambaugh recommends) it would be beneficial to take some baby steps in cooperation between navies, etc. We all care about anti-piracy and maritime security operations off the Horn of Africa. China has actually deployed assets from its Navy (a new move for them) to help with operations off of Somalia. Perhaps through interaction and mutual cooperation in arenas such as maritime security, US and China military personnel can build professional relationships and even a little trust. Maybe some damage can be done on the stereotypes that persist on each side. I am always an advocate of people-to-people interaction. In the end, this is where the real world actually happens. 

We can all make grand sweeping narratives, theories, and strategies about resolving international issues, but ultimately execution of strategy, relationships, and actual events occur at the "people-level." Just as US diplomats have become accustomed to working with their Chinese counterparts, it is probably time that the US military did some of the same so that communication can actually occur and either side can correct the deviation from reality that naturally takes place when two entities do not communicate. While we may not like each other or like what we see, we will more than likely have a more accurate perception about military intentions. We might even build that tiniest seed of trust between people that slowly develops into something more fruitful. 

Now, back to the Middle East.

Reflection on the Media

It is difficult for me this morning to grasp that September 11th happened nine years ago. The memory of it is still vivid and burned in my mind, as I know it is for all Americans. It is almost impossible to contemplate all that has taken place in the last nine years and to fully reflect on where we are now. I sit here today in the home country of one of the hijackers. It is Eid al Fitr here in the Islamic world. People are celebrating the end of Ramadan and enjoying their first big breakfasts in daylight. Lucille's, the diner in Maadi famous for American pancakes, was slammed yesterday morning. The streets are quiet and peaceful in the mornings. The Cairo air carried in it a tingle of cool breeze as I walked my dog at 9am.

In contrast to the travel advisory sent out two days ago, Cairo is relaxed, happy, and festive now. The response of many Egyptians to the madman in Florida has been one of calm observation. While they are deeply offended, they say that there are bad people everywhere. Violence is not warranted on their part and how can a man think that he could destroy the Quran anyway? How could a man destroy the word of God? It is impossible, he is only a man. The Quran will always be and he is only causing great offense to the many Muslims across the world.

There are many definitions of violence and abuse. I consider the Quran burning to be an act of violence. It is an act of hate towards a huge number of people. But then, it would not be so hurtful if not so many people knew of it. I hold the media responsible for fanning this flame. I am also aware that the general term "media" is over simplified and inadequate to fully address the issue. While it is the media's right to report what they choose, there should be discretion on their part and consideration of the consequences of their actions. This guy wanted all the media coverage and he got it.

Now the news is focused almost exclusively on America's diagnosis as Islamaphobic. You just need to look at the cover of Time magazine to see that. While the media does provide a certain amount of soul searching across the American public, I would also argue that it additionally reinforces ideas into the minds of most people. I hope it is not a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. If you focus on something obsessively you tend to become it. I am afraid that all this talk of Islamaphobia makes it more cemented into reality. It brings back old wounds and pains. We are rehashing the past again and again instead of moving forward in our relationships.

The media needs to recognize their power in stirring up emotion and shaping world view. I am sure they do already. They need to reconsider their role in national security. They need to remember that we are in a age of instant communication and interconnectivity. There is no longer one specific audience, like the American public, that receives a message. You cannot send out two different messages to two different audiences. You cannot say something to one and think the other has not heard. This is not the Cold War.  You have to remember our enemies exploit what we say and do. While fear should never be a driving factor in our actions, there is nothing wrong with sensible restraint.

Power Outage Distractions

Today is the beginning of Eid al Fitr, marking the celebratory end of Ramadan, ilhamdulillah. I intended to use this day for catching up in my national security / joint operations classes I am taking through correspondence. The classes coincidentally mesh rather well with my IR classes at The American University in Cairo (AUC) that started this week. I had just gotten to the point where I found a more satisfactory explanation of the American promotion of democracy world wide (I am not looking at this topic at the moment from a moral or ideological stand point but purely utilitarian benefit...maybe I'll return to this in a moment) when the internet died, half the house began losing power and then regaining it, and I somehow felt like I was back on a 40 year old warship having an engineering casualty.

My office lair complete with dog

Cairo is always plagued power outages and this summer has been the absolute worst. The power goes out at my house around every other day, generally at night. It is so predictable I have candles scattered throughout the house for more than aesthetic reasons. The power often fluctuates whether it goes out entirely or not and these occurrences result in flickering light bulbs, blown appliances, and so on. I usually lose power when I am deep in concentration reading an article on the internet, downloading a video or podcast, talking on skype, or doing any other number of things in my life that seem to center around the holy wireless internet set up. I do admit that maybe the setup could qualify for membership in the “ghetto” category:

The Holy Internet Configuration

I am aware I won't be passing any electrical safety inspections if anything of the sort exists in Egypt, the land of ungrounded electrical plugs. But this is nothing when you look at the basic set up for the phone line and incoming DSL line that originates from the laundry room:

Incoming phone and DSL line

This looks like there should be something more than a phone and DSL line coming from all this doesn't there? Especially looking at the enigmatic Panasonic box...well, I am sorry to disappoint, there is no fancy home intercom system or anything of the sort.

Today was a different experience than my usual power drops because only the downstairs items lost power quite suddenly. I though it must have something to do with my breakers (all pretty much unlabeled excepting those having undergone my trial and error experiments a year ago when I was trying to understand why my bathroom lights kept blowing up and blowing fuses). This phenomenon has of course been addressed on three different occasions by an electrician who rarely even shuts off power when tinkering with wiring. But, yes, all is as God wills it. Enshallah.

Danger indeed...

What will be the right answer today?

Finding nothing overly odd with the breaker box I assessed the situation to be a building phenomenon and not an isolated incident for me to deal with. I also unplugged the internet configuration when I realized that my router was on but nothing else showed power. Odd...

I donned an extra layer of clothing to cover my scandalous shoulders and went to ask the trusty bo'ab if there was something wrong with the electricity. La la...mafish mushkela, el karaba diyeefa dil'wati ashan eshirka. In other words, no problem...the electricity is "weak" right now because of the electrical company. I promptly unplugged anything of value that might get fried from insufficient power. Ah Cairo...how you always distract me when I am working.

So while I intended to write and post something useful, reflective, and indicative of the time I am passing reading riveting material like previous QDR's, the 2010 National Security Strategy, and my IR readings I have produced a pointless journal entry rant on my electrical irritations in Cairo. I can't always be serious.