Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_14_T-birds_1543-1.JPG

Nellis_14_T-birds_1441-1.JPG

Nellis_14_T-birds_1491-1.JPG

Nellis_14_GR4_0963-1.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Is Turkey preparing to open a Military front against Al-Assad

This is a discussion on Is Turkey preparing to open a Military front against Al-Assad within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by STURM If I recall correctly, post WW2 there were calls from various Arab leaders/nationalists to have a ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old October 29th, 2012   #61
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: India
Posts: 83
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
If I recall correctly, post WW2 there were calls from various Arab leaders/nationalists to have a giant Arab state that would have comprised Saudi, the Gulf states, Jordan, Iraq and Syria. Apart from being very impractical to implement, this move was resisted by the outside powers. A huge part of the problem is due to artificial borders that were created by France and Britain - to safeguard their national interests - which resulted in people from the same sects or tribes being displaced and geographically seperated.

Modern day Lebanon for instance was part of Syria until it was carved out into a separate state by the French, which is the main reason why we have Alawites in Lebanon. Hatay was part of Syria until it was annexed by Turkey. We also have examples of artifial borders in areas where there are Sunni majorities, like in Jordan, which is where the hashemite settled after being kicked out of Hejaz, where they were originally from. King Faisal of Iraq who was shot with his family after being desposed in a left wing coup, was King Hussin's [of Jordan's] cousin.
Sykes-Pikot hidden agreement between the colonial powers of France and United Kingdom, with the assent of Imperial Russia carved out the Levant and the Arab Syrian Republic is a byproduct of that Accord. They divided the Levant into five countries namely Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel (seed was sowed for the creation of Jewish state).

The unnatural division of the people of Muslim Faith to meet out imperial ambitions and to totally crush the future of any powerful Muslim state they partitioned the receding Ottoman Empire that ultimately culminated in the abolition of Islamic Caliphate.

The biggest country in the Levant, Syria is going through a turmoil after Arab revolution- hurricane entered in its borders. After nearly two years of turmoil the Bathist regime of president Basher Al- Assad is still able to hold the power structure of the country with the help of strategic partner Iran and proxy Hezbollah and “off course” with the impeccable backing of resurgent Russians and rising Chinese.

In my view the peace will only to return in the region of Middle East & North Africa with the integration of existing sovereign states in few big entities but that is very difficult to achieve as no one from US to Russia would like that development.
explorer9 is offline  
Old October 29th, 2012   #62
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,871
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9 View Post
In my view the peace will only to return in the region of Middle East & North Africa with the integration of existing sovereign states in few big entities but that is very difficult to achieve as no one from US to Russia would like that development.
Forget the U.S. and Russia, the vast majority of the people in these countries will not agree also. Peace and stability will only come when these countries are led by leaders who have national interests at heart, when these countries are allowed to chart their own destinies and solve their domestic problems without foreign interference and when justice and self-determination is granted to all. The Arab Spring was a total surprise and a wake call fo the West and its Arab 'allies', unfortunately the core problems that led to the Arab Spring and to problems that have beset the Middle East for the past few decades still remain.

Fisk lashes out at West in Middle East - YouTube

Robert Fisk Speaks on Syria, 15 Mar 2012 - YouTube

A Conversation on Syria's Future with George Friedman and Robert D. Kaplan - YouTube

Syria's Geographic Challenge - YouTube

The End of the Syrian Regime? (Agenda) - YouTube

The Battle for Damascus (Dispatch) - YouTube

Syrian Rebels Show New Capability in Attack (Dispatch) - YouTube

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...e-8229921.html

Last edited by STURM; October 29th, 2012 at 06:23 PM.
STURM is offline  
Old October 30th, 2012   #63
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: India
Posts: 83
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
Peace and stability will only come when these countries are led by leaders who have national interests at heart, when these countries are allowed to chart their own destinies and solve their domestic problems without foreign interference and when justice and self-determination is granted to al
One language, one culture and predominantly Islamic faith then why can’t Arabs in general and Middle eastern in particular live less than one unified umbrella. Small sovereign countries are prone to foreign interventions history tells us that even the toughest of nationalist leaders got budged to foreign powers.

The entire Islamic history of the region evolved through major regional & supra regional empires (Rashidun Caliph, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid and the Ottomans). Modern day West Asia, North Africa & Levant were artificially divided by colonial powers in to smaller interdependent states to meet out their own imperialist ambitions. These twenty odd countries need to be governed by 2-3 powerful national entities that will enable them to club Man, Machine & Money to achieve stability, true independence and overall growth.

Last edited by OPSSG; November 1st, 2012 at 11:33 PM. Reason: Fixed quote format
explorer9 is offline  
Old October 30th, 2012   #64
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,688
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9 View Post
...The entire Islamic history of the region evolved through major regional & supra regional empires (Rashidun Caliph, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid and the Ottomans). Modern day West Asia, North Africa & Levant were artificially divided by colonial powers in to smaller interdependent states to meet out their own imperialist ambitions.
Really?

There hasn't been a large Arab state since the Middle Ages. The Ottomans were Turks, & their rule was resented by many Arabs. They lost control of the peripheral Arab parts of their empire quite quickly, only re-establishing control over some territories (Yemen, Libya) in the 19th century. North Africa was not divided up by colonial powers: it divided itself. Morocco was always independent. What is now Algeria, Tunisia & Libya divided itself, under nominal Ottoman rule, into several self-governing states. In the 19th century these were consolidated into the current Algeria (by French conquest, uniting Algiers (an effectively independent Ottoman regency, with hereditary governors), the semi-independent deyliks of Oran & Constantine, & the interior (effectively independent Berber & Arab tribes) into one state.

Tunisia was another nominally Ottoman regency, with hereditary governors (one family from 1705 to 1881) who were effectively independent. They signed treaties with foreign states without reference to the Ottomans, had their own army & navy, etc.

Libya - nominally Ottoman but independently operating Tripoli, tribal interior. The Ottomans re-conquered (very easily: the state had fallen apart with the end of income from piracy) Tripoli, but most of Libya came under the control of the Senussi.

The Ottomans did not really rule much of the Arab lands. Instead, the Arab lands nominally under Ottoman rule were mostly self-governing internally, with their own armed forces, but subject to the threat of Ottoman invasion if they did not co-operate, & with hostile rulers overthrown & replaced with someone more compliant when possible. They had to support the Ottomans with money, soldiers & ships when demanded. Sometimes the Ottomans authorised one province (e.g. Egypt) to invade another (e.g. Syria). This is hardly the model of state I think you want. It's more a powerful state/client state relationship, run in a violent & predatory manner.

The interior of Arabia was independent except when it misbehaved too much, as when the first Saudi state invaded Hejaz, & was destroyed by Egyptian armies. But they withdrew, & let Nejd revert to independence. The Persian Gulf states were effectively independent in the 18th century, playing off Persia & Turkey against each other, & Oman had its own little empire. No Ottoman governors when the British sent residents (never conquered, never ruled: treaties & advisers) to encourage the locals to give up piracy.

The Ottomans briefly conquered Yemen, then left it to itself until the 19th century, when they retook much of it. But they recognised the Zaidi state, which re-established control over all the north after WW1. No colonial division there.
swerve is offline  
Old October 30th, 2012   #65
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,871
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9 View Post
One language, one culture and predominantly Islamic faith then why can’t Arabs in general and Middle eastern in particular live less than one unified umbrella. Small sovereign countries are prone to foreign interventions history tells us that even the toughest of nationalist leaders got budged to foreign powers.
What you suggest may have been possible in the immediate aftermath of WW1 as the political, economic and social circumstances were different then - the idea of various people was for a large 'state' comprising Muslim North Africa, the Gulf States, Jordan, the Lebanon and countries further south like Yemen and Oman [see the first video I posted in my previous post at 5.42]. At present there are just to many things that stand in the way - even assuming the majority of the people agree to such a move - each country has different alignments, different economic interests, different security concerns, etc. They may share a common faith and all speak Arabic, but a person living in say Egypt, may not have very much in common with someone from Qatar or Oman, they're different in many ways. Another factor that comes into play is that many countries still harbour a mutual distrust towards each other for a number of reasons - they have no problems though with Israel being the dominant military power in the region as this is something they have learnt to live with it decades ago and for countries like Jordan, having a strong Israel on its flank provides it with a counterweight against larget neighbours. At an OIC meeting years ago, Gadaffi lambasted the Arabs, saying that they were more interested in scheming against each other, rather than attempting to solve common problems and forming a united front to force Israel to agree to a settlement over occupied Arab land, and he had a valid point!

Agence Global-Article

Also bear in mind that following the Arab Spring, things are going to look very differently in the coming years. The North African countries like Tunisia and Libya - by virtue of geography - will be more closely aligned economically with Europe than with their Muslim brethren in the Gulf and will be in a better position to absord Wesrtern style democracy. The Gulf states will be more aligned with Turkey which in the coming years will be a major 'player' in the Middle East. Shia majority Iraq, which to the dismay of the Americans already has close ties with Iran, will in the coming years get even closer with Iran. Countries further south like Oman and Yemen that have a coast on the Indian ocean, will be closer to South Asia and the Pacific Rim. Arab unity has been a missing element for a very, very long time, in the coming years it will become even more elusive and the various Arab states will have less reasons wanting it.

Last edited by STURM; October 30th, 2012 at 08:15 PM.
STURM is offline  
Old October 31st, 2012   #66
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: India
Posts: 83
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Really?

There hasn't been a large Arab state since the Middle Ages. The Ottomans were Turks, & their rule was resented by many Arabs. They lost control of the peripheral Arab parts of their empire quite quickly, only re-establishing control over some territories (Yemen, Libya) in the 19th century. North Africa was not divided up by colonial powers: it divided itself. Morocco was always independent. What is now Algeria, Tunisia & Libya divided itself, under nominal Ottoman rule, into several self-governing states. In the 19th century these were consolidated into the current Algeria (by French conquest, uniting Algiers (an effectively independent Ottoman regency, with hereditary governors), the semi-independent deyliks of Oran & Constantine, & the interior (effectively independent Berber & Arab tribes) into one state.

Tunisia was another nominally Ottoman regency, with hereditary governors (one family from 1705 to 1881) who were effectively independent. They signed treaties with foreign states without reference to the Ottomans, had their own army & navy, etc.

Libya - nominally Ottoman but independently operating Tripoli, tribal interior. The Ottomans re-conquered (very easily: the state had fallen apart with the end of income from piracy) Tripoli, but most of Libya came under the control of the Senussi.

The Ottomans did not really rule much of the Arab lands. Instead, the Arab lands nominally under Ottoman rule were mostly self-governing internally, with their own armed forces, but subject to the threat of Ottoman invasion if they did not co-operate, & with hostile rulers overthrown & replaced with someone more compliant when possible. They had to support the Ottomans with money, soldiers & ships when demanded. Sometimes the Ottomans authorised one province (e.g. Egypt) to invade another (e.g. Syria). This is hardly the model of state I think you want. It's more a powerful state/client state relationship, run in a violent & predatory manner.

The interior of Arabia was independent except when it misbehaved too much, as when the first Saudi state invaded Hejaz, & was destroyed by Egyptian armies. But they withdrew, & let Nejd revert to independence. The Persian Gulf states were effectively independent in the 18th century, playing off Persia & Turkey against each other, & Oman had its own little empire. No Ottoman governors when the British sent residents (never conquered, never ruled: treaties & advisers) to encourage the locals to give up piracy.

The Ottomans briefly conquered Yemen, then left it to itself until the 19th century, when they retook much of it. But they recognised the Zaidi state, which re-established control over all the north after WW1. No colonial division there.
Strong Arab empires ruled the region of Middle East / North Africa and beyond from early sixth century till the 13th century before the ascendance of Ottomans.


We should not analyze the unions, federations and alliances of late medieval period with the definition of modern nation state conception. Ottoman rule of the said region through its subdivisions of Elayet, Vilayet and sanjaks is altogether a different subject of debate and discussion.

Coming to the point of role played by Western colonial powers to divide the region to meet out there post imperial geostrategic ambitions is a historical fact. First they ruled the conquered land through military might. Since the liberation movements got strong and forced them to leave the region they divided the region in many sovereign states to rule and mange them indirectly. The rise of nationalism was used as a tool to foment the disintegration amongst the people of the region that helped to create unheard sovereign nation states in the region. The support of despotic regimes by the western powers can be seen in a chain of events.
explorer9 is offline  
Old October 31st, 2012   #67
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,085
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9 View Post
Strong Arab empires ruled the region of Middle East / North Africa and beyond from early sixth century till the 13th century before the ascendance of Ottomans.

Caliphate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We should not analyze the unions, federations and alliances of late medieval period with the definition of modern nation state conception. Ottoman rule of the said region through its subdivisions of Elayet, Vilayet and sanjaks is altogether a different subject of debate and discussion.
Then what are the proper definitions to use? And how are the current terms inappropriate. Please supply links to appropriate source materials.
Quote:
Coming to the point of role played by Western colonial powers to divide the region to meet out there post imperial geostrategic ambitions is a historical fact. First they ruled the conquered land through military might. Since the liberation movements got strong and forced them to leave the region they divided the region in many sovereign states to rule and mange them indirectly. The rise of nationalism was used as a tool to foment the disintegration amongst the people of the region that helped to create unheard sovereign nation states in the region. The support of despotic regimes by the western powers can be seen in a chain of events.
The Western colonial powers are just the last in a long line of conquers divvying up their world by force, the first was probably around 20,000 BC (earliest know agriculture). The Ottoman Empire was nothing new or different.
My2Cents is offline  
Old October 31st, 2012   #68
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: India
Posts: 83
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
What you suggest may have been possible in the immediate aftermath of WW1 as the political, economic and social circumstances were different then - the idea of various people was for a large 'state' comprising Muslim North Africa, the Gulf States, Jordan, the Lebanon and countries further south like Yemen and Oman [see the first video I posted in my previous post at 5.42]. At present there are just to many things that stand in the way - even assuming the majority of the people agree to such a move - each country has different alignments, different economic interests, different security concerns, etc. They may share a common faith and all speak Arabic, but a person living in say Egypt, may not have very much in common with someone from Qatar or Oman, they're different in many ways. Another factor that comes into play is that many countries still harbour a mutual distrust towards each other for a number of reasons - they have no problems though with Israel being the dominant military power in the region as this is something they have learnt to live with it decades ago and for countries like Jordan, having a strong Israel on its flank provides it with a counterweight against larget neighbours. At an OIC meeting years ago, Gadaffi lambasted the Arabs, saying that they were more interested in scheming against each other, rather than attempting to solve common problems and forming a united front to force Israel to agree to a settlement over occupied Arab land, and he had a valid point!

Agence Global-Article

Also bear in mind that following the Arab Spring, things are going to look very differently in the coming years. The North African countries like Tunisia and Libya - by virtue of geography - will be more closely aligned economically with Europe than with their Muslim brethren in the Gulf and will be in a better position to absord Wesrtern style democracy. The Gulf states will be more aligned with Turkey which in the coming years will be a major 'player' in the Middle East. Shia majority Iraq, which to the dismay of the Americans already has close ties with Iran, will in the coming years get even closer with Iran. Countries further south like Oman and Yemen that have a coast on the Indian ocean, will be closer to South Asia and the Pacific Rim. Arab unity has been a missing element for a very, very long time, in the coming years it will become even more elusive and the various Arab states will have less reasons wanting it.

The Arab spring is a natural flow of people’s will and it clearly indicates that what people want. There is the hell of the difference that what exactly people wants and what the despots of the region do. The people want the integration of region in to union and federation.

The people of the region do not harbor the mistrust it is & was the dictators who sow (ed) the seed of mistrust amongst the people to tighten the grip on power through the fervor of pseudo Nationalism. In my view Levantine states Jordan, Lebanon Palestine & Israel are the artificial states created by the colonial powers against the wishes of the populace. The same with micro sates of Peninsular Arabia.

Since the Arab nationalism has already been died and the Turkish Nationalism is on the verge of its death bed the region is through major transformation. The major Western powers including the state of Israel will try their best to desist the change but the natural flow and free will of people shall ultimately prevail.

Though Kurdish nationalism is on the peak and getting full dosage of injections but that will also get diluted with the transitory of time.

The countries of North Africa will definitely progress the political and economic relations with the Europe and that is expected as supply & demand exists in all the circumstances.

If you study the region of peninsular Arab, Levant, North Africa, Anatolian region & Persian region including Iraq then you will find that the realignment process is being openly discussed since the deposition of Tyrants. Receding Nationalism is slowly being replaced by religious patriotism and this w natural flow and will of people will reshape the regional geography.
explorer9 is offline  
Old October 31st, 2012   #69
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,871
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9 View Post
There is the hell of the difference that what exactly people wants and what the despots of the region do.
No arguements there but I didn't say otherwise in any of my previous posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9 View Post
The people want the integration of region in to union and federation.
They want many things that was denied to them, whether they as you say, want 'integration of region in to union and federation' remains to be seen. The fact remains that despite sharing a common religion and language, there are vast differences that exist.
STURM is offline  
Old October 31st, 2012   #70
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,688
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9 View Post
Strong Arab empires ruled the region of Middle East / North Africa and beyond from early sixth century till the 13th century before the ascendance of Ottomans.
Yeah. What I said. Not since the middle ages. That was a long, long time ago. Back then, Lithuania was the largest country in Europe, the Aztecs & Incas were up & coming new states, the Khmer empire was the most powerful state in SE Asia & Europe was threatened by the Mongols. What relevance does it have to today? The world has changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9 View Post
We should not analyze the unions, federations and alliances of late medieval period with the definition of modern nation state conception. Ottoman rule of the said region through its subdivisions of Elayet, Vilayet and sanjaks is altogether a different subject of debate and discussion.
Er - firstly, what's with 'late mediaeval'? The Ottoman empire began in the late middle ages, but lasted well into the modern period. Two of my grandfather's brothers fought in the last war in which the Ottoman empire took part, one in a ship which was due to be delivered to the Ottoman navy before the RN requisitioned it.

Secondly - yes, that was exactly my point. The Ottoman system wasn't, at least not until the 19th century, much like a modern state. For the outlying provinces it was more of a patron/client relationship. As long as Algiers or Tunis didn't claim to be formally independent, they could operate as if they were - & they did. For provinces closer to home, it was something in between. Egypt had less independence - but still, far more than is imaginable for any part of a modern state. And what modern state would set one part of itself at war with another, as a deliberate act intended to establish their position vis-a-vis the centre?

I was trying to show how Arabs weren't unified, even under Ottoman domination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9 View Post
Coming to the point of role played by Western colonial powers to divide the region to meet out there post imperial geostrategic ambitions is a historical fact. First they ruled the conquered land through military might. Since the liberation movements got strong and forced them to leave the region they divided the region in many sovereign states to rule and mange them indirectly. The rise of nationalism was used as a tool to foment the disintegration amongst the people of the region that helped to create unheard sovereign nation states in the region. The support of despotic regimes by the western powers can be seen in a chain of events.
Oh dear. This is straight out of the Soviet history books.

There was no unity to be divided. The Ottomans played divide & rule for centuries - & I just told you partly how. The Western powers actually did some consolidation of previously separate entities in North Africa. The only division they did was in the Levant & Iraq, where Britain & France parcelled out the Ottoman Arab lands. There I agree with you: the current Levantine states were created by European intervention. But not in North Africa.

As for what you call the micro-states of the Arabian peninsula, I suggest you look at what was there 200 years ago, before the Ottomans marched back in after a long absence, & the British moved into the southern & eastern coasts. Micro-states! Some of the current divisions remain because the British (somewhat to the relief of the locals) supported the Gulf states against firstly the Ottoman return, then the Saudis, who might otherwise have conquered them as they did Jebel Shammar, Hejaz & Asir in the 1920s, & some because those same locals couldn't agree to amalgamate, despite very strong British encouragement. If it had been up to the colonialist West, Bahrain & Qatar would be part of the UAE, & perhaps Oman.

Note that none of the Persian Gulf states was ever conquered by any colonial power except Turkey & Persia.
swerve is offline  
Old October 31st, 2012   #71
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: India
Posts: 83
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
No arguements there but I didn't say otherwise in any of my previous posts.



They want many things that was denied to them, whether they as you say, want 'integration of region in to union and federation' remains to be seen. The fact remains that despite sharing a common religion and language, there are vast differences that exist.

Since the advent of Islam in early seventh century religion played the most important role in the governing composition of the region. The role of central power was entirely different at that time. What I said is that the Current terms that are devised for the contemporary and foreseeable events and circumstances are of no comparison with that era. How can the concept of Nation State in the age of AWACS and UAV are compared with late medieval period. Even the Mogul rulers of today’s Indian subcontinent and Emirate of Aceh rulers of present day Indonesia used to send the tributary to Ottoman caliphs and used to wear the Turban & sword sent from Caliph in Istanbul.

No doubt that the differences are there but that are not vast, the differences that were fomented by dictators are of nationalistic, regional and tribal kind but common religion and language supersedes these difference. Pan Arab nationalism, Egyptian Nationalism, Turkish nationalism, Berber Nationalism, Persian nationalism, Kurdish nationalism is no more appealing to the masses. After the fall of different

Nationalisms, religious passion is ascending as a united force. Democracy in the region will allow the natural flow of people’s will and wish and we have already witnessed how this resulted in the recently held elections in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco (pertly) and previously in Turkey.

That is why you must have recognized that this change has resulted in more religious (Sunnite- Shiite) differences that are resurfacing in the region than of above mentioned nationalisms.
explorer9 is offline  
Old October 31st, 2012   #72
Just Hatched
Private
Sua Sponte's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Undisclosed
Posts: 4
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the concerned View Post
...couldn't the UN force that was put there to seperate Israel and Hizbollah be deployed to the Syrian border to prevent these violations aswell.
Highly unlikely. The security forces present now have their hands full keeping the Lebanese and Israeli from blowing up in each other's faces again (source: Camp Scorpion, Lebanon). If NATO or even the UN wishes to monitor the situation between Syria and Turkey, they would have to deploy more forces into that area.
Which brings me to my second point; we all are well aware of what it usually takes to move NATO or UN forces. By the time anyone receives deployment orders, this thread will very likely be long closed.
Sua Sponte is offline  
Old October 31st, 2012   #73
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,085
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9 View Post
What I said is that the Current terms that are devised for the contemporary and foreseeable events and circumstances are of no comparison with that era. How can the concept of Nation State in the age of AWACS and UAV are compared with late medieval period.
Could you please explain what are the correct terms to use instead of the “Current terms that are devised for the contemporary and foreseeable events and circumstances” are?

Also could you also expand on your statement about how the development of AWACS and UAVs changed the concept of a nation state?
My2Cents is offline  
Old November 1st, 2012   #74
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: India
Posts: 83
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
Could you please explain what are the correct terms to use instead of the “Current terms that are devised for the contemporary and foreseeable events and circumstances” are?

Also could you also expand on your statement about how the development of AWACS and UAVs changed the concept of a nation state?

My post was the answer on Ottoman governing structure so kindly read my words in that context only.
Kindly refer to post 66 for more clarification.

The concept of a nation state in modern are devised through its land, sea and air boundaries the violation of any of that is considered the violation of sovereignty of that nation state whether small or big. In Middle Ages the concept of Nation State was not clearly defined and demarcated as compared to modern age. The geographical boundaries at that time used to change in no time. Land transfer/exchange, buying as well as population transfer was very common.

Command, control, communication (read AWACS /UAV’s in that context only) was not strong at that time so far away provinces were loosely aligned with the central power and control on the far flung areas were mostly relied on the Governors of the region.
explorer9 is offline  
Old November 1st, 2012   #75
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: India
Posts: 83
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Yeah. What I said. Not since the middle ages. That was a long, long time ago. Back then, Lithuania was the largest country in Europe, the Aztecs & Incas were up & coming new states, the Khmer empire was the most powerful state in SE Asia & Europe was threatened by the Mongols. What relevance does it have to today? The world has changed.


Er - firstly, what's with 'late mediaeval'? The Ottoman empire began in the late middle ages, but lasted well into the modern period. Two of my grandfather's brothers fought in the last war in which the Ottoman empire took part, one in a ship which was due to be delivered to the Ottoman navy before the RN requisitioned it.

Secondly - yes, that was exactly my point. The Ottoman system wasn't, at least not until the 19th century, much like a modern state. For the outlying provinces it was more of a patron/client relationship. As long as Algiers or Tunis didn't claim to be formally independent, they could operate as if they were - & they did. For provinces closer to home, it was something in between. Egypt had less independence - but still, far more than is imaginable for any part of a modern state. And what modern state would set one part of itself at war with another, as a deliberate act intended to establish their position vis-a-vis the centre?

I was trying to show how Arabs weren't unified, even under Ottoman domination.


Oh dear. This is straight out of the Soviet history books.

There was no unity to be divided. The Ottomans played divide & rule for centuries - & I just told you partly how. The Western powers actually did some consolidation of previously separate entities in North Africa. The only division they did was in the Levant & Iraq, where Britain & France parcelled out the Ottoman Arab lands. There I agree with you: the current Levantine states were created by European intervention. But not in North Africa.

As for what you call the micro-states of the Arabian peninsula, I suggest you look at what was there 200 years ago, before the Ottomans marched back in after a long absence, & the British moved into the southern & eastern coasts. Micro-states! Some of the current divisions remain because the British (somewhat to the relief of the locals) supported the Gulf states against firstly the Ottoman return, then the Saudis, who might otherwise have conquered them as they did Jebel Shammar, Hejaz & Asir in the 1920s, & some because those same locals couldn't agree to amalgamate, despite very strong British encouragement. If it had been up to the colonialist West, Bahrain & Qatar would be part of the UAE, & perhaps Oman.

Note that none of the Persian Gulf states was ever conquered by any colonial power except Turkey & Persia.

May be long-long time ago – let us first distinguish the period of Islamic empires risen from the region .Rashidun caliphs (632-661), Umayyads (661-750), Abbasids (750-1258), shadow caliphs (1258-1517) rise of Mamluks, Seljuks, Ghaznavids, finally Ottomans (1517-1922{abolished}) the empire Ottoman empire was established in 1299 and in 1453 Constantinople was conquered by Mehemt 11 but the Caliphate were claimed by Selim 1 in 1517.

For most of the Middle Eastern people including the Arabs (barring Persians) the Ottoman Empire was the extension of broader Islamic Nation state and the successor or earlier Arab Caliphs.

I have never heard about Turkish Colonialism in Middle East and North Africa. Turks were never considered the colonial power in the region because they “by no means” occupied the lands by military means (as you mentioned in previous post that the region was loosely controlled by ottomans and that in my view was the sole reason).

Hundred percent unification of Arabs or any other broad ethnic group has never been possible to accomplish but in my view after the conquest of Constantinople and later the accession of Egypt compelled the Arabs of both West Asia & North Africa to gleefully accept the Ottomans as the legitimate ruler of Islamic people.
From 'late mediaeval' I meant the Late Middle Ages.

The western powers, British Empire in particular used both Military might and diplomacy to rule the region from Egypt & Sudan to modern day Saudi Arabia. Persian Gulf micro states of Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE and Oman (castles, ports and choke point) were British protectorates before their independence.
explorer9 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:03 PM.