PING!
Posted on 07/29/2006 6:50:28 AM PDT by GMMAC
Suez's lesson
David Frum
National Post
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Fifty years ago this past week, on July 26, 1956, the Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Nasser's act would lead to an international crisis, a regional war and ultimately to the resignation of a British prime minister. "Suez" would become a lesson and a warning against Western meddling in the Middle East.
But the lessons and warnings of Suez look very different after 9/11.
In 1956, the Suez Canal was owned by the British government and a consortium of British and French private investors. Two-thirds of Europe's oil travelled through the canal, protected by British troops.
In 1952, a group of nationalist military officers led by Nasser had overthrown Egypt's king and elected parliament. The officers demanded the withdrawal of all British troops. The British complied. In 1954, Britain and Egypt signed a new treaty in which Egypt promised to respect foreign ownership rights over the canal.
But as soon as the last British soldier departed in June, 1956, Nasser immediately violated his promise and seized the canal.
So Britain and France made a secret deal with Israel. Nasser had been sponsoring terrorist raids into Israel from Egyptian-occupied Gaza. If Israel invaded Sinai to punish Egypt, the deal went, France and Britain would intervene to impose a peace -- and to topple Nasser.
Israeli troops moved on Oct. 29 and swiftly defeated the Egyptian forces. But the allies had miscalculated the attitude of U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower.
Eisenhower fiercely opposed the Suez war. He ordered Israel to stop and threatened economic reprisals against the British and French. The Anglo-French intervention collapsed. Nasser survived.
And what did America get in return? Did Nasser show gratitude to the president who saved him? Did Arab nationalists acknowledge the U.S. as their friend and protector? The questions are absurd: Of course not. After Suez, Arab nationalists redoubled their invective against the United States. The region turned increasingly radical, increasingly pro-Soviet, increasingly violent. And Nasser himself led the way through his vitriolic radio broadcasts, his aid to extremist movements throughout the region, and his tightening relationship with the Soviet Union.
Here's an alternative lesson to draw from Suez. What Westerners think of as goodwill, Middle Easterners often interpret as weakness. Westerners expect their concessions and compromises to be met with concessions and compromises in return. Instead, Western moderation often intensifies Middle Eastern radicalism -- as Eisenhower's goodwill intensified Nasser's radicalism, as Jimmy Carter's intensified the Ayatollah Khomeini's, as Ehud Barak's at Camp David intensified Yasser Arafat's. And (I'd argue) as George Bush's moderation toward Iran since 9/11 has intensified the Iranian regime's intransigence, extremism and violence.
By contrast, when Westerners act strongly and assertively, Middle Easterners surprisingly often back down. In 1958, Eisenhower sent 14,000 U.S. troops to support the government of Lebanon against Nasserist radicals -- and the radicals yielded. The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 intimidated the Iranian mullahs into releasing U.S. hostages.
Sometimes even mistakes can do the job. In 1986, a U.S. warship mistook an Iranian passenger jet for a fighter plane and shot it down. Khomeini refused to believe the shooting was an accident. He became convinced that the U.S. was actively intervening to support Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war -- and, for that reason, he at last agreed to accept peace.
What if the U.S. had shown itself equally tough in 1956? What if it had refused to rescue Nasser from his self-inflicted doom? What if terrorism and treaty-breaking had carried a high price for the first Arab dictator to try them? Might we possibly have had less terrorism and treaty-breaking in the years since?
We cannot know, of course. But we can say this: A lot of the mainstream commentary on the Middle East is guided by assumptions that Middle Eastern leaders will do what we would do if we were in their place. As Barry Rubin tartly observes in the June issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs:
"Palestinian leaders should be thinking: ...Violence, radicalism and maximalist demands have failed to bring benefits. We must instead try a strategy of compromise, peace and moderation. ... Since this seems logical, much of the world simply assumes that such is the Palestinian position." But in fact it is not the Palestinian position, any more than it is the Iranian position to want a negotiated solution to the nuclear problem or than Hezbollah wants a compromise with Israel.
The U.S. misjudged Nasser in 1956. And it has repeated that same misjudgment again and again in the years since. As the international community gets ready now to rescue Hezbollah and Iran from yet another war provoked by terrorism and treaty-violation, maybe it's time to consider a very different kind of lesson, the lesson forlornly propounded by Bernard Lewis for all these many years: "In the Middle East, get tough or get out."
DavidFrum@aei.org
© National Post 2006
PING!
This is a fact that is lost entirely on the appeasement crowd.....
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
Frum seems to have forgotten that there was another player in the drama - the USSR.
An excellent summary of recent history of the Near East. Suez was Eisenhower's biggest mistake: an attempt to "play fair" with people who have no concept of fairness, and only a very primitive notion of honor.
Of course, the Soviets were backing Nasser. Today, Putin is backing anyone who will hurt the US, so I guess things have not changed that much.
Frum is exactly right. Of course, it is too late to undo Eisenhower's folly, but we should at least try to learn from mistakes of the past. Bush is trying to do that, but with all the domestic anti-Americans around, and a traitorous opposition party, it is very difficult.
I must conclude that democracies such as ours don't really learn very well, particularly when they lack an effective educational system.
-
What did you read? The article is excellent and a good bit of historical review. Frum offers good counsel.
You touch on many very important aspects of the middle east.
In addition to a lack of honor and not having a concept of fairness, the middle eastern Muslims, mostly Arab, that I've dealt closely with in college and in my professional life, seem to lack an understanding of the concept of telling the truth, also. From my associations with Arabs it has become all too apparent that not only is it their belief that deceit is acceptable, but if you are good at it you will be held in high praise by your peers.
I completely agree with your assessment of the effectiveness of our public education system. I would go one step further to comment that it is precisely the lack of knowledge of history by the barking moonbat appeasement crowd that makes them completely oblivious to the folly of their argument.
I don't understand Frum's point here. Why the hell should the U.S. have cared about a dispute like this between shrinking colonial powers (France and Britain) and the new government of a former possession of theirs?
Hmmmm?
The eight-year Iran-Iraq War was Iran's first major external conflict since the Russo-Iranian wars of the first decades of the nineteenth century. The Iranian mullahs' policy of exporting fundamentalism ("spreading the Islamic Revolution") to Iraq played a key role in the outbreak of hostilities. Indeed, the Khomeini regime's determination to export revolution to Iraq was a major cause of the eight-year war...
The objectives for which Khomeini fanned the flames of war were finally left unrealized. The regime was defeated, and Khomeini, in his own words, "drank the chalice of the poison of the cease-fire" in July 1988. The defeat, however, did not destroy the mullahs' dream of dominating Iraq and installing a client fundamentalist regime. After the cease-fire, the mullahs strengthened their clandestine network in Iraq and waited for an opportune moment to revive their efforts toward realizing the old objectives. That opportunity came at the end of the Persian Gulf War.
Do you know how dumb you sound? You don't have any idea who David Frum is, do you?
"Following the election of George W. Bush in 2000, Frum was appointed to a position within the White House. Still a Canadian citizen, he was one of the few foreign nationals working within the Bush White House. He served as Special Assistant to the U.S. President for Economic Speechwriting from January 2001 to February 2002. In 2002, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum
BTW, thought provoking good post, bttt
BUMP
David Frum was a speechwriter for the President--and wrote a book about the President which was very flattering.
Ping!
I had lead off previously on the subject of the Suez Canal. I have done some homework since. I had it that there was a "100 year treaty". Actually the Suez Canal Company had a guaranteed lease for 99 years, from the 1869 grand opening of the Canal. Of course that was broken in 1956.
I find, what seems to me anyway, a curious parallel with the attitude of the likes of General Nasser, with certain "minorities". I have observed people in North America including Canada, fawning and complimenting a minority "spokesperson".
In most instances that "minority" person becomes more arrogant and more demanding. The would be sycophant then starts stammering apologies.
The First Nations people are an example. As we know, the demands get bigger and bigger. Ah, as to Dalton McGuinty, Ontario premier, what thanks has he got? (laughs).
How about some other lessons from the Suez Crisis? Maybe Eisenhower thought allowing British & French intervention there would hurt the case the U.S. made against the U.S.S.R. when that Communist country tried its own interventions in other countries? Maybe it was also a recognition that the time for decolonization had come, and that the Egyptians, after their earlier subjection to colonial powers, felt they had a grievance against the West? I don't think we can ignore the background history of the Cold War and colonialism.
That said, there is truth to the observation that Frum & other posters have made about the differences between the Arab/Islamic mindset and the Western mindset, where the former displays arrogance, deceitfulness, and ingratitude at every opportunity. I am very thankful to be living in Western civilization.
This expains the Intifada more than anything else. When Clinton (may doo-doo be upon him) invited Arafathead to the WH and Hillary embraced the first lady of PLO gangsterism, the Palestinians interpreted the gestures as an endorsment for the destruction of Israel. They envisioned a final terrorist jihad of thousands of suicide bombers from all over the Islamic world descending upon Israel. That it didn't happen that way speaks volumes about the Arab ability to believe in the feasibily of the most hair-brained of schemes. It also reveals their complete inability to admit the stupidity of previous empty promises and schemes. But Solomon said it 3,000 yrs ago--"Pride goes before a fall and a haughty spirit before destruction." Arabs have haughty spirits in spades.
"It's time we recognized the nature of the conflict. It's total war and we are all involved. Nobody on our side is exempted because of age, gender, or handicap. The Islamofacists have stolen childhood from the world." [FReeper Retief]
This is an excellent article. Muslim radicals won't give up until the West takes a stand. The pacifists are the enemies of peace.
Bump for later reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.