War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History, Revised and Updated

I read this book in about 4 hours and took passed the Dantes DSST exam (An Introduction to the Modern Middle East) for 3 credit hours.An outstanding resource. I highly recommend this book for military personnel who are pressed for time and need 3 quick credits.

Clearly written, good command of pertinent facts. Documents cynical and self serving decisions especially by Britain in the 1920s to undermine the right to self determination of Kurds and Palestinians - we see today the chaos and suffering these imperial oil-for-us decisions continue to impose on the local populations.

Great book!!! It is a short read, very detailed. A great historically accurate account. Fair and balanced. Highly recommend.

Can't wait to read it!

good

Avi Shlaim's incisive comprehension of Near Eastern geopolitics is evident in this short yet compelling critique of what has been wrong with America's involvement in the Mid-East. Shlaim points out that America's outlook has been warped by seeing a Soviet threat in every corner rather than simply confronting it where it actually existed (such as in Afghanistan). For this reason, Shlaim's contends, America has had a two-pronged (and confused, flawed, and ultimately detrimental) policy: globalist and confrontational designed to "contain" Soviet influence and regionalist/rationalist which would take each situation in the world and deal with it as per the local state of affairs. What is amazing is that the globalist approach often had the opposite effect because it often drove Arab states to become Soviet clients vis-à-vis the Israeli situation. Reagan, for example, was obsessed with the Soviet threat (and rightly so at the time), but he was shortsighted and unable to extricate regional conflicts such as those between Israel and Palestine and the destructive Iran-Iraq from the possibility of Soviet intervention. Of course the US didn't turn itself into the master puppeteer in the Mid-east until it forced Britain, France, and Israel to back out of Egypt in 1956. This marked the end of direct imperialism and the beginning of American hegemony wherever American interests lay. So why did the US start supporting Israel? Many reasons, Shlaim explains. Israel wisely positioned itself as a natural ally of the west and promoted the idea that it was opposed to Soviet Communism in the region (this played big with the gullible American masses, but not with American realists and academics). Israel had the most democratic society in the region (albeit in apartheid form) and was related to Americans as such by the so-called "Friends of Israel" (including groups of Jewish Americans, but not all, as well as many Christian fundamentalists and others). The American-Israeli interest groups promoted a hugely successful propagandist campaign that made any criticism of Israel synonymous with anti-Semitism and convinced many Americans that supporting Israel in her imperialist ventures was actually stabilizing the region when, in fact, it had the opposite effect. American foreign policy, Shlaim argues, was not to promote a "New World Order" but to entrench the Old Order that had existed since post-Ottoman times. The local perception of the disillusioned masses was that the US was the supporter of authoritarian regimes dependent upon American military assistance and as guarantors of the status of elites (the downfall of the Shah of Iran was largely due to American short-sighted support of his oppressive regime) of the region. What's more the wanton death and destruction that was continuously fueled by America's arms shipments to Iran (covertly and illegally done during the Reagan administration and subsequently dubbed the Iran-Contra Affair) and Iraq. What was the point of American foreign policy in the region? To safeguard American interests wherever possible, even at the expense of local populations. Why did the US leave Saddam in power in Iraq? In order to promote the Old Order that has been in existence since the carving up of the Ottoman Empire into unnatural states. The British and the French had created unnatural nations in the post-Ottoman period and the US thought it unwise to allow Iraq to disintegrate for no credible reason. Where was the US after it told the Kurds and Shiites to rebel against Saddam? America's vanishing act led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi opposition forces and all to appease the Turks and to keep Iraq as weak as possible rather than pressing for a democratic Iraq which could stand as a beacon for progressive change in the region. What's also interesting is that Shlaim compares different American administrations and how the peace process would move forward when direct American pressure was brought to bear (such as under Bush Sr. who did not depend upon the Jewish American support) upon Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories (the parallels with the resolutions calling for Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait are almost identical to those calling for Israel's withdrawal). The peace process would then get stalled every time the US resumed its blank check policy of supporting Israel's imperialist ventures when substantively receiving nothing in return except greater instability (this was the opinion of Baker and Bush Sr.). Shlaim argues that many of the solutions that the US could promote and enforce as the world's hegemonic power involve threatening to cut aid to Israel until they comply with UN resolutions. A natural Iraqi breakup would also actually promote greater stability in the region. With the Israeli "threat" gone, the region's radicals would find themselves without an audience to sponsor instability in the region, Shlaim contends. Why does the US public remain unable to comprehend the complexities of this conflict, which has poisoned America's image around the world? Because of misinformation and propaganda, short-sighted and flawed foreign policy, and selfish actions that keep the oil flowing but hurt civilian populations by the millions. Rather than simply taking the usual one-dimensional view that the region is simply full of radical primitives, Shlaim argues that there are clear patterns of logical response going on. Radicals aren't born in a vacuum. The seeds have to be planted and nurtured and the seeds of instability have had as their sole gardener, the US. Only a logical and CONSISTENT regional approach to the Near East can actually turn the perception of the US as a malevolent imperialist bully into a very plausible view of the US as an even-handed promoter of democratic rights and, in essence, the true American way and not the current policy of short-term elitist support and resource exploitation and catering to domestic interest groups such as AIPAC (the most prominent pro-Israeli lobby in Washington). The US does not have to be despised in the region. All it takes is more interest and action by the American masses and an independent press and political system that does not require private funding to function.

To an outside observer the Middle East seems to be a very irrational region that is occupied with conflicts of unexplainable driving forces. To people involved in these conflicts, however, the whole world's attitude towards them seems to be either prejudiced or odd to say the least. Thus, it is a rare opportunity to run into anyone who is able to dig out the factors that influence the region and explain them rationally, which is why reading this book would prove to be a very enriching and valuable experience.It is hard to imagine any person capable of undertaking this endeavor better than Avi Shlaim, an Oxford professor of international relations. The fact that Mr. Shlaim was born in Baghdad, grew up in Israel, and graduated from London is evident of the magnitude of his viewpoint and his ability to grasp the big picture.In this short book (146 pages) the author introduces the post-Ottoman Middle East, a decaying region that fell prey to the colonial western powers subsequent to World War I. And while one might suspect that this introduction is too far back in history and has little relevance to the Middle East of today, Mr. Shlaim argues to the contrary. You can trace, asserts the author, almost all of the current conflicts in the Middle East to the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916 and the Balfour Declaration in 1917. These historical milestones were designed by the colonial powers to disengage from their colonies in the Middle East, but they were devised without any concern for the political and cultural landscape of the region. In Mr. Shlaim's words, "the postwar order imposed by Britain and the Allies created a belt of turmoil and instability stretching from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. The destruction of the Ottoman empire was not followed by a new order but a new disorder."Analysis of regional history beyond that point is divided among two opinions. The first being the conventional view of external forces playing the decisive part in the political evolution of the contemporary Middle East, while the second believes that the dominant feature was the manipulation of the international powers by regional powers. The author takes a stand between these views, believing that regional powers did enjoy more leverage in dealing with outside powers than is generally recognized while being heavily influenced by the external powers. Mr. Shlaim divide external involvement into four phases: the Ottoman, the European, the superpower, and the American.Avi examines every phase and not only explains the factors that created the history we know (or would come to know) but also investigates the motives behind every action and every policy. The reader is left with a satisfyingly clear and coherent picture of the Middle East right to the end of the 20th century, and by the conclusion of the book you will be able to comprehend the politics of the Middle East onward.The only drawback is the fact that the book ends before the events of September 11 and the invasion (or liberation) of Iraq. These two events are earthshaking and are in effect turning points for the Middle East. However, the factors laid out by Avi in this book are the ones the brought about those two events, which is telling of the accuracy of Mr. Shlaim's analysis and insight.Another great feature of this book is its lack of political-correctness. The author will not shy away from statements such as blaming "Reagan's idleness, intellectual mediocrity, and lax leadership" for the incoherent US policy towards the Middle East during his presidency, or from stating "what a closed, dark place" Syria still was when other regional leaderships (including the Palestinian) demonstrated slight improvement in mindset. These accusations are not simple emotional outcries, for they are the culminations of thorough analysis and rational and impartial observation. The author does cast his blame fairly, in my humble opinion, and is not prejudiced by his religion or his ethnicity, which might discomfort some bigoted readers.In conclusion, this is a book very suitable for any reader interested in the Middle East, even if slightly given how short it is. The reader is not required to have any background information about the region as the book provides a proper introduction accompanied with several political maps of different eras.This book is definitely a must-buy and a great read.

Very general overview of the superpower involvement in the region. It's pretty short but serves as a good starting point for further reading.

This was recommended as background reading for a student going to study Arabic at university. I'm not an Arabic student but started reading her copy and couldn't stop. I feel I know more than I did about a complicated area of contemporary importance. It is concise, it is clear. It was written a while ago and much has happened in the Middle East since then but it is still worth reading. No one book can explain the problems in the Middle East but this is a good start for those who are interested in trying to understand.

Concise and always human view of the conflicts I would urge anyone interested to try this first or second if you are interested it will add to what you know.