dear m,

so, you're saying that "westerners" simply don't give a shit about "easterners" and thus any "western" involvement in "eastern" affairs will fail?

what you cited is a comment, not an article by anyone on that mag. there are all sorts of comments on all sorts of sites.

personally, i think that "caring about egyptians (or syrians, iraqis, lebanese, etc.)" is precisely what distinguishes a number of so-called "leading neo-cons" (i am thinking particularly about paul wolfowitz) from mere "centered around pure u.s. interests" politicians, like cheney.

also - one doesn't have to "care about egyptians" to have non-idiotic foreign politics.

--raf*

"so, you're saying that "westerners" simply don't give a shit about "easterners" and thus any "western" involvement in "eastern" affairs will fail?"

More narrow actually, and nothing so grandly civilizational, I am saying that most Americans today have views of Egyptians, Arabs or Muslims, and often nonwhites, that are indifferent at best, and twisted at worst, and this is the rule not the exception.

And that if a policy requires SUSTAINED caring supervisory commitment, as opposed to mere non-idiocy, it requires a level of informed and positive engagement that not only is not prevalent among Americans towards MENA-ites but is even more than merely indifferent (worse than the quote above) but often actively or passively hostile. (And even the best intentions when done by governments add another layer of problem...)

It is quite true that a few neocons care, in a wrong but sincere way (Wolfowitz being a great example), many others pretend to care, and most may or may not care but do so with perceptions and aims distorted by Bernard Lewis, Raphael Patai, and even Leon Uris.

Back to governments: An important aspect of any systematic policy, especially when done by governments, is the fact that no matter how well designed, it will be implemented by parties other than oneself, the idealist and/or designer. Often those others have quite different perspectives and interests and incentives than the the designers -- I think, though I am not well-versed in the official literature, that this is one core of the classical liberal critique of government overmanagement of society, if not it should be.

And where the likely people carrying something out are folks with hostile indifference to those they are supposed to benefit, it will end up as the clusterfunk that L wathced almost literally out his window a few years back, and that we still see in Iraq now.

Back to sentiment: In the case of USA, and the quote by Derbyshire is not the best example (it is the pithiest and most candid, but he is unique in a way as an individual) but his sentiments I KNOW to be the dominant one here, and frankly a more prevalent one than admitted aloud or to themselves among more rank and file America-empirists. Most American interventionists who have an ideal for others are more primarily motivated to feel good about themselves for doing it, and only secondarily for the improvement that may be done. So wishful thinking rules and ignorance is preferred.

Back to indifference: One could note for example, that this ferry sea disaster was of the scope of the Titanic, but it was off the top of CNN's (USA) online list in about 6 hours or so, as I recall, in favor of some incident somewhere where fewer than 10 people were injured (if memory serves).

You both make excellent points, but I tend to agree with Mathew's more. Sustainability is key to success, and it requires people who are directly responsible for implementing policies to be passionate about the region. This is why I believe that, in the final analysis, sustainability of change efforts in the region requires cooperation between the civil societies involved, and should not be solely handled on the policymaking level.

The attitude may be unsettling but it's one that most editors live by. There are various unofficial mantras for news coverage, such as "1 Brit=10 Frogs=100 Indians" in determining story "values" (this for UK papers obviously).

There is a valid reason why US news coverage is so insular. People really don't care that much about "foreigners", unless they die in an apolcalyptic scale. And even then interest wanes rapidly, as any relief organisation will tell you.

Further to this is that rich people's deaths are far more fascinating than poor people's. They shouldn't be, but they are. Ten Mexican millionnaires drowing off a luxury yacht is infinitely more sensational than ten Mexican peasants drowning off a fishing boat. The reason why goes far deeper than sheer rarity value (ie peasant fishermen probably drown quite frequently) it has origins in the fact that most people subconsiously value rich and educated people more than poorer people. Plus they also either subconsciously resent them, giving their deaths a certain schadenfreude value, or they identify with them (like the cruise ship guy about) giving their deaths and extra spine-shiver value.

I am saying that most Americans today have views of Egyptians, Arabs or Muslims, and often nonwhites, that are indifferent at best, and twisted at worst, and this is the rule not the exception.

Totally. And albeit possibly to a lesser extent, Europeans and other people from "fat white" countries.

The attitude may be unsettling but it's one that most editors live by. There are various unofficial mantras for news coverage, such as "1 Brit=10 Frogs=100 Indians" in determining story "values" (this for UK papers obviously).

There is a valid reason why US news coverage is so insular. People really don't care that much about "foreigners", unless they die in an apolcalyptic scale. And even then interest wanes rapidly, as any relief organisation will tell you.

Further to this is that rich people's deaths are far more fascinating than poor people's. They shouldn't be, but they are. Ten Mexican millionnaires drowing off a luxury yacht is infinitely more sensational than ten Mexican peasants drowning off a fishing boat. The reason why goes far deeper than sheer rarity value (ie peasant fishermen probably drown quite frequently) it has origins in the fact that most people subconsiously value rich and educated people more than poorer people. Plus they also either subconsciously resent them, giving their deaths a certain schadenfreude value, or they identify with them (like the cruise ship guy about) giving their deaths and extra spine-shiver value.

I am saying that most Americans today have views of Egyptians, Arabs or Muslims, and often nonwhites, that are indifferent at best, and twisted at worst, and this is the rule not the exception.

Totally. And albeit possibly to a lesser extent, Europeans and other people from "fat white" countries.

Raf has a good point about the policy motivations, with concern for the average Arab for the first time making its way into policy considerations. Remember the good old days, when it was all about out-maneuvering the Soviets, and to hell with the consequences? (I'm not just talking about MENA here.)

However, the point about sustainability is important too, since any effort made by the US government has to survive multiple elections to be of any use. I think Americans do recognize that things in the Middle East can't be done half-assed and incomplete any more, from some of the polls I've seen on the Iraq situation. As long as they can do better than the willful lack of empathy displayed in that quote.