Leadership in Iraq

Many people find the Middle East and its people difficult to understand (For an excellent introduction to the region listen to Scott Powell's The Islamist Entanglement). In particular one gets the sense that our former President George W. Bush was under the impression that there are no significant cultural differences between Iraqi Arabs and Americans (what our current President Barack H. Obama thinks is really too depressing to dwell on). Strategypage.com reviews the reality encountered by American soldiers in the field. Their experiences do not inspire much hope. Here are two examples:

# Most Arab countries are a patchwork of different tribes and groups, and Arab leaders survive by playing one group off against another. Loyalty is to one's group, not the nation. Most countries are dominated by a single group that is usually a minority (Bedouins in Jordan, Alawites in Syria, Sunnis in Iraq, Nejdis in Saudi Arabia). All of which means that officers are assigned not by merit but by loyalty and tribal affiliation. This continues in democratic Iraq, where political parties or powerful politicians strive to control individual police or army units.

# Islamic schools favor rote memorization, especially of scripture. Most Islamic scholars are hostile to the concept of interpreting the Koran (considered the word of God as given to His prophet Mohammed). This has resulted in looking down on Western troops that will look something up that they don't know. Arabs prefer to fake it, and pretend it's all in their head. Improvisation and innovation is generally discouraged. Arab armies go by the book, Western armies rewrite the book and thus usually win. Despite years of American advice on this matter, many Iraqi police and military personnel stick with the old, less effective, traditions.

A total of 14 examples of such difficulties are recounted. They are well worth reading.

Islamist Entanglement: Conclusion

Scott Powell presented his tenth and last lecture in the Islamic Entanglement series (you can still enroll in individual lectures or the whole course -- check it out) last Wednesday. The lecture summarized the previous ten and in light of what was presented suggested what we can expect for the future. Not entirely surprisingly, Scott does not view the future with much optimism. Not much can be expected in the way of improvement from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, and the rest. To varying degrees these countries will either remain Islamist or becomes more so. The kind of actions necessary by the United States to convince the locals that real change is required, namely a truly convincing military victory, are very unlikely to happen in the near future.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Scott for presenting these excellent lectures. I very much appreciate Scott's unique methodology. Rather than simply overwhelming one with events and personalities that one cannot absorb (as many a modern history book tends to do), his unique methodology focuses in on the essentials while not overlooking the necessary details, thus presenting the material in a highly retainable form. I highly recommend his approach to teaching history.

The Islamist Entanglement and Israel

Scott Powell's most recent Islamist Entanglement lecture, his ninth, focused on Israel. I have to admit that as far as the historical details Scott mentioned I didn't expect to be particularly surprised and I wasn't. This is no fault of Scott's but simply due to the fact that I happened to have a reasonably good knowledge of Israeli history, particularly early Zionist history before the founding of the state. I was, for example, already aware of the mixed role that Britain played in this history, first promising everyone everything, and second, and necessarily, reneging on the promises, particularly with regard to Jewish immigration to Palestine before and during World War II. Nevertheless, even I benefitted from this lecture since it now puts the Arab-Israeli conflict in the its proper context, namely, the several century old Islamist Entanglement of the West with the Islamic Middle East. As Scott points out at the beginning of the lecture, once one understands the full context and thus the basic reason for the conflict, the absurdity of the constant attempts at an isolated resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict via land-for-peace schemes becomes quite evident. With the next lecture, the tenth, Scott will conclude the Islamist Entanglement series and, I expect, tie everything together.

Saudi Arabia: The Arrogant Kingdom

Unlike some of the other countries that Scott Powell has lectured on in his Islamist Entanglement series, Saudi Arabia was never occupied by Western Powers. While it did face threats from the Ottoman empire, the West was content to let the Saudis rule in Arabia, as long as access to oil was provided. The Saudis had their own agenda. Born of an alliance between Wahabi Islamist elements and the leaders of the Saudi tribe based in the center of the Arabian peninsula (an area referred to as Nejd), the Saudis managed, after two unsuccessful attempts, to establish control over the remaining parts of the country. This success was subsequently guaranteed when, following the discovery of oil in Dhamman in 1938, then American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt met with the Saudi King Ibn Saud in 1945 and guaranteed the Kingdom's security. The effective result here was a kind of feudal arrangement between the United States and the Saudis, where the Saudis were supposed to play the role of feudal vassal to the US overlords. However, a problem here is that a few years years later the United States supported the creation of the State of Israel and recognized it upon its declaration of independence. As effective vassals one would expect the Saudis to join the US in supporting Israel. However, as Arabs and Muslims unwilling to accept a non-Arab, non-Muslim entity in the region, this was not possible to them. Inevitably this lead the Saudis to oppose the US whenever it supported Israel. and eventually in 1973 the Saudis joined the OPEC oil embargo after the US supplied Israel with the military means to defeat the Arab armies of Egypt and Syria during the Yom Kippur war.

Only two lectures remain in the Islamist Entanglement Series: One about Israel and one putting everything together entitled "The Middle East: Its Past and Its Prospects". It's still not too late to catch up!

Iraq: In Search of Unity

I finally got a chance to listen to Scott Powell's latest Islamist Entanglement lecture which focused on Iraq. The key to understanding Iraq seems to be that for most of history there was no such thing. Unlike Egypt or Iran, Iraq does not have a unifying history, race, or even religion. For much of its recent history the area now occupied by the state of Iraq was made up of three separate provinces within the Ottoman Empire. No modern Iraqis identify with the ancient empires that used to occupy parts of what used to be called Mesopotamia. The Iraqi population is made up of Arabs in the center and south of Iraq and Kurds in the north. Like Iran, the Shiites represent a majority of the Iraqi population; however, unlike Iran there is substantial minority of Sunnis. Thus, the only basis for the existence of an Iraqi political entity are the imperial machinations of the Western powers after World War I, in particular Great Britain. For a while, Iraqis were able to unite somewhat around enmity toward the West. However, after independence, such unity was only possible to be maintained with the brute force of dictatorships. The Iraqi history and background does not lead to optimism with respect to the present attempt to create a united, democratic Iraq by the United States, particularly after the departure of US troops.

Iran

Scott Powell's Islamist Entanglement lectures (also available as individual lectures) help set the historical context for an understanding of the Middle East and last week's lecture on Iran was no different. Beginning briefly with ancient Persia, Scott traces the development what became Iran as part of the various Islamic empires. Important in this regard is that most of Iran, unlike much of the rest of the Muslim world, is Shia. Its religion has thus always put it somewhat at odds with the rest of the Muslim world. After the usual confrontations with the West, Iran began to modernize a little and by the early 20th century some of its intellectuals were attempting to enact constitutional reforms. Unfortunately those reforms failed. Iran has a long history of having an alliance between a military and the religious leadership. The leader is supposed to follow the sacred path and if he does not he deserves to be overthrown. When the leader starts to endorse Western ideas, that is usually when he is regarded as having betrayed his office. Ultimately this is what happened to the American-supported Shah in 1979. Also of note is that Scott presents a somewhat different perspective on the whole Mossadegh-CIA affair of 1953. All in all, this is a highly recommended lecture.

Afghanistan -- The Highway of Conquest

Last week's Islamist Entanglement lecture was about Afghanistan. It is difficult not to feel sorry for Afghanistan -- after all, until the 18th century it was not really so much a country as a place that had been conquered numerous times over the centuries, by empires from the East, West, North and South, earning it the description as "highway of conquest". In 1747 the first independent Afghan Kingdom was finally formed when various tribal factions agreed to submit to the rule of a relatively weak central ruler. However, the situation in the country did not dramatically improve after the 18th century and Afghanistan remains the most primitive of the places so far discussed. The country reminds one of Europe during the Dark Ages or present day Africa -- tribalism and religion predominate in the population's thinking and, apart from foreign interventions, continue to guide its course. No serious attempts at Westernization have occurred until the early 20th century. Scott concludes the lecture with a pessimistic assessment of Afghanistan's future, even more so than either Egypt's or Turkey's. He predicts that the Bush administration's attempt to "democratize" Afghanistan will fail. Next up -- Iran. Don't miss it -- sign up now for the whole course or individual lectures!

Why Ahmadinejad is smiling...

As usual, Caroline Glick has some of the best analysis of what to make of recent events in the Middle East. Here are a few exerpts:

And the fact is that the Sunni states are aligned with most of Iran's policies. They keep Iraq at arm's length and loudly criticize US operations in the country. They continue to back Hamas and ostracize Israel. And they have taken no substantive stands against Hizbullah's subversion of the Saniora government since the end of the Second Lebanon War.

The main reason that the Sunni Arab countries cannot contend with Iran is that their publics share Iran's jihadist ideology. And their publics share Iran's general jihadist ideology because the Sunni states have indoctrinated their publics to believe in jihad through their state-controlled media.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia and their Sunni Arab brothers are in no position to argue with Iran publicly or to confront Iran's Arab proxies because they can't explain to their own people why Iran's bid to destroy Israel and to dominate the world in the name of Islam is a bad thing.

However, to get the full context of how we got to this point, I recommend Scott Powell's Islamist Entanglement lectures which are available both as a set and as individual lectures. Sign up now!

Egypt

The most recent lecture of Scott Powell's Islamist Entanglement series focused on the history of Egypt. Despite the fact that Egypt had not been an independent country for many centuries, Egypt follows a path somewhat parallel to Turkey's. Its first (unsuccessful) period of westernization started while still under Ottoman rule early in the nineteenth century under the leadership of Muhammed Ali in reaction to the British and French interventions in 1798. A much-hated British occupation followed some disastrous financial decisions that the Egyptians made. Egypt has what Scott termed a somewhat hollow but nevertheless strong "sense of nationhood" that's tied to its ancient history. As a result, there was much anti-colonial sentiment in Egypt which resulted in clashes with the British and ultimately culminated in Gamal Abdel Nasser's takeover that kicked out the remaining British influences by 1954. Nasser's rule was ultimately a failure, having governed as socialist dictator at home and squandered his perceived grandeur during the Six-Day War with Israel, in which Egypt lost territory along with Syria and Jordan. Nasser was nationalism's last great champion in Egypt. The leaders that followed Nasser, including Sadat and Mubarack, merely tried to maintain the dictatorial system that Nasser established. Thus, nationalism as a motivating political ideology in Egypt is spent. In its wake, Islamism has begun step in, in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood and can be expected to ultimately prevail, as has also been discussed elsewhere.

Why Palestinian statehood is not in our interest

I hope to write my review of Scott Powell's latest Islamist Entanglement lecture on Egypt as soon as I get a chance to listen to it. In the meanwhile, Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute has written an excellent op-ed on the topic of how the present administration has been acting against our interests in pursuing the creation of a Palestinian state.

Bush, McCain, and why Republicans are not worth voting for

John McCain recently gave a major foreign policy speech. Here are some instructive excerpts:

President Harry Truman once said of America, "God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose." In his time, that purpose was to contain Communism and build the structures of peace and prosperity that could provide safe passage through the Cold War. Now it is our turn.
...
In such a world, where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone. We must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish. Perhaps above all, leadership in today's world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation.

One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies. We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to. We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.

At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model. How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad. We must fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundation of our society. We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.

There is such a thing as international good citizenship. We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. We and the other nations of the world must get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand off a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. We need a successor to the Kyoto Treaty, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. We Americans must lead by example and encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.

Notable is the mention of the Truman doctrine above, which, as Scott mentioned in his highly recommended Islamist Entanglement lecture series, committed us to unlimited assistance to anybody fighting communism. I'm afraid this is quite far from a foreign policy of self-interest and it follows on the footsteps of a Bush foreign policy that, far from being as unilateralist as left-wing critics have claimed, has in fact gone out of its way to be multilateral, as today's Wall Street Journal editorial clearly shows:

Iraq is where the unilateral myth settled into media concrete. But in fact, in 2002 President Bush bucked the advice of his more hawkish advisers and agreed to take Tony Blair's advice and seek another U.N. Resolution -- was it the 16th or 17th? -- against Saddam Hussein.
...the "coalition of the willing" that liberated Iraq included, besides the U.S. contingent, some 60,000 troops from 39 countries, who have operated under a U.N. resolution blessing their presence.

The Bush Administration has since become all too multilateralist, even -- or especially -- regarding the "axis of evil." On North Korea, the Administration adhered strictly to the six party formula.
...
As for Iran, following revelations in 2002 that Iran had secretly pursued an illegal nuclear program for 15 years, Mr. Bush agreed to hand over the diplomacy to Germany, Britain and France, the so-called E3.
...
Next the Administration succeeded in turning the matter over to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been seeking answers about Tehran's nuclear file for five years.
...
For the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Administration arranged the so-called "road map," which is overseen by the "Quartet" of the U.S., Russia, the U.N., and the European Union. In Lebanon, the Administration worked closely with none other than France's Jacques Chirac to force the withdrawal of Syrian troops in 2005. With Russia, Mr. Bush welcomed its bid to join the World Trade Organization and has rebuffed suggestions -- including from Mr. McCain in his speech Wednesday -- that it be expelled from the G-8.

It is simply a myth that the Republican Party represents any kind of assertive foreign policy of self-interest. If a Democrat had done or suggested all the above policies this would be obvious. Since Republicans are doing it and couch it, at times at least, in somewhat more self-assertive language, it sounds better to many people. I certainly fell for it during the last election when I voted for Bush over Kerry but no more. Under no circumstances will I vote for John McCain. The only question now is whether it is in any way worthwhile to vote for the Democratic nominee. On that question I remain undecided. I have previously leaned toward abstaining but lately I've been thinking that it may be necessary to actively support a Democratic candidate by voting for him so as to ensure McCain's defeat. Then we can unite in opposing the Democrats policies. However, I'm not yet completely convinced by this line of reasoning.

From Ottoman Empire to Modern Turkey

Last Wednesday Scott Powell continued his stimulating Islamist Entanglement lecture series with a fascinating lecture on the history of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. It is not too late to join -- all lectures are digitally recorded and with lectures only once every two weeks it should be easy to catch up -- there have only been three so far. Be sure to mention me if you do decide to sign up. I had a chance to listen to the recording last night and here is my review.

The story begins with the first milestone, the Ottoman's failed siege of Vienna in 1683. This milestone marks the end of the Islamic threat to Europe and the beginning of Western Ascendancy. Just as there was an Eastern question for the West -- what do we do with this declining empire? So there was beginning to be some equivalent thinking in the East: The West is getting stronger -- what do we do about it? The history of Turkey provides one answer to the question -- what Scott argues is something of a best case scenario.

After some false starts and further "encouragement" from the West (encouragement via encroachment), Turkey adopts Westernizing reforms (the so-called Tanzimat reforms of 1839 -- another important milestone). Subsequently, skipping ahead a little bit, Turkey adopts, under the leadership of Kemal, the hero of World War I, a "benevolent, secularist, dictatorship" -- one that replaces the structure of the Islamic Ottoman Empire with a new system based on the "primacy of the state over religion."

In this system the military, the most Western institution in the country, actually tries to guarantee that the state does not slide back into Islamic law by forcefully replacing any government that it decides harbors such dangerous sympathies. For much of the 20th century it has been successful; however, given that the majority of the populace is not in fact supportive of anything but Islam, Scott suggests the Turkish military is fighting a losing battle. Recent events, including the election of an Islamist (Erdogan) as Prime Minister do not bode well for the future.

The next lecture, scheduled for April 2 will be on Egypt's history. I can't wait!

Scott Powell on the Truman Doctrine and the Cold War

Scott Powell, author of the highly recommended Islamist Entanglement series, reviews some points from the most recent lecture in the aforementioned series, in which he covered the actions and goals of the U.S. in the Middle East. Scott makes some points sure to be controversial in some circles:

The Truman Doctrine was a blanket commitment to combat communism, wherever and whenever it might arise. In philosophical terms it was a “moral imperative,” or context-less absolute, not unlike a religious commandment. Acting according to it, in much the same manner as one might try to adhere to a religious code, every subsequent president failed to properly perceive where America’s self-interest really lay and directed the country’s resources in ways that while opposing communism actually harmed America both in the short and long term.

Be sure to read the whole essay in which Scott gives his detailed reasons for the above claim.

The latest on the Middle East

To get a deeper understanding of the Middle East and its relationship to the West, sign up for Scott Powell's Islamist Entanglement lecture series. But in the meanwhile there's the inimitable Caroline Glick. Her latest column is up on her website. Here's a long excerpt:

In a radio interview this week, Michael Leiter, the director of the US National Counter-Terrorism Center, noted that al-Qaida today is stronger than it was two years ago. This development, he explained, is a consequence of Musharraf's decision to sign peace accords with the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border.

The first agreements in North and South Waziristan were signed in September 2006. They involved the removal of Pakistani military forces from the areas, and the release of 2,500 Taliban and al-Qaida prisoners from Pakistani prisons.

The Waziristan accords made the area the Taliban's and al-Qaida's first safe haven since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. Freed from the need to defend themselves against the Pakistani army, al-Qaida and the Taliban immediately turned their attention to Afghanistan. Within weeks of the signing ceremony, cross-border raids from Pakistan tripled.

And so began a devastating calculus. Systematic breaches of the accords by the Taliban were ignored. But any anti-Taliban operations launched by Pakistan or US forces in Waziristan or anywhere else in Pakistan were met with massive brutality.

Speaking to CNN recently, Michael McConnell, the Director of US National Intelligence, concurred with Leiter's dim assessment. McConnell noted that from its safe havens in Pakistan, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself as the central command post for global jihad. "They have the leadership that they had before. They've rebuilt the middle-management and the trainers. And they're recruiting very vigorously," he said.

These American acknowledgments of the consequences of Musharraf's "peace process" with the Taliban come rather late in the game. When he first signed the accords, Musharraf pretended that the Taliban were not involved, claiming that the accords were with "tribal leaders."

Musharraf's statements were obvious lies, and yet the US decided to pretend along with him. In September 2006, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, "The [Waziristan] agreement really has potential to work... Talibanization will not be allowed in the area of or in the cities near the tribal region."

The State Department had no excuse for believing Musharraf because by the time Boucher made the statement, Musharraf had already released the 2,500 al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners.

But American praise for the agreement didn't end with Boucher. President George W. Bush also endorsed it.

Well, at least it's nice to know our President knows what side to be on. I suppose as long as we stand by our "allies" nothing can go wrong. Read the whole thing.

Around the web...

• Scott Powell, who is currently offering the exciting Islamist Entanglement lecture series has posted a fascinating analysis of what we can expect from McCain and Obama about Iran and the implications for Israel
• Principles in Practice, the blog of the Objective Standard, has posted Alex Epstein's excellent essay on the pernicious effects of the "Too Big to Bail" policies that encourage more risk taking by financial institutions
• The Objective Standard has recently released Craig Biddle's excellent essay on Immigration and Individual Rights
  

America and the Islamist Entanglement

There's still time to sign up for Scott Powell's excellent Islamist Entanglement lecture series. The second lecture was presented live this past Wednesday but all lectures are digitally recorded and can be listened to after the fact on the internet. Also, there are still eight live lectures remaining. Be sure to mention this website to Scott if I had a role in getting you to sign up.

Last night I had a chance to listen to Scott's second lecture in the series on the American involvement in the Middle East. Scott focused on the essentials and managed to cover the activities of five Presidents over a period of about 60 years in an hour and half lecture. He did not simply recount a lot of facts about what the various Presidents did but also, and more importantly, explained the motivations and goals behind their actions. As I mentioned in my review of the first lecture, Scott's approach involves the use certain crucial events or milestones that anchor the story of the Middle East and the Western involvement with it. The milestones serve as helpful signposts for the major trends of this story. I previously mentioned that one of the milestones is the 1683 failure of the Ottoman Turks's siege of Vienna. I'll mention another milestone -- the 1956 Suez Canal crisis. This milestone ties in the first lecture on Britain's role in the Middle East to the American role. For details, you'll have to listen to the lectures. I'm already looking forward to the next lecture which will focus on the history of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Check it out -- it will be worth your while.

Preview of new Islamist Entaglement Lecture

Scott Powell has posted a preview of Wednesday night's lecture in his Islamist Entaglement series.
The lecture will focus on the history of the United States as it relates to the Middle East and comes on the heels of his previous lecture, the first in the series, on Great Britain which I blogged about here. I am very much looking forward to his upcoming lecture. I will blog on the new lecture shortly after I hear it (which likely won't be until the weekend). Feel free to sign up as lectures are recorded digititally and are available after the fact and be sure to mention that you heard about it here.

The Islamist Entanglement

The situation in the Middle East poses a substantial challenge to those who seek to understand what exactly our government has been doing there over the last few years. At times, the deeper significance of these actions seems a mystery. Let's take a look at a small sample of headlines from the BBC:

• Claim UK troops 'executed' Iraqis
• Hamas urges EU Israel pressure
• Israel to vanish, says Hezbollah
• Kuwait warns on Lebanon travel
• Iranians spar with Israel at UN
• US slaps sanctions on top Syrian
• W Bank building 'bias' condemned
• Ahmadinejad Imam row grows
• Palestinians 'may declare state'

etc., etc.

Clearly, the number of players local to the Middle East is quite large and, combined with the interaction of various Western countries such as the UK and US, there seems to be no lack of complexity to the situation. Add to that the fact that the region's issues did not arise yesterday but have a long history, it becomes a non-trivial problem to study and understand what exactly is going on there and why. I like to think I know more about the Middle East than many Americans, since I lived in Israel for a few years, and have read a good amount about the history of Israel and its neighbors. However, even I get overwhelmed by the number of facts, dates and the sheer complexity of it all.

Fortunately, there is now a new resource available to make sense of the region: Scott Powell's course on the Islamist Entanglement. Scott Powell, who also happens to be my daughter's history teacher, has, via a generous arrangement, allowed me to blog on each of the upcoming 10 lectures of the course. Registration is still open and all lectures will be digitally recorded and available, so feel free to join now. The Islamist Entanglement is part 3 of Scott's A First History for Adults and I have not taken the first two parts. However, based on having now listened to the first lecture, I think that Scott reviews enough relevant history so that I can enjoy part 3 without having to listen to the previous parts.

After an excellent orienting introduction, the first lecture in the course focused on the history of Britain's relationship with the Middle East. Britain was one of the first major European powers to get deeply involved in the Middle East and the effects of its influence are still evident. The pattern of Britain's involvement was guided substantially by its imperial interests, until those ended shortly after World War II. Scott discusses the origin of British involvement in the region, its sometimes conflicting motivations, and the reason for the decline of its involvement. The next lecture will focus on the history of the United States in the Middle East.

I was impressed with Scott's ability to create the sense of an overall story with specific causes leading to specific effects. Scott is quite properly ruthless in only allowing relevant facts to play a role in the story he tells. As a result, while there is still an abundance of dates and events, I never felt lost while listening to the lectures. The milestones that he outlined at the beginning served as anchors to strongly ground the overall story.

A key element of Scott's approach, the five key dates or milestones for the history of the Middle East vis-a-vis the West, are crucial signposts to the history's important trends. The first date is 1683. The date refers to the failure of the siege of Vienna by the Ottoman Turks. This event marks the beginning of Western Ascendancy after a previous period of about a thousand years of increasing Islamic threat. The other dates also refer to pivotal events in the history of the interaction of the Middle East and the West. Scott presents the important concrete events that point to the overall trends that shape history. He intends to review the same historical periods from the perspective of different countries throughout the course, thus reinforcing the trends, as well as the concrete events and dates. This promises to allow one to build up one's knowledge about this important history with each lecture. I'm very much looking forward to the next lecture.

Update: Fixed date.