The Tunisian Election and the Arab Spring Post-Mortem

"The people want the fall of the regime."  -Protestors in Egypt's Tahrir Square

Last Monday, December 22nd, Tunisia held its first presidential election by popular vote.   Though the aftermath of the Arab Spring protests which rocked the Middle East continues to play out in a few counties in the region, the fervor and optimism of 2011 and 2012 has yielded to the harsh realities of 2013 and 2014.  The election signals an end to a long transitional period for Tunisia.  Looking back at some of the countries most affected by these revolutions and uprisings, I am compelled to ask: Did it make any difference?

Tunisia: President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was overthrown in 2011 and a transitional elected government put in his place.  Tunisia has remained relatively stable since then and has successfully elected its new president.  However, the newly elected Beji Caid Essebsi had strong ties to the previous authoritarian regime.

Libya: Eccentric dictator (and evil Carlos Santana according to my wife) Muammar Gaddafi was killed in August 2011 after a brief civil war.  In its place, a barely functioning transitional government consisting of an elected parliament rules parts of country.  Much of the rest of the country, including Tripoli, is governed by a rival Islamist government.  Both sides are in the midst of a simmering civil war.

Egypt: Former President Hosni Mubarak abdicated in February following weeks of protest.  After being elected President due in part to his large support from the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Morsi was overthrown in a military coup by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in July 2013.  El-Sisi was then elected president a year later.  Since then, the Muslim Brotherhood has been declared illegal (again) and open dissent is slowing become less tolerated. 

Syria: Despite unrest and open revolt since 2011, Bashar al-Assad remains president of most of Syria's major cities and populated regions, and things are almost certain to stay that way.  Hundreds of thousands are dead, millions displaced, ISIS has grown from this conflict, and relations between USA and Syria at an all time low.  Unless the heavily divided factions fighting against Assad can all unite under one leadership, it looks very unlikely Syria's uprising will end happily soon.

So has anything really changed?  Many of the leaders currently in power resemble the previous leaders.  Still, some basic reforms have been made and some countries have more democratic processes in place.  Long lasting and fundamental change takes years to accomplish.  Though we should not look at American-style democracy as the answer to the problems of every nation, leaders who are more sensitive to the desires of their people and open, tolerant societies are ideal.

Personally, I support the way the United States interacted with these protests at first.  By supporting the protesters and later armed rebels (at least in nations that didn't have massive oil reserves), but not toppling leaders outright, it helped these revolutionaries bring about their own change.  However, the mistake in policy came when the United States ignored the long process of political transition in places like Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt which followed after the initial leadership change.  Economic and diplomatic support could have helped the democratic process take root more efficiently in this region.  But above all, these transitions take both time and the political will for change.

Article on Tunisian Elections

The Strategies of Terrorism in Peshawar

"I, along with millions of others around the world, mourn these children, my brothers and sisters – but we will never be defeated."  - Malala Yousafzai

On Tuesday, December 16th, militants of the Pakistani Taliban entered a school in Peshawar and opened fire on hundreds of students and teachers.  With over 145 people dead, this tragedy stands as one of the worst examples of terrorist violence in recent history.  In the face of such horrendous suffering, it is natural to wonder why anyone would ever carry out such an action.

Are terrorists crazed lunatics or cold, calculating people?  Are they thinking rationally when planning and carrying out attacks, or do they follow a mob mentality driven by their leaders? In the study of terrorism, there are two main schools of thought which try to understand why someone would commit a terrorist act.  These can be roughly broken down into the rationalist theories and behavioral theories.

Within rationalist theory, the fundamental assumption is that terrorists are rational when considering their actions (rational meaning that they understand cause and effect, I think everyone can agree that no truly rational person would engage in terrorism against innocent people).  To them, bombings and indiscriminate violence are a (horrifying) means to an end.  Using these tactics can intimidate a population (as in Pakistan) or provoke a government response (9/11 being one such example).  To this end, many argue that terrorists have a logical (though very inhumane) way of reaching an objective.

Behavioral theories, on the other hand, contend that terrorists are motivated by the dynamics of group mentality and emotions such as rage or resentment.  In these cases, their actions would be seen as an emotional and irrational response to a perceived injustice.  There is evidence to suggest terrorist groups operate in this capacity as well, since some groups will conduct actions that are counterproductive.  In other cases, groups continue to stay together and fight long after their initial goals have been met (such as the mujahidin staying together in Afghanistan following the expulsion of the Soviets).

Terrorism doesn't just work by terrifying, it works by using and exploiting fear to bring about specific actions. But terrorism can backfire.  Already, the Pakistani government has used this as an opportunity to bring various factions of Pakistanis together in an attempt to present a united front against further Taliban encroachment. Whether motivated by rational cause and effect or emotional rage and resentment, the events of December 16th show just how much work remains to be done in the fight against violent extremism both in Central Asia and the world.

I think it is important to remember that most victims of extremists like the Taliban are Muslims.  While we cancel film screenings and debate about feeling insecure in the face of mere whispers of terrorist threats in this country, we would do well to remember that Muslims throughout the Middle East and Central Asia are the ones who truly suffer. Only by understanding the motivations and dynamics of terrorism can we have any hope of eliminating it from the world.  As for the efficacy of terrorism as a strategy, I think that is a topic for another day...

TL;DR: Terrorists are not the crazed lunatics we see in Hollywood.  The are often rational, sometimes emotion, and always disturbingly dangerous.


The Strategies of Terrorism

Pakistan's Reaction to the Taliban Shooting

[Redacted]: The Effectiveness of Enhanced Interrogation

"Our enemies act without conscience. We must not." -John McCain on the Senate's Interrogation Report

Let's talk about something light-hearted: torture.  Or rather, the effectiveness of interrogation and the so-called "enhanced interrogation" tactics used in the "War on Terror."  Yesterday, the U.S. Senate released its long-awaited report on an intensive investigation of some of the CIA's controversial intelligence gathering methods, water-boarding the most notorious among them. 

Overall, the Senate's report accuses the CIA of under-representing the number of enhanced interrogation cases and over-representing the amount and effectiveness of intelligence gathered from these cases.  Naturally, the CIA has taken issue with this report.  Whether the Agency misled the public, or the Senate has conducted a poorly-executed investigation is irrelevant to me.  Instead, I am far more concerned with the discussion on the effectiveness of the CIA's intelligence gathering methods.

Personally, I believe the techniques outlined in the Senate report (as summarized by NPR below) ride a fine line between torture and coercion.  These tactics included water-boarding (simulated drowning), stress positions, sleep deprivation, chaining subjects to the floor, and forced nudity.  True interrogation relies upon building trust between the subject and the interrogator.  If we think about an interrogation as a transaction, then the subject is trading information and cooperation for the promise of whatever the interrogator is offering.  Without this fundamental trust, the subject will have no reasonable expectation of anything in return for his or her cooperation, and will thus be far less likely to comply.  While not impossible to create under duress, I believe more positive means of gaining trust are more effective.

This is not to say all interrogations should be full of hugs and kittens.  However, the distinction between coercion (using pressure or negative influences to illicit compliance) and torture is critically important here.  Though some of these people at the wrong end of the CIA's interrogations are likely guilty of committing horrible crimes, this does not justify causing extreme suffering under the excuse of intelligence gathering.  Coercive tactics can be useful in obtaining information, but more positive means of encouragement are far more desirable.

In his book The Black Banners, Ali Soufan describes his time as an interrogator for the FBI.  Having personally spoken with and interrogated several high profile suspects, Soufan has seen first-hand that positive means of encouragement are far more effective at gaining trust than torture or methods which border on torture.  Soufan would often provide small gestures of respect designed to allow a subject to maintain his dignity.  These included showing genuine interest in the well-being of the subject's family or showing respect to his religion. 

According to Soufan, this method, when combined with classic techniques of information gathering, provided reliable and useful intelligence far more often than overly coercive means.  Under extreme duress, subjects tend to stop cooperating and will often tell the interrogator exactly what they want to hear, rather than what they need to know.  Simply put, information gained under extreme duress becomes vastly more unreliable and increases the likelihood that a subject will succeed in counter-interrogation methods.

However, proponents of enhanced interrogation methods argue that using only positive reinforcement to gather information is naive wishful thinking.  There is a compelling argument to be made that the type of people who typically find themselves in an interrogation room are not exactly nice people to begin with, and are unlikely to give up information simply by being respectful to them.  It is possible that more coercive methods could be effective, but only if there is a reasonable expectation from the subject's point of view that the unpleasant methods would end.  When enhanced interrogation begins to resemble outright torture (as in the case of Khalid Sheik Mohammed being water-boarded 183 times) this expectation, and thus trust, begin to quickly break down.

In all, even if enhanced interrogation tactics were useful in such successes as finding Osama bin Laden, they are still almost useless in preventing widespread terrorism and extremism.  Education, social mobility, and large-scale economic investment in impoverished regions are among the best methods of such success.

TL/DR: "Enhanced interrogation," while maybe not outright torture, might not be all that effective anyway.

Links:

NPR Report on 5 Main Interrogation Tactics Under Question

Full Report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The Black Banners Website

A Call To Action: Syria's Lost Generation

"Why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones?" - Varys, A Game of Thrones

This week's post differs substantially from what I believe will be the usual format.  Typically, I will provide some historical background to a given topic, then include my own analysis and supporting theories on my stated opinions.  Throughout, I encourage informed and civil discussion and disagreement.  This post, however, is much more of a call to action.  It is a reminder of those who are truly suffering in the region, and a suggestion for what we can do to help.  I have been considering starting this blog for some time now, but this issue has ultimately motivated me to take action.  It is my hope that it motivates you as well...

To date, the Syrian Civil War has claimed the lives of an estimated 191,000 people and displaced over 3.2 million individuals, according to the United National High Commissioner for Refugees.  To put that in perspective, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the population of the Twin Cities metro area at around 3.4 million.  To say that this has become a crisis is a gross understatement, this is a monumental tragedy in the making.  These refugees, both internally displaced within Syria and those who have fled the country, often lack the most basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter.  Needless to say, basic healthcare, education, and meaningful employment have now become luxuries for those devastated by war.

To make matters worse, relief organizations such as the World Food Programme are running desperately short on the funding essential to maintaining their basic operations.  Without a sudden influx of roughly $64 million, the WFP will have to suspend its program of food assistance to nearly 1.7 million of these refugees.  With winter beginning to set in throughout the region, the loss of this assistance will almost undoubtedly prove disastrous. 

As a society, it is my belief that we have an obligation to provide a basic means of survival for those who are truly unable to provide for themselves.  The holiday season is an ideal time to remember those less fortunate and espouse the virtues of goodwill and charity.  Even a small contribution to refugee aid programs is a step in the right direction.  The worst thing we can do is to simply ignore the problem.  Syria's refugee population is on the brink of becoming a lost generation. They are becoming a generation without permanent residence and broken by war, hunger, and the apathy of the rest of the world.  Though it may be easy to forget these refugees as we become consumed by our own worries and inconveniences, one thing is certain: the Syrians will remember...

Article on the World Food Programme and Syrian Assistance: http://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/wfp-forced-suspend-syrian-refugee-food-assistance-warns-terrible-impact-winter-nea

UNHCR Syria Overview: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

My Inaugural Post: Starting Out

So I've decided to start writing a blog.  This project is my attempt to understand the most pressing issues of the Middle East and international politics, with the aim of educating others and providing a forum for informed, civilized discussion.  My background is primarily in History, Middle East Studies, and Political Science.  Though I hold a graduate degree in contemporary Middle East History from the University of Utah, I fully acknowledge that I have regrettably been unable to ever visit the region itself.  Though I will attempt to prevent it, this unfortunate bias may present itself in both my historical analysis and my opinions.  It is for this reason I have titled my blog "The Orientalist Express," a reference to Edward Said and his theory which discusses the phenomenon of viewing the "Orient" through a strictly "Western" framework.  Still, this does not disqualify me from voicing my opinions on critical issues.  It is with all this in mind that I begin this project.