Rated by buyers 
-
Mr Sieff
A refreshing piece of work...much straightforward information...BUT you completely missed the 1915 Genocide of a million and a half Armenians by the Young Turk gov't assisted by the Germans....You mentioned the massacres of Armenians 20 years earlier by Hamid...but they were a blip on the bloody timeline compared to 1915?????!!!!....PLEASE EXPAIN THIS OMISSION....My grandparents lost most of their families in the Genocide of 1915.
Rated by buyers 
-
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 endeavor 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."
Rated by buyers 
-
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".
Rated by buyers 
-
Should be "required reading" before opening one's mouth about any Mid-East topic. Excellent summary
Rated by buyers -
This book is not a scholar's take on the Middle East. There are no pesky footnotes, no sources provided for many of the fascinating socio/politico/historical facts brought to the reader's attention. Nonetheless, this is an excellent guide to understanding the Middle East, because it is written from the point of view of a NON-cultural relativist, that is, someone who doesn't believe in the multiculturalist axiom that all cultures or civilizations are equal, or one burdened by "white man's guilt syndrome" who deep down believes that non-Western cultures are superior to Western civilization.
This work is a page-turner, with a fresh insight, little-known factoid, or counterintuitive take on practically every page. If you want to better understand the Mideast, you won't go wrong buying this book!
In spite of my encomiums for this book, it has one huge shortcoming. It is actually a big shame that the book pretty much ignores the elephant in the room, the overarching ideological, social, political, cultural and civilizational influence for 1,400 years in what until the 1960s used to be called the Orient (as contradistinguished from the Occident, nowadays, the West), then the Near East, yesterday the Mideast. Martin Seiff inexplicably leaves out a decent primer of indisputably far-and-away the overrarching influence in the region, I-S-L-A-M.
At the dawn of Islam in the 7th Century, most of what is now the Middle East was either Christian or Zoroastrian, with Jews sprinkled about everywhere. North Africa (peopled by the then Euro-centric Berbers) and Egypt (also non-Arab descendants of the ancient Pharoanic Egyptians) were Greco-Christian civilizations, the Levant, Anatolia and Mesopotamia were likewise Christian lands (likewise peopled by non-Arab ethnicities), and Persia was Zoroastrian. All of these non-Muslim, non-Arab lands were conquered by Jihad, and then fully Arabized and Islamicized, with many millions killed or enslaved, and their native civilizations completely annihilated.
The Arabs were and are the greatest imperialists of all time, following the example of the founder of Islam, Mohammed, a socio-political control freak and warrior unsurpassed in world history, because people die every day somewhere in the world in Jihad -- most world terrorism is carried out by Islamists -- in accordance with the teachings of Mohammed, known as the Sunna.
There are a number of highly respected commentators who conclude that the theology of Islam is essentially incompatible with Western-style liberal democracy, individual, minority and human rights, and a civil society marked by rule of law rather than autocracy or dictatorship. Diana West, Serge Trifcovic and the pseudonymous "Spengler" at Asia Times Online come to mind: none of them buy the neocon twaddle that Muslim lands in the Middle East can become democracies, because they understand the role of Islam, the doctrines of Jihad and submission (all Muslims must "submit" -- that is what the word "Islam" means!) -- slavelike, to Allah -- who is akin to an Oriental despot, not the loving God of the Old and New Testament -- and all Jewish and Christian infidels must submit to Islam as dhimmis, semi-slaves under Islamic Law, the Shari'a, while all other kaffirs, "unbelievers" consigned by Allah to Jahahum, Hell and fair game to be killed, robbed, abused, raped, enslaved, etc., such as "polytheists" or animists can be massacred if they do not submit, i.e., convert, to Islam). All of these doctrines of normative Islam are detailed in the three sacred texts of Islam, the Koran, the Hadith (sayings/traditions of Mohammed), and the Sira (canonical biographies of Mohammed).
The real question is, why didn't the author talk about any of this? Two reasons: (1) Most all writers on current events and foreign affairs don't understand the power and influence of Islamic theology and dogma, because they mostly all come from a decidedly secular-humanist background, as opposed to a deeply religious one. They fail to understand that Western values are based on Judeo-Christian doctrines and ethics which are in turn grounded in the ethic of reciprocity (Golden Rule), which does not exist -- alone of the world's great religions -- in Islam! (2) It is supremely politically incorrect to point out that political Islam is in fact diametrically opposed to Judeo-Christian values, something that was openly discussed during the "golden age" of Western Islamic studies by non-Muslim scholars of Islam, circa 1870-1970. If one goes online and reads the entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia of around 1910 (it is in the public domain, no copyright) for "Mohammed" and "Islam," one will get a good (and fascinating) picture of the pre-politically correct Western appraisal of Mohammed and the doctrines of Islam.
Thus, I vehemently disagree with the author's incredibly ill-informed benign view of the retrograde Saudi polity -- a most repressive regime that is the last on earth not to allow women drivers' licenses, that recently banned Bibles from its national airline, and finally got around to outlawing slavery in the 1960s -- which, since the early 1970s, has been pushing a virulently anti-Western, anti-American, antisemitic and profoundly anti-democratic Jihadi version of Islam around the world with its endles billions in petrodollars, namely Whahabbism.
The solution is not to "kill the bastards" Anne Coulter-style. The solution is very first to "know our enemy" -- political Islam -- and then to follow through on a longterm plan of disengagement and containment. Then, instead of a "clash of civilizations" we will have a "crash of civilizations" (I got this apt trope from Niall Ferguson, a very insightful historian and commentator), as the different Muslim sects and ethnicities fight each other (the Iran-Iraq War was the longest conventional war of the last century, resulting in over one million dead Muslims!), as they have been wont to do for 1,400 years.