|
I accept the last theme, "established by power", but in my humble opinion, the United States motivation for Middle East hegemony is Oil, Oil, and More Oil. It led me to believe that the author himself was making the quote; but an author in third person narrative does not enclose his own thoughts in quotes.I must also offer my opinion on the author's writing style. Why is the United States in the Middle East. involvement in sub-Sahara Africa - but the results are quite different. There were many snippets of information that I found extremely interesting. This book tries to put a very pious spin on a United States foreign policy that is truly based simply on economics and politics. There were several instances where the author quotes some dialog but the quote is not referenced properly in the narrative nor the bibliographic notes.
I personally wish the author had spent more time with his research notes than with a thesaurus. According to this tome it is based on a three prong theme dominated by the most noble cause of faith while also supported by fantasy and established by power. The style for some will be edifyingly eloquent but others may find it utterly pretentious. I am sure anyone can apply the same three prong theme the author uses to describe U.S. Unfortunately, trying to overlook the obvious, the author cannot disguise his very biased viewpoint in much of the narrative.For me, there were also many quotes and references in the work that were left unexplained and without supporting notes. Maybe some of the unexplained quotes and references would be more thoroughly detailed.In the end, I did find the book informative especially considering the substantial timeframe and material the author decided to cover. It is worth a read if you have time but I caution the reader to use this work as an overview on the subject and keep in mind that in many instances the narrative viewpoint is very biased.
And more importantly - speaking of enlightenment,education and the rise of nationalist ideas in the region Mr.Oren barely mentions few graduates from the American missionary schools and builds up the impression that this period is absolutely void of substantial intelectual activity. After her release Ms Ellen herself bacame one of the voices of Bulgaria's struggle for independence.
Quite biased though. I can point out two cases where Mr.Oren might have filtered historical fact through his own prism in order to convey certain ideas: Mr.Oren dedicates few lines on page 248 to the plight of thousands of Bulgarians in the Ottoman empire, being massacred by the hundreds in the years before the Liberation in 1878.
Interesting book, captivating in the beginning. The history remembers the case as "The Miss Ellen Affair" and is one of the most controversial pages of the Bulgarian history.
Having described previously the ethico-political dilemma faced by the US administration, Mr.Oren informs us that the US State Department sent two investigators to the region, whose reports "emboldened the Russians to attack the Ottomans in 1887", but didn't lead to any actions from the side of the US, that instead chose to preserve the good tone with the Porte. Page 311 writes about the "Bulgarian bandits", who "forgetting America's earlier contribution to Bulgaria's struggle for independence", kidnapped an American missionary named Ellen Stone.
And more importantly, the only substantial and real contributor to Bulgaria's freedom at the time is the Russian Empire and some 105 467 of its soldiers, who perished on the battle fields, 91 652 wounded, and 3 500 missing. In fact the period had figures like Jamal ad-Diin al-Afghani, Mohammad Abdo, Abd ar-Rahman Kawakibi, Rifaat Rafi Tahtawi.
On the Armenian genocide: This is a massive controversy among historians. Surely it matters what people who actually lived in the Middle East thought and said about what was going on, right. I'd been hoping for history of the Middle East, but this is purely a history of Americans in their own words. If the point is this important, it should be made well. The solution would be to look at Turkish and/or German government documents. On an issue this big, the author has the responsibility of referencing at least one non-American (and preferably Turkish) source, even if it's to support the American reports.
On the question of how much influence the German government had over Turkey during WWI: The author tells us that the Germans were controlling Turkish policy. Clearly he hasn't learned those languages, but couldn't he at least have consulted other things written in English by people who know what was being said in Turkish, Arabic, Persian, etc.Two examples from the WWI section: 1. This is a bold claim with a lot of implications. His evidence. I began with the section on WWI and had to give up. But only German conspiracy theorists would say that Russia was controlling French or British policy. Why would that logic work in the case of Germany and Turkey.
Given the enormous amount of research done on WWI, surely someone has researched the question. How does this author get away with such a glib answer.2. That is worthless as an argument: declaring war on the enemies of one's treaty partner was standard diplomatic practice in Europe at the time. Yet this author did not bother consulting anything written in Middle Eastern languages. But this author looks only at what Americans were saying (i.e.
Only this: that Turkey declared war on the USA when the US declared war on Germany, Turkey's ally by treaty. It's recognized as one of the major factors that led to WWI in the first place that France and Britain went to war to support Russia as its allies by treaty. that genocide really was taking place). This author's laziness is inexcusable, and now I have to find a properly researched and written book.
Some of newborn America's first baby steps on the world stage were taken into the quicksand of Middle Eastern politics. America has not been napping, but in a Gullivereskian way, the Lilliputians of small minds from all sides has left America feeling POWERless, with a challenged FAITH, yet still clinging to the FANTASY of hope.Reviewed by Charles Dusenbury, author MOLASBA and COMPUTER BRAIN, on Kindle. If it was printed since 1776, the story of America in the Middle East will basically read the same, "Never ending or beginning, on an ever spinning wheel." This well written book makes one feel as if a moth drawn irresistibly to the flame.
Not as a challenge to cross, but a narrative line to follow. You know it. Michael Orin draws a compelling line in the sand.
The ending. A timeline, if you will, of events enacted, of responses made, of good intentions meant.Pick a year, any year. Pick a paper, any paper.
The whole tangled mess of American Foreign Policy, the no-go efforts of NGOs (didn't we used to call them missionaries)., leaves us rubber-necking at a wreckage we cannot turn away from.POWER, FAITH, AND FANTASY.
However, with the latest tragic outbreak of Israeli-Arab violence in the Gaza Trip, I was spurred on to do so after I saw Mr. This is where the book starts to hit the skid marks. Thus, we learn about how the nascent US Navy took on the naval fleets of North Africa, of how 19th century Americans were captivated with the sensual tales of "1,001 Arabian Nights", and how American missionaries made inroads into the Middle East by proselytizing Eastern Christians to the Protestant denomination. Oren defends Israel, understandably I suppose, for every military engagement that it locked horns with the Arabs. Oren's style is unique and his presentation of such notable and easily recognizable American historical figures such as Theodore Roosevelt, Ulysses S. Grant Herman Melville, and Mark Twain in relation to the problems of the Middle East provides a delightful and informative account of how the United States' relations with the Middle East were formed shortly after the end of the Revolutionary War. I originally didn't intend to write a review of Michael Oren's "Power, Faith and Fantasy" after I completed reading it over a year ago. One gets the sense that Oren wants to summarize the history of the "special" relationship of the United States as quickly as possible but one can't help but wonder as to what happened to Oren's objectivity once we near this time period.
On the last page of the book, Oren makes the claim that "On balance, Americans historically brought far more beneficence than avarice to the Middle East and caused significantly less harm than good," which, to anyone following up on the news, knows is absolute hogwash. Thankfully, we only get to this portion once we hit the 1940s - about 2/3 into the book - and thus, the creation of Israel. The deaths of over 500,000 Iraqis in the just the latest war - to say nothing of Madeline Albright's shameless expression and satisfaction of the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children who died because of the sanctions were "worth it" - is never mentioned in one of Oren's most astonishing lapses in reasoning. There are always those inevitable elements that surprise even the most well-informed readers.Of course, presentation is only half the work. Oren, complete in an Israel Defense Force camouflage smocks, speaking to CNN and giving the latest claptrap about how Israel was fighting for Western values and helping to the rid the world of terrorism - the sort of childish black and white fairy tales you heard when you were a child.First of all, there is no need in denying that Oren is an excellent writer and his narrative from start to finish is written superbly and the text is, quite honestly, unparalleled to other works I have seen. He certainly doesn't waste any time in alluding to the US's current headaches with Iran by pointing the finger at the Islamic Republic at every available opportunity (such as the 1983 Marine barracks bombing), often with no evidence to back up his claims.
Like many reviewers have noted, Oren's book up until the early 20th century, provides an entertaining perspective of how the Middle East was perceived by Americans and vice versa. The historian also has the duty and obligation to uphold facts and remain as much as objective as possible. Oren's defense of Israel and the US's foray into the Middle East in the 21st century fails on all levels to adhere to objectivity. Like others have said, read this book up until 1948 but if you want a better and far more honest review of the United States' relationship with the Middle East, I'd highly recommend Noam Chomsky's "Fateful Triangle".
|
