Dear L,

do I understand him correctly that he believes that traditional (what he thinks is mainstream) Islam is something the West is fighting (and that is fighting the West)?

If that is the case, then he's not any different than the Bushies.

--MSK

No, you do not understand him correctly. In fact you get his meaning 180 deg. reversed. He's indicating that (i) the US Administration's framing of the war - it's Islamofascist usage - is in effect a war on traditional Islam in general, and (ii) this is a mistake.

I think that he's saying what the Bushies aren't saying but really are doing.

I don't see what you are getting out of this L.
If I understand him correctly, he's equating Islamic Fascism to Islam, not indicating that this is how the Bush administration is framing it.
In other words, he's saying that the 'fight against Islamic fascism' is actually 'fight against Islam' because Islam *is* Islamofascism. Bush doesn't enter here.

Note:
'I say that "freedom" as the bushies use the term is code and really means westernization and "globalization"'

'"Islamic Fascism" means, I think, simply "Islam."'

Why else would he also include:
"There wil be a reaction to what I have written here. It will be similar to the outrage vented on me by a former congressman from the Midwest who went on and and on about the nice ladies who come to his office to tell him that Muslims are a peaceful lot."

Afraid you're not reading him correctly mate, he's indicating the Islamofascism usage by Bush is equivalent.

I've been reading this fellow for a while, you and MSK are reading him 180 from his meaning.

Is Pat Lang suggesting that the version of Islam that the Bushies etc like to call Islamofascism and a "hijacked" version of the religion is actually what "traditional" Islam looks like? Not sure I'd agree with that, seeing as political Islam evolved with an explicit agenda to go further than "traditional" Islam, and arguably it was quite revolutionary.

Though I agree with the picking and choosing of "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims" by the Bushies, rather like their "moderate" and "extremist" labels of convenience.

I'm afraid, while I haven't read this writer over any longer period than this article, that it certainly could be read that he's essentialising "Islam" to "what we're fighting against" - if there's some brilliant refutation of this, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I'm left with the impression that he reads some Somali who was bombed in the air strike as being part of "traditional Islam" that the essentialised "America" is at war with, just as much as when some family member or fellow Somali, radicalised by this bombing, joins some al-Qa'ida-affiliate, and saws off some "American infidel" head on videotape, while quoting Qur'an and hadith, that he is a "traditional muslim" whose war with "America" is because of West versus East, democracy and freedom versus Islam and Sharíah. Garbage, and not just because I follow what I consider traditional Islam, and because I still reserve the right (which can be argued from his words) to define my religion.

It's also because those women he talks about condescendingly also have the right to(and quite certainly do) define "traditional Islam" as being opposed to "Saudi, Hanbali, Wahhabi, Iranian Shi'i extremist, etc" Islam that he, who gets to speak for "America" may be at war with. If he gets to select his own identity, so do others. And assuming that others mean what you mean by "Islam", "America", democracy, or freedom, is precisely what is meant by essentialism.

Sorry, I'd appreciate clarity.

I'd go further, and say that Osama, with comments in his (along with others) "fatwa against the Crusaders and Zionists" available in translation from www.fas.org [link: www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm ], like "we have a fiqh, but not like the fiqh that the scholars of Salul" (he's mocking the extremist takfir-declaring Salafi-Wahabi scholars of Saudi who happen to prefer the Sa'ud-American alliance to the Taliban, and is more extremist than them - interestingly, this "colonel" is misinformed enough to think that way Shariah is understood in Saudi are valid enough to be considered as "Hanbali fiqh")...

Perhaps a bit of scholarship and defining of terms, and allowing muslims to choose what Islam means for them, and when people who ought to better informed, such as Lounsbury or others on this blog, use false definitions, that's offensive. I can understand from the "colonel", what he may have received from his background, watching 9/11 and Khoemeini, and videos of muslims shouting "Allahu akbar!" while cutting off heads - I can understand why he would, without exposure to Islamic scholarship, Shariah, Tassawuf, and methodology of legal understanding [minhaj-ul-fiqh] [www.sunnipath.com, www.masud.co.uk, www.alhabibali.com, or what's discussed at www.higher-criticism.blogspot.com for example], be ignorant of Islam. I'm less accepting when people who might be expected to be aware of a more justifiably described "Traditional Islam"... aren't.

Sorry if I've misunderstood.

If indeed he meant what L is saying then that was just lousy writing.

Globalization is just code for capitalist expansion. In that light, what's the difference between the current situation, i.e. such expansion being blocked by traditionalism, and that described by Macauley regarding the correct British relationship with India?

"It would be, on the most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the people of India were well governed and independent of us, than ill governed and subject to us; that they were ruled by their own kings, but wearing our broadcloth, and working with our cutlery, than that they were performing their salams to English collectors and English magistrates, but were too ignorant to value, or too poor to buy, English manufactures. To trade with civilised men is infinitely more profitable than to govern savages."

Islam is as much as an obstacle to the triple conflation of Modernity/Democracy/Capitalism as 17th century Puritanism was or the Southern Agrarians were or Hippies or the Chinese. Lang cuts through the ideological mumbo-jumbo of FREEDOM, Western civilization, etc. to emerge at the shopkeeper's door. All that oil money will buy a lot of cutlery.

Better questions are how and why Muslims might actually resist such expansion.

The passage, as cited here from Lang, does sound -- in the last part about ladies and the Congressperson -- as if the author is saying that traditional Islam IS "Islamofascism" and we should be fighting or fearing it. Perhaps not his meaning (no time to check at the moment) but it comes across that way.

For those unfamiliar with Colonel Lang, his career was spent as a MENA and intel specialist, at a high enough level to be involved in drawing up NIEs and in NSC discussions. He still receives briefs from the DoD, so he's plugged in to what is going on, it would appear.

Like Collounsbury, I've been reading him for some time and, while I often disagree with Lang, I seriously doubt he meant what several commenters have inferred. I take his remarks as a swipe at western and in particular, Bush policy makers, ignorance of the Islamic world.

"Globalization is just code for capitalist expansion."

I used to think this, but I was wrong. Globalization is what is happening with or without major trade organizations coming out of the woodwork to try to rule all... it's happening because of the technologies that enable a shrinking of the planet. Right now, I live in the United States and manage a team of software developers in India: that's globalization. The "Bushie" globalization is certainly an approach to it that favors big businesses, but big businesses cannot possibly withstand the pressure of everyone on earth having the same access to the same development tools, ideas and methodologies as everyone else. Because of this, because of globalizing strategies and business practice, there is more time for more idea generation which create more jobs and fewer people spending time on grunt work. Globalization ultimately is a good thing.

Far above: Globalization is just code for capitalist expansion.

And he says this like it's a bad thing!

Near above: Yeah, even as a far from observant Muslim I'm a bit reluctant to sign on to any project that will end up steamrolling what's left of traditional Islamic culture, leaving behind a has been caricature of its former self. Think Oman, or Jaisalmeer. But you can't block progress, eh? I agree with Lang's conclusion, and while I can't know how he feels about it, I think it sucks.

Further above. A lot of changes went into letting you farm out your work to India. Is it good for Indian society and culture, will that society and culture feed some of its mores and values back into our own creating new Cosmopolitan? Have you become a little bit Indian? Somehow I doubt it; flattening out just means that some are flatter than others.

So, on the one side stands Mr. Starbuck (a dreadful but, given the discussion, legitimate econo-literary pun), with Ahab on the other. Even Lang winced a little at the degradation of Christian culture, we should do no less at the coming erasure of the Islamic world. Perhaps a little lower layer is in order.

Am another frequent reader of Col. Lang and have to say that Lounsbury and zenpundit have it right regarding the Colonel's post. As I read it, both 'freedom' and 'Islamic fascism' have "special" meanings coming from the Bushies, which are either duplicitous, delusional or some mixture of both. The "special" meaning of "Islamic fascism" means "Islam that is not like our Christianity, a completely separate sphere from politics or economics, aside from a few silly people whom we easily manipulate." Or in short, Islam that is not like the Church of England (politically powerful in name only).

Even I am aware that there is a broad range of sentiment about what Islam should be among Moslems, far broader than the range from a liberal Episcopalian evolutionary scientist to a snake handler. Some Moslems certainly would share Bush's desire for an Anglicanization of their religion. But not all, and his fight on 'their' side is as counterproductive a bit of cultural imperialism to come down the pike since the missionary societies started sending people to India (if as I do you give them a big chunk of blame for the Mutiny).

Also, hat tip to Lounsbury for his restraint in dealing with the various anti-capitalists in the comments. I particularly liked the fellow who advocated the need to divorce 'modernity' from 'capitalism' and admit the possibility of a non-capitalist modernity. I live in a country that had one of those; it went broke.

Dear L,

as there are quite a few people here who are confused about what exactly Lang himself stands for ... is there any chance to invite him to comment here?

I've read through a bit of his blog and also defer to your and ZenPundit's experience with him.

But the post cited above really is a bit confusing.

--MSK

You're adults, leave a comment.

I have been following him for months and feel quite comfortable with my reading of his comment (although yes, one can nitpick it to death re the meaning of traditional Islam, but I have little use for academic nitpicking parsing of throw away phrases in this context so go the fuck ahead and do so if it pleases you. And if I have misread him, well fuck me)

Finally re the moronic comment supra re globolisasition, more on this later.

To take Mark:
Like Collounsbury, I've been reading him for some time and, while I often disagree with Lang, I seriously doubt he meant what several commenters have inferred. I take his remarks as a swipe at western and in particular, Bush policy makers, ignorance of the Islamic world.

I should think that anyone with an ordinary degree of reading comprehension in the language of Shakespeare, as the French saying goes, would be able to take away this meaning -if one is not a knee jerking Leftist ideologue.

I seem to have picked up too many of such readers with the misapprehension I have the slightest sympathy for the Left (as opposed to a deep contempt for the Right Bolshevism of the Bush Admin ideologues).

L: I seem to have picked up too many of such readers with the misapprehension I have the slightest sympathy for the Left...

It's a bipolar world (in both senses of the term). I myself look forward to the day when I can cordially despise most of what you write & advocate.

Now as to this silliness:

Globalization is just code for capitalist expansion.

Economic globalisation is certainly a phrase covering intensification of international trade.

If you wish to use hackneyed Left phrasing, feel free, but it is hardly "code."

In that light, what's the difference between the current situation, i.e. such expansion being blocked by traditionalism, and that described by Macauley regarding the correct British relationship with India?

A serious question?

The death of mercantalism - well rather the diminuation of mercantalism at the governmental level in favour of liberalism.

The end of colonial rule and the armed opening of markets as such (and no I give no credence to over-heated Left accusations that such continues).

The opening of most developed markets to "basic manufactures" from the developing world.

The availability of foreign capital to finance "native" investment without colonial tutelage nor colonial ownership - the access to capital, however, imperfect, being a major change.

"It would be, on the most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the people of India were well governed and independent of us, than ill governed and subject to us; that they were ruled by their own kings, but wearing our broadcloth, and working with our cutlery, than that they were performing their salams to English collectors and English magistrates, but were too ignorant to value, or too poor to buy, English manufactures. To trade with civilised men is infinitely more profitable than to govern savages."

Or in short, no one buys GAP, nor Starbucks, nor any other Westerern (generally actually made in the emerging markets themselves, not an English manufacture at all) product, and indeed emerging market manufacturers as brands in their own right.

Islam is as much as an obstacle to the triple conflation of Modernity/Democracy/Capitalism

This charabia of Left academic whanking presumably means the writer does not care for the combination.

Modernity is intellectual whanking, so such things can fuck off. Democracy has its own value, as do free markets.

Lang cuts through the ideological mumbo-jumbo of FREEDOM, Western civilization, etc. to emerge at the shopkeeper's door. All that oil money will buy a lot of cutlery.

I have no idea what the bloody fuck this means, really. Other than you are accusing Lang of clarity.

Better questions are how and why Muslims might actually resist such expansion.

Well, Muslims can engage in atavistic whanking, cutting off their noses to spite their faces, or they can work in the proven framework of liberalism, economic and political, to create wealth and a better future for themselves.

Sephard
The "Bushie" globalization is certainly an approach to it that favors big businesses, but big businesses cannot possibly withstand the pressure of everyone on earth having the same access to the same development tools, ideas and methodologies as everyone else.

Well, the Bush Administration shows all the signs of being captive of cronyism, which is not a disease of capitalism nor globalisation as such, but an anti-liberal malady.

But yes, the feared image of the multi/trans-national is a chimera.

Globalization ultimately is a good thing.

Indeed.

I remind The Lounsbury that over at Marc Lynch's blog he smirkingly wondered what Muslim interests might actually be. The possibility that Bush's war is against Islam itself, which I said on that blog and which Lang agrees with, is one. Taking it as the starting point and assuming that the motivation for this war against Islam is not some flaky Christian milleniarism, then his parenthetical comment here:

"The end of colonial rule and the armed opening of markets as such (and no I give no credence to over-heated Left accusations that such continues)."

is bullshit. What the fuck is the occupation about other than transforming Iraq into a Modern/Democratic/Capitalist country? This of course is the holy trinity of the neo-cons, whose project this war against Islam actually is. Recognizing that would be the same as acknowledging the existence of giraffes, however, and thus beyond The Lounsbury's notions of zoological possibilities, unlike our little brown Muslim brothers, for whom his patience is running our and whose truculence inspires the monocle scrunching:

"Well, Muslims can engage in atavistic whanking, cutting off their noses to spite their faces, or they can work in the proven framework of liberalism, economic and political, to create wealth and a better future for themselves."

Good point. Of course the Muslims could tell the West to fuck off, wipe their asses with selected pages from Hume and get bombed back to the Pleistocene for their trouble, or impudence - it's hard to tell sometimes when The Lounsbury is channeling Bounderby or Macauley - as in:

"This charabia of Left academic whanking presumably means the writer does not care for the combination (modernity/democracy/capitalism)."

I care for it just fine, when I'm in New York, or Rio or London, or any other place where religious sensibility has long bellied up to the exigencies of free speech, free trade and Capital. In those places, globalisation means you get to eat 'designer homous at 10 dollars a plate', in the Muslim world it means you get turned into humus.

"It will be similar to the outrage vented on me by a former congressman from the Midwest who went on and and on about the nice ladies who come to his office to tell him that Muslims are a peaceful lot."

I have to agree with Zenpundit and Lounsbury. I don't think Col. Lang was being judgemental. These nice ladies could have been Muslims offering their advice on how peaceful Christianity is. Peaceful? Yes? Within limits.

I think Col. Lang was suggesting that Islam, and Christianity, are movements that traditionally are both peaceful and violent. In that sense, we are fighting a traditional movement. Also, as non muslims there is really nothing much, as perhaps Iraq has shown, we can do about fixing it (except perhaps stir it up a bit).

I have really never thought about today's situation in that term "traditional". It does seem like both Christian and Islamic reactions have a history as we are still seeing today, but then, I am not a historian.

Col. Lang clarified his comment:

What I meant was that the Bush/Cheney hides behind statements that it is engaging Islamic extremism but what it is really doing is fighting traditional Islam whether or not they will admit it to others or themselves. pl

Eerie:

Is there a way to not have to re-enter the feline anti-spammer when previewing a message? I always get caught and my messages get filtered whenever I do a preview, like just happened.

Eerie,
What Frandroid said. My earlier comment above was delayed quite some time for the same reason. Of course, this is still my fault for not being more careful...

As per the globalization discussion, well, it's a term that covers a whole lot of things. In some cases it involves local producers/exporters of comparatively raw materials getting locked into relationships that look pretty mercantilist, except involving corporations instead of governments. Consider cocoa or coffee. It's certainly far from an unalloyed good.
Having said that, the 'middle income' country in which I live has benefitted no end from globalization. The great 'economic genius' who is now President, one Klaus (no relation to ours) tried very hard to push a nationalistic economic policy back in his days as FM and PM. The idea was to keep foreign capital out and use state-owned banks to provide capital to large privatized Czech concerns, while discouraging foreign ownership, resulting in Czech multinational 'playas.' Klaus called this 'the Czech way.' The problems with this were 1) not enough capital ("Capitalism without capital" was a favorite rubric for critics.), 2) not enough business expertise and 3) State interference via control of credit when companies did things politically distateful. For an example of the latter, a couple of the big Czech corpos started buying up small, heavily indebted firms with the intention of asset stripping them. There was an outcry in the Press, and low and behold the government pressured the corpos into keeping their remaining acquisitions intact despite their nonviability.
The end result of years of this policy were a bunch of failed large Czech companies, a huge amount of bad debt owed to the banks, the disappearance of a chunk of wealth from the economy, and various politically connected senior managers (almost invariably with shady Commie pasts) somehow coming out of it all with large personal fortunes.
The one large manufacturing company that did not suffer this fate was Skoda Auto, which not coincidentally was the one large company that was sold to foreign owners.
The following government did a 180 and bent over backwards to accomodate foreign direct investment. There are problems with this too, of course, but right now people have jobs and there's an economic boom. There are Czechs learning how successful multinationals run things, too.
The inflow of capital and knowledge and the opportunities presented by globalized capitalism have pretty much saved this country.

I am glad the misreading can be laid to rest.

Now, to this:

I remind The Lounsbury that over at Marc Lynch's blog he smirkingly wondered what Muslim interests might actually be.

I am not a smirker mate, I may have contemptuously sneered at some bollocks, don't recall myself.

The possibility that Bush's war is against Islam itself, which I said on that blog and which Lang agrees with, is one.

Well, a global religious war would be a genuine pan-Islamic interest, that is true.

And that certian portions of the Bush Adminsitration are inclined in this direction is also clearly true.

However, as I don't recall my original comment and the context, this is hardly of interest.

Taking it as the starting point and assuming that the motivation for this war against Islam is not some flaky Christian milleniarism, then his parenthetical comment here:

Eh?

[My comment]
"The end of colonial rule and the armed opening of markets as such (and no I give no credence to over-heated Left accusations that such continues)."

[Our lad's retort]
is bullshit. What the fuck is the occupation about other than transforming Iraq into a Modern/Democratic/Capitalist country?

Hardly bullshit.

First, of course the Iraq occupation is something of a abberation in the last 60 years of history. It's colonial aspect is arguable, indeed I elsewhere defended Brezhinski's swipe at it as colonial as a definsible critique although not one I share in particular.

Of course part of the original CPA brief was to magically transform Iraq into a little America - or worse, the naive vision of some Right Bolsheviks (which about a strong a grasp of real free markets as Left Bolsheviks, only they fetishize rather than hate) of America.

That's hardly the same as whinging on about Starbucks or the like.

And again, anachronistic, as Brezhinski noted.

Of course, they were not even marginally competent enough to actually do anything. Pity, even in their deluded approach to magically creating a free market and liberal society out of thin air, just add water, had they been marginally competent a few good things might have resulted.

However, none of that magical talk got anywhere at all (whatever that silly twat Naomi Klein whinges on about).

This of course is the holy trinity of the neo-cons, whose project this war against Islam actually is.

And?

Three concepts, leaving aside the first one which is vague academic cultural blah blah whanking on, that seem fine as goals.

Recognizing that would be the same as acknowledging the existence of giraffes, however, and thus beyond The Lounsbury's notions of zoological possibilities, unlike our little brown Muslim brothers, for whom his patience is running our and whose truculence inspires the monocle scrunching:

I read this twice and still have not a clue as to what the hell you're getting on about, other than perhaps vaguely accusing me of not recognizing Giraffes, and also of being a monocled Victorian.

The later I am amused by, the former I am merely bored by.

Now, my comment:
"Well, Muslims can engage in atavistic whanking, cutting off their noses to spite their faces, or they can work in the proven framework of liberalism, economic and political, to create wealth and a better future for themselves."

Provoked this bizarre response:
Good point. Of course the Muslims could tell the West to fuck off, wipe their asses with selected pages from Hume and get bombed back to the Pleistocene for their trouble, or impudence -

Oh bollocks. Yemen does a fine job of being primative and backwards, and no one is bombing them.

The problem the Arab world faces is all those new little babies that have to have work and food when they grow up. That requires economic growth and expansion.

Which requires a modern economy.

it's hard to tell sometimes when The Lounsbury is channeling Bounderby or Macauley - as in:

"This charabia of Left academic whanking presumably means the writer does not care for the combination (modernity/democracy/capitalism)."

I care for it just fine, when I'm in New York, or Rio or London, or any other place where religious sensibility has long bellied up to the exigencies of free speech, free trade and Capital. In those places, globalisation means you get to eat 'designer homous at 10 dollars a plate', in the Muslim world it means you get turned into humus.

In other words, when you're personally comfortable, it's fine. Else not.

How very precious.

For the Arab and Islamic worlds, if there isn't economic growth and modernisation of the economy, they're fucked. Not because of the "Evil West" or the kuffar, but because of demographics and the declining returns -indeed negative sustainability as in Yemen- of traditional economies under the pressure of such demographics.

In the long run, there isn't a choice, if Egyptians are not, to take an example of a country with a million odd births a year, to be eating each other in 40 years.

Whiners: The cat-preview thing is a known bug that I've been too busy to trace and fix. Using Typekey will bypass the issue (ex. the first time you comment with a Typekey account).

yeah, the Arab pop boom is one of Spengler's nightmare prophecies (one of many). If global warming is real, things could get ugly.

Me: I care for it just fine, when I'm in New York, or Rio or London, etc.

You: In other words, when you're personally comfortable, it's fine. Else not.

How very precious

If you mean that I'm not an economic chickenhawk who clamors for people to live the way I want and can, I accept the compliment. I don't want to see Herat or Isfahan remain as they are for my benefit. Rather, I'd like to see the Muslims decide for themselves what they want, instead of being bombed, blackmailed or blockaded into Modernity and the Global Econoummah.

Your last paragraph makes sense. al Afghani wrote that Muslims would have to modernize to compete with the West or return to their roots to combat the West. Can you, or anyone else for that matter, determine where the synthesis between those two, unresolvable extremes is? That I think would be a productive dialogue for Muslims to have amongst themselves.

Col. Lang clarified his comments, adding that Bushco's war against Islam is more a matter of incompetence than intent. I'm not so unconvinced but am releived to hear him say as much.

The dust has settled, but I'd like to weigh in Lounsbury's favor - not that he needs it - I read Pat Lang's column as denouncing the Bush administration's hypocrisy, i.e. talking about islamo-fascism which they in fact frame in a way that encompasses traditional islam, as well as their unwillingness to acknowledge that fact.

I have also followed Pat Lang a few months now and he is certainly not a neo-con bushie, very far from it.

Ah, well, further to economic illiteracy:

If you mean that I'm not an economic chickenhawk who clamors for people
to live the way I want and can, I accept the compliment.

Economic chickenhawk?

I suppose you thought that simple-minded recycling of an empty phrase was clever. Sadly, it is simply stupid.

Queerly, it is you who is clamouring for people to live they way you would like them to - in some idealised mode.

I am simply in favour of a liberal market structure entrusting the choice of lifestyles and economic relations to the free choice without Statist intervention and diktat supposedly "protecting" parties.

Of course, the mere facts of demography and limited resources mean that if the region does not create economic growth, it will face a spiral of violence as the shrinking pie of resources is fought over.

But that is not my choice, it is collectively the populations - if given a chance, else the corrupt rentier elite such as in Egypt and Syria with their facade of "social solidarity."

I don't want to see Herat or Isfahan remain as they are for my benefit.

Oh, I find that to be a lie - you decieve yourself.

Rather, I'd like to see the Muslims decide for themselves what they want, instead of
being bombed, blackmailed or blockaded into Modernity and the Global Econoummah.

Blah blah blah.

No one is bombing Syria, nor Yemen, nor Oman... etc. Although the West makes a nice pretext for hand waving excuses. Always some influence to point to excuse.

Your last paragraph makes sense. al Afghani wrote that Muslims would have to modernize to compete with the West or return to their roots to
combat the West.

The Muslims, or rather Muslim populations since the mythology of a unified Ummah that has not existed since a thousand years at best is debilitating for achieving anything real, have to create economic growth for internal demographics - the West has fuck all to do with the problems of the Islamic world, again, fuck all. The Islamic world had falled into stultifying degeneracy centuries before the West gained an upper hand.

Can you, or anyone else for that matter, determine where the synthesis between those two, unresolvable extremes is?

I am completely uninterested in humanities empty whankiing on in this respect.

Synthesis conflict blah blah if for empty academic whanking parasites.

That I think would be a productive dialogue for Muslims to have amongst themselves.

Whanking waste of time.

I'd add that my one rather neo-connish friend, an employee of a relevant part of the US government, has often defended the Iraq invasion to me in terms of addressing the underlying pathology of Arab societies. I actually agree with the bit of neo-con logic that says it would be in everybody's interest, ours and theirs, to have functioning Arab countries. I just think their way of addressing the issue is appallingly crude and born of a particular narrow, arrogant and ignorant way of looking at the world. I would have expected people like my friend, who is certainly intelligent and more than capable of logic, to know better. I don't know how much his politics and how much his engineering background have to do with it.

It's more likely bad movies and novels than engineering.

Engineers are pretty well-known for falling for stupid ideas, eg. creationism.

Re economic development in the Middle East:

The oil exporters tended to follow a model whereby oil revenues accrued first to the ruling elites and then were distributed to the rest of the population through patronage, often in the form of content-free civil service jobs.

Rising living standards led to a demographic boom. The ability of these governments to pay salaries and pensions was being stretched by the sheer number of new entrants to the labour force. Before the present oil spike, such liabilities consumed around two thirds of the Saudi budget, for example.

Governments have had mixed success in creating alternative generators of employment. UAE has a small population relative to its resources, and so can afford to make mistakes, for example. Saudi has depended on the civil service and the clergy to occupy the masses; Iran, the education system. Egypt maintains massively inefficient heavy industries and of course agriculture and the army. Iraq did similar. None were been able to respond quickly enough to the growth in population.

Capitalism, for all its flaws, is rather better at generating jobs. Hence why it is being employed as a strategy by elites to develop their economies. Of course, they generally want to take a cut, being the kinds of elites they are - but they frequently shoot themselves in the feet doing so.

I fail to see how traditional modes of living can deal with the current situation unless you take out half of the population and shoot them, thereby reducing the number of jobs you have to create. Though Cambodians might tell you that that wasn't much fun.

I could probably have tightened that up a bit, but hey-ho, it's late here.

Lounsbury knows me:

I don't want to see Herat or Isfahan remain as they are for my benefit.

Oh, I find that to be a lie - you decieve yourself.

Yeah, you got me. That's why I've lived in Brazil the last 12 years and haven't left the country the past 6. I'm storing up rain-forest hardwood so that when I retire I can rent out a place in the Herati souk and pass my time making mahogany tasbees, drinking mint tea and trading hadith with the other greybeards.

I am simply in favour of a liberal market structure entrusting the choice of lifestyles and economic relations to the free choice without Statist intervention and diktat supposedly "protecting" parties.

And a prancing fucking pony. While the rest of us Mohammedans are for seizing the modes of production and placing them under control of the Commander of the Faithful and his loyal henchman Jafar the Marxist Barmecide.

You: No one is bombing Syria, nor Yemen, nor Oman... etc. Although the West makes a nice pretext for hand waving excuses. Always some influence to point to excuse.

Current events quiz: Iraq, Af, Lebanon and Palestina. Who would bomb Yemen, God already did that. As for Syria and Iran, well...

You: the West has fuck all to do with the problems of the Islamic world, again, fuck all. The Islamic world had falled into stultifying degeneracy...

Where did I blame the West for the problems of the Muslims, other than pointing out that it too often uses them for ordnance evaluation? The West is to blame for the problems of the West. The Muslims should deal with their own problems. Cultural degeneracy? I sense a modest proposal coming.

You: The Muslims, or rather Muslim populations since the mythology of a unified Ummah that has not existed since a thousand years at best is debilitating for achieving anything real...

This could be an item in an American Enterprise Briefing on Muslims. What does "debilitating for achieving anything real" mean? So we should forsake the idea of unity as something not real? You to your way, me to mine.

Not sure where this set of posts are headed to, here's my two cents, for whatever's sakes:

Are Middle Eastern economies in need of reforms? That's probably true, if anything, for the demographic reasons. Is this because of their "religion"? I hardly think so--plenty of non-Muslim countries have the same problem in the developing world (e.g. Burma, Vietnam, Byelorussia, and probably Russia also). It's really more the problem of the misguided state interventionism disguised under some excuse that are often nationalism-oriented (as per Antiquated Tory's earlier comment regarding the Czechs, or 'Aqoul's running commentary on the failures of the French economic model) but I suppose it can be religion- or tradition-oriented also. That this sort of thing (religion as excuse for statism) happens in Muslim countries (I think) is no excuse for vampire statism (hats off to the Lounsbury for coining the term).

But this is a side comment--a counter to the common lefty whanking about the war in the Middle East as the work of global capitalism. Rather, the topic of original comment, IIRC, was the way the current administration defines Islamic extremism/Islamofascism such that only the most outrageously out-of-mainstream liberals qualify as "moderates" in their perspective, while most of what the "pious middle" (a term coined here on 'Aqoul long time ago) hold dear fall under "Islamofascism" rubric. What Lounsbury is noting is that some parts of the package that came with the administration's agenda (e.g. economic reforms--often condemned en masse by the lefty whankers) are potentially useful reforms, if handled right--just that the invasive (hah) and ham-handed way the occupation policies were handled discredited them along with other loony notions they were bringing along.

Kao makes sense to me- as to the rest of the pretentious wanking about how everyone else is 'pretentious wankers', I can do without.

Get on with it, either doing something for your failed economies and failed states (if you're in one of those (plenty in the Arab lands/ Middle East), or reform your government of sanctimonious "muscular liberals", if you live in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" (or at least, where they used to live)

Dear L,

I just saw that you stated

the West has fuck all to do with the problems of the Islamic world, again, fuck all. The Islamic world had falled into stultifying degeneracy centuries before the West gained an upper hand.

That's ... bizarre, coming from someone as knowledgeable as you are.

--MSK

Well, it was a rhetorical flourish, but has a large component of truth to it.

Much of the worst affecting the Islamic world has nothing at all to do with the West, but are native-born pathologies.

Well, a bit more for JR

Re Herat and desiring it frozen.
Yeah, you got me. That's why I've lived in Brazil the last 12 years and haven't left the country the past 6. I'm storing up rain-forest hardwood so that when I retire I can rent out a place in the Herati souk and pass my time making mahogany tasbees, drinking mint tea and trading hadith with the other greybeards.

Sounds like a plan.

Regarding markets:
I wrote: I am simply in favour of a liberal market structure entrusting the choice of lifestyles and economic relations to the free choice without Statist intervention and diktat supposedly "protecting" parties.

To which the response was:
And a prancing fucking pony. While the rest of us Mohammedans are for seizing the modes of production and placing them under control of the Commander of the Faithful and his loyal henchman Jafar the Marxist Barmecide.

Mohammedans?

Have you been dipping into the 19th c. whiskey?

You: No one is bombing Syria, nor Yemen, nor Oman... etc. Although the West makes a nice pretext for hand waving excuses. Always some influence to point to excuse.

Current events quiz: Iraq, Af, Lebanon and Palestina. Who would bomb Yemen, God already did that. As for Syria and Iran, well...

Eh?

Afghanistan provoked its own problems, and there's no bloody economic interest there. Had the Talebans offered up the bloody Bin Laden, they'd still be enforcing their retrograde visions of Islam on most of the country.

Iraq, that matches your argument, although it is hardly a general threat - indeed rather indicates as Brezhinski noted, that the time of 19th c. style quasi-colonial interventions is well past.

Lebanon? Nothing commercial (nor West as Israel is not West, whatever its pretentions) about that - Hezbullah miscalculated and provoked a completely excessive Israeli reaction. Nothing to do with colonialism, everything to do with Israeli-Arab tensions, an Israeli government that is/was incompetent and yet over-confident of its power.

Palestine? Israel. Colonial, indeed, but a bit of confetti for the larger world. 95% of all Muslim lands are under zero threat of Western (American in effect) interventions.

You: the West has fuck all to do with the problems of the Islamic world, again, fuck all. The Islamic world had falled into stultifying degeneracy...

Where did I blame the West for the problems of the Muslims, other than pointing out that it too often uses them for ordnance evaluation? The West is to blame for the problems of the West. The Muslims should deal with their own problems. Cultural degeneracy? I sense a modest proposal coming.

Sure, the modest proposal is that Muslims work on developing successful economic systems, borrowing as in the glory days, from whatever works, integrating and moving forward. Only then will cultural confidence return.

Has to be an internal process, based off of internal resources. But nothing wrong with looking to the highly successful Western economic systems for lessons.

You: The Muslims, or rather Muslim populations since the mythology of a unified Ummah that has not existed since a thousand years at best is debilitating for achieving anything real...

This could be an item in an American Enterprise Briefing on Muslims. What does "debilitating for achieving anything real" mean? So we should forsake the idea of unity as something not real? You to your way, me to mine.

What does it mean?

Look at the utter vacuousness of all pan-Islamic or pan-Arab initiatives.

Nothing of substance or success has come out of any of them. All dreams and un-practical airy mega-structures that achieve nothing.

The way to achieve unity is to recognize that it has to be built up starting small, around genuine, not imaginary common interests. As a leading Egyptian economist once said to me, "Look at Europe. They started small and practical. We Arabs, we start big with big dreams."

It's that simple, mate.

The Ummah as a united socio-political body is a myth that has not existed in fact for a thousand years.

If one wants to even get close to the ideal goal, one has to start small, practical and focus not on theoretical common interests - such as "oh we're all Muslims, that means we'll get along and be brothers" - but on real common interests, on a manageable scale, and build up the actual habits of cooperation.

I don't really know what "Islamic Fascism" is, and I don't think those who brand such made up terms really know either. It seems to me "Islamic Fascism" really means nothingness except to continue to carry out a crucade against the Muslim world and Muslim thought. Its an irony that Fascist dictatorships emanated in the West--Nazi Germany, Moussilini's Italy, Fraco's Spain--despite the values and traditions of western democracy. Today, these eras are brushed under the carpet, and the concentration on things like "Islamic Facism". It would be nice however for the so-called liberals in the West to take a back seat, and start examining the values that have been put forward by the Quran and its stress on human relations, quality of opportunity, respect for one another and man's and women's relationship to God. These issues are never examined in the Western media nor Western thought and perception. The concentration is almost invariably on terrorism, violence, the veil and so on. Islam is portrayed as an archaic system of thought, yet if people bother to examine what Islam has (Its Qoran and Sunna), people can find its enlighting. I know many (particularly those who have agendas) would say hogwash, but the reality is different. What is sad today, because of the culture of western thought and development, its globalization, its popular outreach dictated by its media and satellites, people don't bother to look behind the surface: If Islam equals terrorism, violence and backwardness then fine. But this is a superficial way of looking at things, and in many ways make many belief that western man, if we can call it that, is hostage to developments created by his systems of thought and institutions, and becomes a never-ending cog in a machine, of what he is told on television, newspapers and radio and the politicians, businessmen, and the corporate culture gets away with "belittling him" and feeds him on a continuing "coca cola" culture, soap operas and doctored news.

Its an irony that Fascist dictatorships emanated in the West--Nazi Germany, Moussilini's Italy, Fraco's Spain--despite the values and traditions of western democracy. Today, these eras are brushed under the carpet, and the concentration on things like "Islamic Facism".

You do know those countries at that point didn't have any democratic tradition? The Weimar years were a joke. Italy's still a joke, but that's another matter. And Nazi Germany is the continuing obsession of Western countries, so hardly swept under the carpet. Spain I certainly could agree with, way too many Franco monuments there. It's precisely because of this obsession that 'Islamic-Fascism' is used so wantonly, another fine example of seeing a different culture in one's own framework of ideas.

If Islam equals terrorism, violence and backwardness then fine. But this is a superficial way of looking at things, and in many ways make many belief that western man, if we can call it that, is hostage to developments created by his systems of thought and institutions, and becomes a never-ending cog in a machine, of what he is told on television, newspapers and radio and the politicians, businessmen, and the corporate culture gets away with "belittling him" and feeds him on a continuing "coca cola" culture, soap operas and doctored news.

Holy Chomsky Reader, Batman! What is the reality of Islam, btw?

Islamofascism is a bit of an odd term, I think it was generated by a few too many gin & tonics Christopher Hitchens had before writing his article. It immediately conflates Islamist politics if not Islam itself with some of the more nationalist ME politics, such as the Ba'athists. But the latter are quite secular and the two tendencies operate with a great deal of tension between them, despite occasional attempts by the latter to subordinate the religious authority. Then again, while secular government is a new thing I suppose the tension between religiously-mandated-but-corrupt temporal authority and pious reformers has been a theme of Islamic history since the beginning. Looking through the Book of Judges, you could say it predates Islam itself.

Klaus,

In fact, one might even ask what exactly does "fascism" part of "islamofascism" really mean (or, even when the word is used by itself.) Regardless of what the term "really" means (which, btw, is actually rather hard to answer), it seems to be used just as a garden variety term for "bad guys." Thus, "Islamofascism" really comes to mean nothing more than "bad Muslim guys." What makes them "bad"? That's where the confusion and all the logical silliness, even for the guys who coined the term, come in, I suppose...

How asbnouty...how asbnouty..dfasmn. I sdpillerdf tyeras on my kerybnoasrudf. Ugh. Spilledteaonmykeyboard.NewKeybnoard.SpacebarWontWork.

Klaus,
Try taking all the keys off and cleaning the insides with a cotton swab.
Kao,
I think the heavily Statist, nationalist, uniform-obsessed brand of governments in the Arab world might at least owe their pedigree to European Fascism. There were enough admirers of Benito and even Adolph among nationalist groups. But I suspect that most people who like using the term 'Islamofascist' think 'guys with beards who want to force us all to wear burkas.'

Antiq. Tory.

Actually the larger influence was institutionally from your neck of the woods, the Sov. model. Arab Socialism and all that, borrowing and advisors from the Sovs and their satellites.

I don't see much sign of genuine fascist influence in the proper sense of the term, rather worse and clearly prevelant is the E. Euro bloc state socialism influences, leavened with a lot of incoherent pan-Arabism, and some attempts at nationalist sentiment (which had its most real form in Egypt).

back in action with a new keyboard, the other one had a good run though.

Fascism, Nazism and Communism have a lot more in common than most people assume. Anyway, I was about to suggest the term

Nazislamocommufascism

before I was stopped dead in my tracks. It covers everything, doesn't it? And means as little as possible. What's not to like?

Klaus, I like it.
Anyway, I guess I was thinking of the Iraqi Ba'athists, whom I thought deposed the Communists to get into power. But beyond similarities in the European systems, Arab socialism does seem rather fascistic. I think perhaps the question 'is is socialism or is it fascism or is it Memorex?' is what L calls academic hand waving whanking or something of the kind; these countries appear to employ some kind of statist nonsense based on the worst possible Western models, with just enough benevolent daddy in it to make it palatable to local sensibilities, at least until the money runs out.
Here's a different question. L often points out that the US should be more consistently promoting economic liberalization. The US also inconsistently promotes rule of law. The Czechs tried economic liberalization before having a framework in place to enforce contracts, and it was ugly. But the Poles did it the other way round and their economy collapsed much more than the Czechs' did, though it was also based much more on outmoded agriculture and heavy industry. Anyway, which comes first, liberalization or rule of law? Or must they be promoted hand in glove?
(Yes, I know this is really eurocentric. Tough.)

better Euro than US, for I am a-wearied of such.

There was a good post and thread on this at the Fist a while back, all about instant economy vs gradualism, featuring none other than Vaclav Klaus. But since the search function is out of order I cannot provide.

but touching on things emotional like family and sexual relations - intimate relations perhaps - well, I know of no society that reacts well to outsiders there.

Don't know much about social engineering, but folks in MENA ought not marry their cousins, imo.

Eh?

What the bloody hell does this have to do with the subject?

Leaving aside the issue of cousin marriage (which despite naive ideas on genetics is not inherently bad as such, although I personally find the idea of marrying a first cousin rather icky), afraid you are mistaking a tribal thing for a MENA issue.

Some Arab movements were undoubtedly inspired directly by European Fascism (broadly speaking), like the Lebanese Phalangists and the Syrian Social Nationalists -- even if these are normally lightly passed over in Western commentary on "Arab Fascism", for rather obvious reasons.

But in the case of Baathism I think the similarities are better explained by its founders being heavily influenced by pre-Fascist radical-revolutionary nationalisms in Europe: Sorel, völkischer ideology in Germany, pan-Germanism, various romantics, etc -- not by Fascism (as in Mussolini or Hitler) directly. They rose later, from the same source, and were rapidly discredited. Not an entirely surprising choice of ideological model btw, since a state-creating, unifying, modernizing, ethno-nationalist and revolutionary ideology was precisely what a forcibly Balkanized and occupied, socially backwards Arab world would have been looking for in the early 1900s.

Influence from the Soviet Union and its clients, and China, I don't think played an important role ideologically, since most Arab nationalist ideologies were already formed at the time these powers became important in the MENA (and more often than not, in rabid opposition to "materialist" Marxism). Their influence was more practical (more planning in economy through cooperation with these states, such as in the case with late-Nasserite Arab Socialism) and limited to importing vocabulary of thirdworldist Socialist style, rather than actual ideology. Marxism (real or purported) was never big in Baathism, and the strands that existed in Syria were more or less wiped out before Assad seized power.

Of course, the most important similarities are probably better explained by them setting up similarly ethnonationalist/totalitarian-style systems after gaining power, and then warping ideology to suit it. Leader cult came by demand of Saddam and Hafez setting up one-man dictatorships in place of their parties, not ideologically from Hitler, Franco or Mussolini.

Of course, the most important similarities are probably better explained by them setting up similarly ethnonationalist/totalitarian-style systems after gaining power, and then warping ideology to suit it. Leader cult came by demand of Saddam and Hafez setting up one-man dictatorships in place of their parties, not ideologically from Hitler, Franco or Mussolini.

Hear, hear. All defined by authoritarianism, the ideological frame is lipstick on a pig. I often wonder how socialism, axiomatically egalitarian, got to be about dictatorship. Dare I say; human nature?

Well, perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes, but I am more or less thinking of operational models, not ideological.

What the bloody hell does this have to do with the subject? Leaving aside the issue of cousin marriage (which despite naive ideas on genetics is not inherently bad as such, although I personally find the idea of marrying a first cousin rather icky), afraid you are mistaking a tribal thing for a MENA issue.

You've lost me too. Cousin marriage most definitely affects genetics, and IQ.

Many countries in MENA have cousin marriage rates above 50%. They also have IQ rates in the mid 80's. Cousin marriage brings IQ down a few points, and IQ affects the country's ability to modernise, or accomplish much of anything.

Cousin marriage also increases the tribal fractiousness of the country, which also affects the country's ability to get anything done other than fight.

Perhaps consanguineous marriage explains why they behave like frightened bunnies. I hope your deal goes through.

horse: cite?

No, idiot boy.

The people invovled are Maghrebines, not Gulfies, and first cousin marriage is nowhere near common in the Maghreb.

Moron.

L: Likely, an excess of consanguinity in his ancestry.

No, idiot boy. The people invovled are Maghrebines, not Gulfies, and first cousin marriage is nowhere near common in the Maghreb. Moron.

Such powerful rhetoric.

It appears that consanguineous marriage rates run at about 30% in Algeria and Morocco and around 50% in Libya and Tunisia. In Mauritania, which may also be considered Maghreb, the rate looks to be 60%. Between first cousins, the rate seems to be about 25% in Algeria and 45% in Libya. You are right that the rates are higher in the Gulf States though.

And yes, this does cause genetic problems and it is correlated to lower IQ. I don’t know if cousin marriage is considered part of “Traditional Islam,” or not, but it is a big impediment to moving forward, imo.

The first link is here. It does not seem to work.

http://www.cags.org.ae/cbc01ar.pdf

Well, a bigot.

Wonderful.

Yes, indeed, over time consanguinous marriage can increase the chances of negative recessives expressing and thus an increase in

The simple minded link you make with IQ runs well ahead of any genetic-IQ link, ignores the problematic nature of IQ testing in and of itself, the clear impact of poverty on IQ results, and finally mistakes IQ intelligence as something important in business and economic development as such.

Smartness does not make economic growth, systems do, and skilled workforces.

I do not need super smart IQ 140 workers. I need workers with basic literacy who are trained to execute tasks. And a good cost basis. The fetishisation of IQ is mere vulgar social darwinistic thinking.

Not that IQ has fuck all to do with conservative approaches to marketing, rather that is culturally based perception of risk.

To be honest, I have to say that consanguinity is a big problem indeed. In addition to genetics studies, I've known enough cases which produced degenerate kids to be on that side of the argument. That said,

It appears that consanguineous marriage rates run at about 30% in Algeria and Morocco and around 50% in Libya and Tunisia

must be describing an alternative universe I haven't traveled to. Those numbers are wildly exagerated by several magnitudes.

horse did link to a reasonable looking survey article but the numbers are pretty extreme. shaheen, did you see Table 2? 80% consanguine marriages in Mauritania, Morocco not far behind.
Of course, as a survey article it doesn't have much depth. Digging back into my memory of cultural anthropology, marrying your uncle's daughter was considered ideal in a number of cultures, something to do with reinforcing uncle-nephew patronage, keeping dowries inside the family and/or something about land tenure. But I don't remember the specifics or even which culture, though I was studying a lot about trans-Mediterranean cultures so could well have been Arab. Could just as easily have been Spanish or Latin American though. My apologies, I haven't looked at this stuff since maybe 1990 and have had a lot of life since then.
It is tied in with rural social patterns, and the article indicates as expected that it is much rarer among urban and educated groups. I don't think this is only because the educated 'know better' but expect it is more to do with people who get education being less bound to the rural social order. And rural social orders famously break down among migrants to the city, even when villagers migrate en masse to the same place.
I can imagine that cousin marriages lead to an increase in certain rare genetic disorders. But as we are talking mostly about rural populations, we are in many cases talking about gene pools that are pretty damn small to begin with, and I'm not sure how much worse cousin marriage makes things.
Oh, I didn't want to comment on horse's simplistic association of consanguinous marriage with idiocy for the obvious reasons.

Mate, I know the countries well.

I agree with Shaheen, the numbers just do not stand to reason.

Mauretania, well, yes. Morocco, Tunisia, no.

Who the fuck knows with respect to Algeria,.

Of course, I agree that the Med Basin shares massive commonalities - Greek, Spanish, etc., including marriage patterns.

With respect to "knowing better" - I would suspect that it is more an issue of availability of mates, and social linkages. Of course that depends on region, etc.

Still, this all has fuck all to do with any particular topic at all, other than this dear horse's idiocy.

Well, a bigot. Wonderful.

Not sure where that came from. Quoting your description of Maghrebians as frightened bunnies?

Yes, indeed, over time consanguineous marriage can increase the chances of negative recessives expressing and thus an increase in

Not sure what you are trying to say.

The simple minded link you make with IQ runs well ahead of any genetic-IQ link, ignores the problematic nature of IQ testing in and of itself, the clear impact of poverty on IQ results, and finally mistakes IQ intelligence as something important in business and economic development as such. Smartness does not make economic growth, systems do, and skilled workforces.

So you don’t accept IQ. We differ there. I believe IQ intelligence does impact economic growth and business. Here is an article about it. Consanguineous marriage lowers intelligence on average.

I do not need super smart IQ 140 workers. I need workers with basic literacy who are trained to execute tasks. And a good cost basis. The fetishisation of IQ is mere vulgar social darwinistic thinking. Not that IQ has fuck all to do with conservative approaches to marketing, rather that is culturally based perception of risk.

You lost me again.

Shaheen- That article was published by the Center For Arab Genomic Studies. You may be able to check the validity of their numbers yourself.

They did provide this information about where those numbers came from:

Fig. 2: Percentage of consanguineous unions of total marriages in
Arab countries. Adapted from: Benallegue and Kedji, 1984
(Algeria); ENAF, 1992 (Algeria); Al-Arrayed, 1999 (Bahrain);
Hafez et al., 1983 (Egypt); ENPC, 1989 (Egypt); Al-Hamamy et
al., 1986 (Iraq); Khoury and Massad, 1992 (Jordan); Al-Nasser et
al., 1989 (Kuwait); Al-Awadi et al., 1985 (Kuwait); Klat and
Khudr, 1986 (Lebanon); Broadhead and Sehgal, 1981 (Libya);
National Statistical Office, 1992 (Mauritania); Azelmat et al., 1987
(Morocco); Azelmat et al., 1992 (Morocco); Rajab and Patton,
2000 (Oman); Jaber et al., 1992 (Palestine); Ministry of Health,
1999 (Qatar); Wong and Anokute, 1990 (Saudi Arabia); El-Hazmi
et al., 1995 (Saudi Arabia); Saha et al., 1990 (Sudan); Prothro and
Diab, 1974 (Syria); Aloui et al., 1988 (Tunisia); Fahmy et al., 1993
(UAE); Al-Gazali et al., 1995 (UAE); Jurdi and Saxena, 2003
(Yemen); Gunaid et al., 2004 (Yemen).

Still, this all has fuck all to do with any particular topic at all, other than this dear horse's idiocy.

Here is an article about why American neocons will fail in the Middle East. I read it several years ago.

the Lucifer-worshipping Yezidis

meep! from that article.

From that article in The American Conservative
"Extended families that are incredibly tightly bound are really the enemy of civil society because the alliances of family override any consideration of fairness to people in the larger society. Yet, this obvious fact is missing from 99% of the discussions about what is wrong with the Middle East. How can we transform Iraq into a modern liberal democracy if every government worker sees a government job as a route to helping out his clan at the expense of other clans?"
This ethos is called amoral familism, a term coined by Edward Banfield in a book he did on village life in Southern Italy, lovingly titled The Moral Basis of a Backwards Society. Not everyone is a fan but even my liberal, culturally relativistic etc. Anthropology profs thought there was something to it, even if only at a very superficial and general level. Still, it's miles more culturally aware than Neocon efforts to turn the world into Orange County. And I'd hazard a guess that when you're talking about setting up a political system across a nation, you are dealing with the population at exactly the most general and least-common-denominator levels.
(I have a vague feeling that I've just written a load of shite so I will go back to my work and let people who have lived in MENA post about it.)

As for the whole IQ-eugenics-biologically determined wealth vs poverty doolally, this review of The Bell Curve nails the key problem:

They assume that intelligence must be: (1) depictable as a single number; (2) capable of rank ordering people in a linear order; (3) primarily genetically based; and (4) essentially immutable. If any of these premises are false then their entire argument disintegrates (Gould, 1994).

In horse's case you can add the assumptions that intelligence and wealth are causally related and that consanguine marriage and intelligence are as well. Furthermore this intelligence/consanguinity relationship is more important for determining differences in wealth, even between groups, than any other factors, which are either dependent on intelligence differences or simply have less impact.
I'm afraid there is one more much longer post of mine awaiting eerie's approval and it too has, as L puts it "fuck all to do with any particular topic at all, other than this dear horse's idiocy." I promise however I will now stop beating this dead horse.

crap, I forgot the link.

In horse's case you can add the assumptions that intelligence and wealth are causally related and that consanguine marriage and intelligence are as well. Furthermore this intelligence/consanguinity relationship is more important for determining differences in wealth, even between groups, than any other factors, which are either dependent on intelligence differences or simply have less impact.

Antiquated- You’ve put a lot of words into my mouth there, some that I agree with, and some I am not sure about. First off, though, you won’t convince me of much by citing Gould. His marxism tainted his opinions too much to allow them all to hold up scientifically, I believe.

Many other papers cover IQ and national wealth. I don’t believe that I ever said IQ was the sole factor in determining a country’s ability to develop, as of course, it is not. When factoring in economic freedom, natural resources and trade blocs, people have used IQ to make amazingly accurate predictions of GDP. So it is unfortunate for the practice of cousin marriage to continue in the region, affecting their ability to develop, (not to mention increase genetic defects). As the American Conservative author said in some other article “First cousin marriages also lower IQ by a few points on average, which Arabs can't afford.”

I am looking forward to your post.