Customer Reviews

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East (Politically Incorrect Guides)

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This book warns us that the Middle East is an area "where political correctness can kill." And I think Martin Sieff has done a good job in telling us something about the region.

The first chapter gives us an introduction to the Ottoman Empire. Next is a chapter on the Arab-Israeli conflict, which exposes the myth that the Holy land was promised to both the Jews and the Arabs. This chapter has plenty of interesting material, but I wish it had said spent some time on the infamous British White Paper of 1939.

Next is a good chapter about Iraq which summarizes some of the mistakes we've made in our war there. And following it is a chapter on radical Islam, which we see is something new, not a return to old ideas.

Chapter Five is about Iran. Sieff criticizes President Carter's handling of American policy involving Iran. While I think this criticism is deserved, it's not clear how much better things would have been had someone else been President. The next chapter is about the Arab wars against Israel. There are plenty of interesting tidbits here, as well as some rather interesting opinions about some of the leaders.

Chapter Seven asserts that the Saudis are part of the solution, not the problem. I'm not so sure that I would agree with such a characterization. The following chapter is about Middle East wars and peace from 1975 to 2007. Carter's role in bringing about peace between Israel and Egypt is discussed, again from a "politically incorrect" perspective. And there is a rather uneven discussion of the Oslo agreements and the Camp David negotiations of 2000, which we see were doomed from the start. But I think Sieff fails to show the extent to which the Arab side was uninterested in long-term peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Chapter 9 is about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. I think that the role of the United Nations as part of the problem should have been mentioned here. We do not get to see the attempts to expel Israel from the UN, or the "Zionism equals racism" resolution, and now we don't hear about the infamous Durban "racism" conference.

The final chapter attempts to explain what works and what does not work in bringing peace to the region. That's a good idea, considering that some folks believe that if only everyone would put pressure on Israel, there would be peace. Sieff explains that this is false: solving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not solve the problems. Nor would the annihilation of Israel solve the problems: it would make them worse.

Sieff says that Natan Sharansky's book (The Case for Democracy) made matters worse by helping convince some people in our administration that democratic governments in the region would be a big improvement. Sieff is making a good point here, but I think this is unfair to Sharansky, who explained that the problem is the existence of "fear" rather than "free" societies. Sharansky noted that merely letting propagandized people vote extremists into power is not the answer!

The book also shows that the world will be using a great deal of oil for quite some time. We can't easily wean ourselves from it, and that means we will need to deal with Arab ownership of much of the oil reserves.

Sieff quite properly praises the Israeli security barrier, which has done a fine job of reducing casualties on both sides resulting from suicide bombings.

The book supplies some interesting recommendations for additional reading, often listed as "books you're not supposed to read." I think that's a nice touch.

Much of what Sieff says is rather controversial, and I think we readers need to use our own judgment in evaluating it. It's true that many of the "politically correct" views about the region are very dubious indeed, but that's no reason to accept the opinions of anyone who attacks those views. On the whole, however, there is far more good material than bad in this work. I recommend it.

I have to give this review a couple of stars because Sieff gets two huge issues right. First, he is correct that Bush's Natan Sharansky-inspired policy of promoting democracy in the Muslim world is wrong-headed and potentially very dangerous. History has shown that Muslim voters are liable to elect Islamist governments (Hamas), whereas the autocrats that the Muslim world typically produces are far more likely to brutally suppress Islamism than to be Islamists themselves. Sieff is also absolutely right in urging that U.S. presidents not exhaust themselves trying to obtain the unobtainable--peace between Israel and the Arabs. Sieff says: manage and ameliorate the conflict as best you can, and good fences make good neighbors.

However, I can't give this book more than two stars because Sieff's main thesis--that the Ottoman Empire was the Middle East's good old days, and that Saudi Arabia can function as a sort of Ottoman Empire in the modern Middle East--is comprehensively, ludicrously wrong.

Sieff argues that the Ottomans provided "stability" without defining what that means. I would define stability as a Middle East that doesn't threaten the Western world and pull Western powers into its conflicts. By this definition, the Ottomans provided anything and everything but stability. Right from the beginning, they threatened the Christian West, conquering Greece, the cradle of Western Civilization, and in 1453 finally snuffing out the Eastern Roman Empire. They invaded Southeastern Europe, persecuting the Christian peoples living there; they staffed their Janissary Corps with enslaved, Christian children kidnapped from Europe and forcibly converted to Islam. Much of the violence of post-communist Yugoslavia is a result of the Ottoman invasian, and the resulting patchwork Islamization, of Southeastern Europe. The Ottomans threatened to conquer Vienna in the 1520s and 1530s, and again in 1683.

Obviously, none of the "instability" of the 20th-Century Middle East has ever been remotely as threatening to the West as the Ottoman Empire was throughout most of its history. Even during the 19th Century, the slowly decaying body of the Ottoman Empire constantly drew European powers into its conflicts, as in the Russo-Turkish war of 1828-9, the Crimean War, and the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. During the Greek insurrection of the 1820s, the Ottomans attempted a scorched earth policy that included enslaving large numbers of Greeks in Egypt. When, in the 19th Century, the Christian populations of Southeastern Europe--the Serbs, Bulgars, Romanians, etc--struggled for their independence, the Ottomans frequently responded by slaughtering thousands upon thousands of them in massacres such as the Batak Massacre. That Sieff is nostaligic for any of this is mind boggling, and more than a little nihilistic.

As ridiculous as are Sieff's fond memories of the Ottomans, his hope that Saudi Arabia can be a force for good in the region is, if possible, even more absurd. At least the Ottomans had an empire to run; the Saudis have only a portion of the Arabian penninsula to run. For good or ill, they can control nothing beyond their borders. But the way they govern their own country--as a THEOCRACY--would not create hope in any sane person for Saudi influence beyond their borders. Unfortunately, this is a subject about which we do not have to guess; as is very well known (although Sieff does not acknowledge it) the Saudis use their vast oil wealth to export their 7th Century ideology by funding mosques and madrassas all around the world. I personally don't believe there is a "moderate" form of Islam. But if there were, that form of Islam is certainly NOT what is being promoted by Saudi oil money in the mosques of Europe and America. Again, this is a well known fact that Sieff does not even attempt to address. In the long run, the Islam promoted by Saudi money is far more threatening to the West than even the Ottoman Empire in its heyday.

The Saudis are our hope for Middle Eastern stability?? Aside from the absurdity of its main thesis, this book has other problems. It is not well organized, it meanders from subject to subject without any organizational or argumentative purpose. Although it is not a long book, it repeats some facts 3 or 4 times, again to no particular purpose. Alas, I'm afraid the normally reliable editors of Regnery's PIG guides have allowed a prankster to tarnish their brand. I think Sieff is pulling our legs. As John McEnroe would say, "You cannot be serious."

This is an excellent book and certainly provides some controversial (aka politically incorrect) views of Islam, the Palestinians, Israel, and how we got to where we are. Martin Sieff shows how inch by inch and small decision by small decision we have arived with a worldwide conflict with Islamofascim starting with that arrogant aristocrat Winston Churchill and continuing with each US administration since 1917.

Sieff points out that our politically correct views have and continue to cost the lives of American soldiers, Iranian dissidents, Iraqi's, and Israeli Jews. He points out that the ridiculous and misguided attempts by the US and the western democracies to establish democratic governments in the middle east was not only doomed to failure from the outset but it is making matters worse as we pursue this bankrupt policy. The reality is that the Islamic Middle East is a tribal culture that is opposed to any central authority unless it is imposed with a mailed fist. Blood feuds are common and the battles between Sunni and Shia goes back a thousand years and is not likely to end anytime soon.

Perhaps the best chapter that puts the whole thing into historical perspective is the chapter on the Ottoman Empire. Sieff points out that the Ottomans ruled the region for more than 400 years and during that period ignorance, apathy, and squalor were the pillars of the Empire but the result was peace and tranquility. It was only when the trendy western democracies interjected their ideas of democracy, socialism, and representative government that things went to Hell in a handbasket.

Another fascinating point addressed in the book is that the Saudi's are not the problem but have in fact conducted a sustained and largely effective war against Islamofascism. While it is true that Arabia is a monarchy with draconian laws by western standards, it also is an effective ally and a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. The West has never fully grasped the strategic situation in the area where the Shiite Iranians were checked by the Sunni Iraqi's with the help of the Saudi's.

The section on the Israeli-Arab Wars was also well worth the reading because it puts the history into perspective. It not only describes how the Israeli's managed to defeat much larger armies but how those Islamic governments reacted and why the situation continues as it is today. This is not a whitewash of the Israeli's nor is it a blanket indictment of the Arabs, but it does show that if Israel were to vanish today nothing would change because Israel is not now nor has it ever been the motivating factor behind the carnage that has plagued the area since the fall of the Ottomans.

Overall this is a very good book with many excellent insights. I think Sieff could have provided more detail regarding the western actions following WW I and WW II that led us to this mess but he provides enough to show the foundations to the current conflicts and the rise of militant Islam. Although Sieff mentions the Muslim Brotherhood he doesn't provide many details regarding the actions of this terrorist group, which has behind several assassinations (e.g. Sadat) and much of the mayhem since its founding in the 1920's. However, the real stunning revelation in this book was that Yasser Arafat was homosexual and the Romanians had photographs to prove it. While I am not an advocate of blackmail it seems to me knowing how the Islamic world views homosexuality our state department could have used this information as leverage to get Arafat in line. It also was astonishing that Arafat had personally ordered the execution of an American diplomat and the CIA had the recorded telephone conversation when he issued the order. One would think that our state department would have used this information more effectively. This book is filled with small facts like these that simply take your breath away when you realize that the American response from one President after another is to do nothing other than to continue the failed policy of trying to bring democracy to the region. The Ottomans had it right and we should listen.

This is good book -- easily and quickly read -- not a page turner but very close. I highly recommend it.

Once again, Martin Sieff has proven to be one of Washington journalism's most original thinkers. Mr. Sieff brings razor sharp critical acuity, fueled by an impressive knowledge of history and politics, to his work. In fact, his understanding of world affairs, history, and politics puts that of most of his contemporaries to shame. You may not agree with all of Sieff's conclusions, but you will find them challenging and thought provoking.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East provides a fast-paced, insightful, and often witty analysis of this troubled and often misunderstood region of the world. Martin Sieff's iconoclastic thinking on things and people ranging from the Ottoman Empire to Jimmy Carter may have you reconsidering what you thought you knew. And true to the book's title, his ideas are bound to rattle a few cages along the way.

This book is no Idiot's Guide or Dummies book. It is not nearly as well organized and reader friendly as those series are. I expected a much more refined chronological or topical discussion of the issues and events. As one reviewer stated, the book is "uneven", I would add "sloppily organized."

Now to substance.

Three main themes fall far short of reality:

One, the Arab-Jewish conflict predates the creation of Israel (1948). This is true. But regretably, this line if thought is not carried far enough. I expected Sieff to go back to 2000 BC, not merely to 1917. The earlier history of the of Jewish/Arab strife is significant in the larger context. Yes, there have been more recent periods of passivity of Arabs toward Jews (during Ottoman rule), but this is obviously the exception given 4000 years of history.

Two, the author claims "Radical Islam Isn't Ancient." I guess this results from his ignoring Islamic history prior to the Ottoman Empire. He cites no credible Islamic experts such as Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Michael Rubin, and Habib Malik among many others who would provide volumes of evidence against his shallow claim. The Quran and countless Muslim leaders in text after text, speech after speech, exhort the obligation of the Muslim to destroy Jews, to destroy the infidel, to be intolerant of other religions, to fight for supremacy over other forms of government, and to mimic the latter portion of Muhammads life of violent Jihad. The passive periods of Islamic history are what modern Islamists correctly teach is NOT the true Islam.

And third, the author suggests that Iraq and the middle east ought to be handed over to Saudi Arabia because that Wahabbi/Islamic nation will be as successful at maintaining law and order as the Ottomans were. If that's the case, we ought to have left Hussein in power. He maintained law and order as well. Seiff is ignorant of the role of Saudi Arabia's sponsorhip of Islamic schools worldwide, many in the US. In the US, these schools teach children and young adults Islamic supremacy and ways to subvert our culture and government toward Islamic sharia law and wahabbist intolerance. Many are centers for stealth, if not violent jihad.

This book is dangerously inaccurate becasue it reaches erroneous conclusions without considering many obvious facts about the nature of Islam and Saudi Arabia.

Much better choices would be any be any book by Robert Spencer, or Mark Steyn's "America Alone".

This is an extremely curious book. On the one hand, it's written in an unserious, almost frivolous style, with the author constantly trying to provoke his intended readership of "idealist liberals" and "PC Neo-Conservatives" (you heard me). Sometimes, the book sounds like a parody on Mideast foreign policy ghost-written by Michael Moore. And the cover shows a happy, smiling camel on it's way to Cairo! Often, I found myself wondering whether Martin Sieff really is a former foreign correspondent, or some kind of fraud?

But no, he isn't. I think the guy really means it!

What makes "The PIG guide to the Middle East" so interesting, is that Sieff takes an (almost) unabashed, Machiavellian line on the region. He says openly what the American establishment only says behind closed doors. Or used to say, since Shieff believes that Kissinger and Reagan had a better foreign policy than Clinton and Bush Junior. I guess it takes a cynical, worldly-wise foreign correspondent to tell the truth: Machiavelli "R" Us. And he likes every minute of it! Personally, I don't. I'm one of the idealist liberals, I suppose. Still, reading a book by a cynical truth-teller is better than reading the propaganda. I mean, David Horowitz? Please come on...

Sieff believes that democracy can't work in the Middle East. The Arabs are a bunch of primitive, tribalist barbarians. Always have, always will be. They are religious fanatics too. The Iranians are somewhat better, but not much. Democracy in the Middle East means extremists in power, usually anti-American ones. The solution? "Bring back the Ottoman Empire". When the Turks were in charge, the Arabs were kept in check. They were poor, barefoot but not too pregnant. Population figures were low, modern development non-existent, law and order upheld. That's the only way the Middle East can be controlled: by an iron fist, imposed from above. And the iron fist must be Muslim, since Muslims wont accept "infidel" masters. Then the stupid, idealistic Young Turks took power, and they blew it...

It's not entirely clear whether Shieff really believes the story so far, or simply relishes in shocking the PC audience he hopes will pick up his book. But yes, he does say all of this.

The rest of the book is Realpolitik brought up-to-date. The author argues at length that Saudi Arabia is the best US ally in the region, apart from Israel. He further argues that Saddam Hussein, although a crazy butcher, was nevertheless better than Khomeini's Iran, and that Syria have always been better than Iraq, since the Syrians, although anti-American and anti-Israeli, aren't as crazy as Saddam, and better understand the rules of the Machiavellian game. The policy is really a simple one: support Israel to the hilt, strike an alliance with conservative Muslims who hate revolution, and play the others.

The book further argues that Islam isn't really that bad, a humorous contrast to other books in this series, which tend to be anti-Muslim and pro-crusader. For centuries, the author argues, Islam was a politically passive, quietist and conservative religion, Shia Islam in particular. Muslim fundamentalism is a recent, cultish phenomenon, probably inspired by Communism.

In the most controversial part of this "PIG guide", the writer takes on the Iraqi war. He regards the war as a total failure and a deviation from true Realpolitik. For starters, the troops were too few. Perhaps an additional 100,000 might do the trick? More fundamentally, Bush and the Neo-Cons actually think they can create democracy in Iraq. By organizing free elections, dissolving the Baathist security forces, and recruiting Iraqi collaborators, the US have simply fanned the flames of sectarian conflict, emboldened the extremists, and plunged the entire Iraqi nation into bloody civil war. It's not entirely clear, however, what Shieff wants the US to do instead. Withdraw? Call the New York City police? (At one point, he exclaims that "police action" is the best way to deal with insurgents. Since when?)

Of course, our author isn't entirely Machiavellian. He supports Israel 110%, which from a Machiavellian standpoint makes little sense. Indeed, the reason why Sieff wants the US to intervene in the region is the oil. But there is no oil in Israel, and he freely admits that Israel can't police the region. Saudi Arabia can, or so Shieff believes, and they have oil. They also have the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So why doesn't he simply back the Saudis? Nor does Shieff mention the Iran-Contra Affair. Too Machiavellian, perhaps? Or perhaps he simply doesn't like loosers like Oliver North?

Finally, let's note the irony of having this book published in the PIG Guide series. First, it seems to be the only guide that comes close to criticizing the Iraqi war. Second, it's the only guide that takes "pro-Muslim" positions. It's obvious from some of the other customer reviews that many of the conservative reviewers just don't get it. "Grunt, did he say Saudi Arabia? Grunt, grunt". Yes, he did say that. You've been Conned again. And Regnery Publishing is laughing at you, LOL.

PS. I'm using the term "Machiavellian" in it's "princely" sense. The real Machiavelli was very different. See my review of "The Discourses".

Anyone who wants an overview of the History and current staus of the Middle East without the myths, preconceptions or instant analyises of "experts" who have an axe to grind must read this book. The author debunks the reputations of some of the major players historical and current and gives praise where praise is due. His thoughtful if somewhat opinionated analysis puts a perspective on this part of the world that you will not find in the mainstream media. His analysis are thoughtful, succint and blows away a lot of the "conventional wisdom" we are subjected to every day. This book should be "must reading" for those in government making the day to day decisions regarding policy in this part of the world. They would learn a lot and maybe wouldn't have made so many mistakes

This is a an informative book but Sieff's political loyalties stop it short of greatness. He adeptly destroys many of the myths about the middle east. The history alone is worth the cover price.

His main contentions are well supported:
· Liberal Democracy is not going to wok in the near future in most nations in the region
· That Saudi Arabia is a great Ally of the USA not an enemy
· That peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not going to cure the problems of the region.
· The USA may have to pick able monarchs and dictators as allies even though they would prefer otherwise. He is not scared to point out that things were better for the West when Saddam and the Shah were in power


His realism should be applauded, but Seiff can't hide his republican loyalties and, I fear, it will make many ignore the valid points of the book. At times he digresses into bitter little tirades about the popular media and their unfair treatment of republicans. This issue and this book deserve better. You can feel the hate with each time he mentions Bill Clinton and he uses insulting personal attacks on those he disagrees with. By the time he explains (convincingly I may add) why Jimmy Carter failed in the Middle East he has called Carter names (idiot is one of his favorites) for 150 pages. He would have served his purpose better to disguise his personal feelings.
Even if the personal emotions were taken out the republican bias is obvious. The best Presidents were Nixon, Reagan and Ford was the best of them all. Carter and Clinton are, of course, the worst. Bush the first is discussed briefly and blandly, and W is deemed a failure, but his failures are curiously explained as following Carter's example. Carter did (and does) believe in democracy for the region but it is unfair to equate the invasion of Iraq with his efforts.
Seiff also ignores that Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon after the terrorist attack on US forces has been cited by Bin Laden as proof Americans are week. He gives Iran Contra a scant paragraph. He also discusses the rise of Bin Laden during the Afgan war with "US support" but does not mention that it was Reagan that sent Bin Laden the weapons. He also incorrectly states Clinton did "nothing" (remember the rocket attacks Rush called "wag the dog"?) about Bin Laden.
His support for the ruling Saudi royalty is pragmatic and sensible, but he ignores the influence Saudi oil money in private hands has played in spreading extreme Islam. Yes the house of Saud, is on our side but many rich people in the Kingdom are not. Though he ignores this fact, he makes it clear there are no better alternatives for allies in the region.
If you are interested in these issues at all, this book is a must. I was able to get over the bitter delivery, and axes the author needed to grind. He lists "Books you're not supposed to read" and there are great recommendations included. The fact is this book claims to be honest and pull no punches and that is what it does. The fact Bill Seiff did not blindly defend the invasion of Iraq shows he is far more than another conservative blow hard.
(Note: Just read this book before you read what he said about Sarah Palin!)

This is a well-written, easy to understand, and interesting treatise on the Middle East, however there are very few sources provided for many facts and many more assertions and claims.

Don't get me wrong, this book is full of great insights, by a man who spent 40 years in the Middle East. I am glad I bought this book, and I like a lot of the material in the book.

... and yet, I can't get over the impression that he is whitewashing the Saudis. Look in the index, and try to find the word "Madrassa". Madrassa is a fanatical, Wahhabi, fascist-type school for grade school kids, and the Saudis have funded over 800 of them (with their oil wealth) in Pakistan alone. Any word of this in the book on how the Saudis are so expert in dealing with Islamic terrorism ? No. What about the alleged Saudi funding of terrorist groups in the Philippines (and all over), and the fact that there were documents found in Saudi government buildings (allegedly) in the Balkans right after 2001, showing the targets of U.S. government buildings ? What about the fact that the Saudis - supposedly so adept at dealing with terrorists - didn't warn the U.S. prior to Sep. 2001, even though it would have been very easy for them to do so (they didn't get tough internally on terrorists in the 'Kingdom' until they themselve were hit) ? What about the virulent anti-Semitic and anti-western literature that one can find (so I have read) in Saudi-funded "Islamic centers" in the U.S. ? Any mention of that ? I think that Sieff is right in that the Saudis are very good at dealing with terror in their own country, and that part of the Saudi elite really does want to stop Bin Ladin and Al Quida. But at the same time, I also believe that another part really doesn't. Foreign Affairs magazine had an essay on "The Schizophrenic Saudi State" which stated just that: some of the princes are very pro-Western, and some hate the West. It is not as simple as Sieff states. They are not such great allies after all, unless you consider an ally someone who takes trillions of dollars from you and then buys Islamic schools all over the world that teach that you are the Devil.

I would take this book with a BIG grain of salt. Read Robert Baer's book "Sleeping with the Devil", about the REAL Saudis.