Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Spiral Traveller
New member
When I was about 10 years old, I had a problem. There was a kid who lived two houses down that was about 5 years old and a bully. He would hit other kids, kick them, and vandalize their property. He would take a bicycle and shove it into a drainage ditch filled with flowing runoff, snatch toys from their hands and lie about what others did to cause trouble. He did this to older kids. He relied on his age and size as protection from retribution, because if he was about to get his "come uppance", he would run to adults crying that HE was being bullied.
So goes the Middle East. To understand the Arab world and effectively conduct diplomacy there, we must understand that in their society, they invert Von Clausewitz's definition of war. Von Clausewitz described war as "merely a continuation of diplomacy by other means". To the Arabs, "diplomacy is merely a continuation of war by other means". In the Koran, Mohammed exhorts the use of these very tactics, calling for the use of peace talks to put an adversary off their game while you maneuver for tactical advantage (note: tactical not merely strategic) In the Arab world negotiations do not stem from a desire to arrive at a permanent, acceptable resolution, they are merely part of a strategy for overall victory. Just as we consider air power, sea power, and land power as tools in the conduct of war, so Riyadh, Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, Hebron etc. consider diplomatic action as a military arm. They use it to delay impending action, subvert alliances, and undermine morale. This is not a foreign concept to the west as a strategic maneuver during wartime, but our strategists typically do not use it at a tactical level. In practice this would be activities such as Germans sending a high level "peace" delegation on the eve of Ardenne's offensive to impair Allied readiness for the assault.
At this point in history, the Diplomatic weapon is the Arabs strongest armament. They cannot match the West for sheer military might. Any Arab army would be soundly trounced in a stand up fight, and they are not so foolish as to be unaware of this simple fact. However, their engagement in diplomatic maneuvers is not an acknowledgement of defeat and a way to seek peaceful resolution. Like the aggressive 5 year old, they will continue striking at us in any way they can, and will seek impunity through diplomacy and their perceived status of weakness. Were they to be able, rest assured that flights of their heavy bombers would be laying waste to the great cities of Europe, and the U.S. at this very moment. Denied that, they use terror. By funding, training, and providing resources to terrorists, they strike at us with plausible deniability, in a fashion not dissimilar to ancient privateers.
This cultural contrast has stymied the West since before the time of T.E. Lawrence due to our deeply ingrained belief in compromise as a resolution of conflict. Part of our attachment to this concept is our short view of history, seeking to accomplish the resolution of issues during the lifetime of the individuals involved. In the Middle East, there is no compromise because they take a much longer view of history. In the time scale of the Middle East, a 30 years war is a skirmish.
We cannot end this conflict by hanging a few pirates, because like Dorito's they will make more. Unable to concede defeat, they will have to be utterly defeated. Like Japan, this defeat must be so total, that the populations at large will question the validity of their very world outlook. Only then will they be amenable to the psychological reformation necessary to bring them into the modern world.
So goes the Middle East. To understand the Arab world and effectively conduct diplomacy there, we must understand that in their society, they invert Von Clausewitz's definition of war. Von Clausewitz described war as "merely a continuation of diplomacy by other means". To the Arabs, "diplomacy is merely a continuation of war by other means". In the Koran, Mohammed exhorts the use of these very tactics, calling for the use of peace talks to put an adversary off their game while you maneuver for tactical advantage (note: tactical not merely strategic) In the Arab world negotiations do not stem from a desire to arrive at a permanent, acceptable resolution, they are merely part of a strategy for overall victory. Just as we consider air power, sea power, and land power as tools in the conduct of war, so Riyadh, Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, Hebron etc. consider diplomatic action as a military arm. They use it to delay impending action, subvert alliances, and undermine morale. This is not a foreign concept to the west as a strategic maneuver during wartime, but our strategists typically do not use it at a tactical level. In practice this would be activities such as Germans sending a high level "peace" delegation on the eve of Ardenne's offensive to impair Allied readiness for the assault.
At this point in history, the Diplomatic weapon is the Arabs strongest armament. They cannot match the West for sheer military might. Any Arab army would be soundly trounced in a stand up fight, and they are not so foolish as to be unaware of this simple fact. However, their engagement in diplomatic maneuvers is not an acknowledgement of defeat and a way to seek peaceful resolution. Like the aggressive 5 year old, they will continue striking at us in any way they can, and will seek impunity through diplomacy and their perceived status of weakness. Were they to be able, rest assured that flights of their heavy bombers would be laying waste to the great cities of Europe, and the U.S. at this very moment. Denied that, they use terror. By funding, training, and providing resources to terrorists, they strike at us with plausible deniability, in a fashion not dissimilar to ancient privateers.
This cultural contrast has stymied the West since before the time of T.E. Lawrence due to our deeply ingrained belief in compromise as a resolution of conflict. Part of our attachment to this concept is our short view of history, seeking to accomplish the resolution of issues during the lifetime of the individuals involved. In the Middle East, there is no compromise because they take a much longer view of history. In the time scale of the Middle East, a 30 years war is a skirmish.
We cannot end this conflict by hanging a few pirates, because like Dorito's they will make more. Unable to concede defeat, they will have to be utterly defeated. Like Japan, this defeat must be so total, that the populations at large will question the validity of their very world outlook. Only then will they be amenable to the psychological reformation necessary to bring them into the modern world.
