The Last Jihad?
I’m reading a book right now called The Last Jihad. It was written by one Joel C. Rosenberg. The cover describes it as “the explosive New York Times bestseller.” Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy are among the reviewers quoted inside the bronze cover, dominated by a 3-D Congress.
The book is set about six years in the future, just after the 2008 U.S. presidential election. It is very pro-Bush, Republican and makes no secret of the fact. Hence it is hardly surprising that it is the Limbaughs that welcomed this book.
It is a roller-coaster ride beginning with an attack on the new president’s motorcade, closely followed by attacks on other “friendly” regimes around the globe, including Paris, London and the Saudi royal family.
Now that got me thinking.
How does one define “friendly” nations? And in whose opinion?
France, for example, would probably have a very different set of friends from the U.S. But let us assume we are thinking this out from a Western perspective. Okay, it is pretty much given that all of North and most of South America are ‘in’, pretty much all of Europe too. Most of Africa wants to be recognized by the West, as do the developing countries of the Far East, with the obvious North Korean exception and the ongoing deep suspicion about China, though there has been a considerable thawing there. Australasia is a given, as are the inhabitants of the polar caps – though it has been said the penguins are working on a nuclear deterrent to stop man’s destruction of the last great untouched land masses. And that leaves one area, which always seems to be the one standing up and shouting in the diplomatic classroom while the other pupil states are trying desperately to get on with the lesson.
The Middle East.
It is not easy to know what to say next in a few words that will not expand into a multi-volume account of Middle-Eastern international relations.
Calling the Saudis a “friendly” nation, especially from a conservative background, is probably a little misguided. True, the U.S. and the rest need the petroleum; true the Saudi royals are desperately in need of stability, which maybe the West can help provide; but to call Saudi Arabia a friendly country?
Much of the rest of the Middle East is also problematic when you are choosing your real friends. Syria is out. Lebanon is Syria. Egypt is simmering with extremists ready to force their steam out of the pressure cooker. Iraq. Iran. Yemen. Libya. The terror-ridden North African states. Which basically leaves Jordan, the Emirates, Israel and the Comoros Islands. For the latter you need a microscope rather than a telescope. And that leaves three. Enough has been said here and elsewhere about Israel and its commitment to the West. So we are left with Jordan and the Emirates. The Jordanian royals are seemingly in synch with the West, their problem is trying to hold on to power amid an increasingly vociferous and ever-increasing Palestinian majority. The Emirates and neighboring Gulf states are actually quite warm to the West, though they live in the shadows of three big brothers, Iran, Iraq and in particular the “friendly” Saudis. One other point, once you peel away the foreign workers in those states, the people who come in their hundreds of thousands: the Egyptians, Palestinians and so on, you are left with precious few people.
So, all in all the West can pretty much count on the entire globe as its “friend,” other than the vast majority of the Middle East.
Oh, regarding The Last Jihad, if you have read it, please don’t email me discussing the end of the story, I am only on page 127.