Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, and the U.A.E. (Jordan and Algeria too, if they want) are in talks to form a rapid reaction(ary) force that could be deployed anywhere in the region where an individual gets the crazy idea that he or she ought to be able to speak openly or even have a say in how he or she is governed:
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait are discussing the creation of a military pact to take on Islamic militants, with the possibility of a joint force to intervene around the Middle East, The Associated Press has learned.
The alliance would also serve as a show of strength to counterbalance their traditional rival, Shiite-dominated, Iran. Two countries are seen as potential theaters for the alliance to act, senior Egyptian military officials said: Libya, where Islamic militants have taken over several cities, and Yemen, where Shiite rebels suspected of links to Iran have seized control of the capital.
If there’s anything the Libyans need, it’s an invading army organized by a bunch of Arab authoritarians that will likely try to install another authoritarian in power in Tripoli in the name of “stability.” The countries plan on getting at least tacit U.S. approval, which they’re likely to get because, again, our principles don’t actually mean all that much when the rubber hits the road.
At The Intercept, Murtaza Hussein compares the chummy alliance of monarchs and military dictators to the 19th century European monarchies that formed the Holy Alliance to quash any nascent revolutions on the Continent before they could really get started:
Signatories to the alliance affirmed that, “the three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and consider each other as fellow countrymen,” and pledged to, “lend each other aid and assistance; and, regard themselves towards their subjects and armies as fathers of families.”
This happens to be very similar to the patriarchal and fraternal language that Arab autocrats use when discussing their relations with one another. And just like their contemporary Arab counterparts, European monarchs characterized themselves as champions of religious orthodoxy in an effort to shore up popular support.
For decades the Alliance served as a hugely counterrevolutionary force throughout Europe. It intervened to help snuff out the democratic revolutions of 1848 and reinforce exploitative, monarchical structures of government wherever they had been challenged. In “dealing with the extremists” of their own time, the monarchies also succeeded primarily by exploiting tensions between liberals and their more radical revolutionary counterparts.
While these efforts succeeded in causing much bloodshed in Europe and entrenching repressive, authoritarian governments for generations, they ultimately failed in holding back popular democratic movements. Despite the best efforts of reactionary monarchs, the old order eventually perished, worn down by decades of misrule, popular agitation, and intermittent local conflicts.
Similarly, despite their military alliances and massive cash outlays, it is doubtful that the Middle East’s modern Holy Alliance will be strong enough to indefinitely stifle the democratic desires that were so dramatically put on display during the events of the Arab Spring. A combination of demographic and economic pressures will likely constrain their ability to keep decisive control over regional events, and perhaps their own domestic politics as well.
The problem with allowing the most reactionary regimes in the region to target “extremism” is that they’re going to define “extremism” as anything that might upset their repressive status quo hold on power. They will certainly lump Islamist political movements like the Muslim Brotherhood in the same category as groups like ISIS, when in fact political Islamists are the best short-term alternative to the message that ISIS sends to potential recruits. If you allow people the ability to determine their own government and allow them the option of supporting Islamist political opposition to the monarchies, then you channel any restlessness they feel into the political process. If you close down avenues of self-government and make political Islam illegal, you offer those who aren’t satisfied with the current political order no alternative but to go join a group like ISIS. The monarchies don’t get that because both ISIS and the Brotherhood threaten their hold on power equally (one by violence, the other by election and political reform), but America, of all places, ought to understand the value of an open political process.
The Foreign Exchanges Companion 