What do you think?
Rate this book
Politically Incorrect Guides
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East
Why most of what you think you know about the Middle East is wrong
The Middle a region that's almost never off the front pages, yet one most Americans know little about. The mainstream media and Ivy League academics only make matters worse by casting everything in the usual politically correct Arab terrorists are just desperate freedom fighters, and the region's one free democracy--Israel--is the oppressor, not least because of its alliance with America. And if Islamic extremism is a problem, the establishment tells us, it's only because it's rooted in that source of all religion. A different strain of political correctness has seeped into some minds on the right--most notably the Bush administration, which, so ready to buy into the egalitarian myths we are all taught, believed that Western-style democracy could flourish anywhere. Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Middle East, veteran Middle East correspondent Martin Sieff puts the lie to all these myths and clichés, giving you everything you need to know about the region to understand its past, its present, and its possible future. In The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Middle East, you'll
* How, for three decades, the British supported parliamentary democracy throughout the Middle East, but it didn't work
* Why Britain's post-World War I Middle East policy was a comedy of errors and incompetence that soon escalated into tragedy
* Where America went wrong in how U.S. policymakers vastly underestimated the intransigent, unsophisticated, and anti-Western nature of its competing communities
* How Saudi Arabia's security forces defeated al Qaeda--and why you never heard about it
* Why we'll miss the Arab dictators when they're gone
* How the Muslim nations of the Middle East took an irrevocable turn toward radical Islam not in the tenth century or after the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in the thirteenth century--but in 1979
* How the Arab states openly declared their determination to prevent a Jewish state from being born in 1947--twenty years before the West Bank and Gaza were first occupied
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Middle East is a bold first step toward facing the hard truths necessary for peace.
The Middle a region that's almost never off the front pages, yet one most Americans know little about. The mainstream media and Ivy League academics only make matters worse by casting everything in the usual politically correct Arab terrorists are just desperate freedom fighters, and the region's one free democracy--Israel--is the oppressor, not least because of its alliance with America. And if Islamic extremism is a problem, the establishment tells us, it's only because it's rooted in that source of all religion. A different strain of political correctness has seeped into some minds on the right--most notably the Bush administration, which, so ready to buy into the egalitarian myths we are all taught, believed that Western-style democracy could flourish anywhere. Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Middle East, veteran Middle East correspondent Martin Sieff puts the lie to all these myths and clichés, giving you everything you need to know about the region to understand its past, its present, and its possible future. In The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Middle East, you'll
* How, for three decades, the British supported parliamentary democracy throughout the Middle East, but it didn't work
* Why Britain's post-World War I Middle East policy was a comedy of errors and incompetence that soon escalated into tragedy
* Where America went wrong in how U.S. policymakers vastly underestimated the intransigent, unsophisticated, and anti-Western nature of its competing communities
* How Saudi Arabia's security forces defeated al Qaeda--and why you never heard about it
* Why we'll miss the Arab dictators when they're gone
* How the Muslim nations of the Middle East took an irrevocable turn toward radical Islam not in the tenth century or after the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in the thirteenth century--but in 1979
* How the Arab states openly declared their determination to prevent a Jewish state from being born in 1947--twenty years before the West Bank and Gaza were first occupied
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Middle East is a bold first step toward facing the hard truths necessary for peace.
230 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2008
17 people are currently reading
287 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
January 5, 2016
There is a lot of good information in here, so it's worth reading if you're looking for something and you should know if you have any interest in this topic. This would have gotten four stars if the author had put as much effort into the book as they should have. It reads like "this is a summary of my experience in the middle east," including opinions without support and ideas that go unelaborated. That's what a book is for - filling out the gaps and making sure your arguments are supported! Especially if there's space for it, which there is here. Here's a hint: if you find yourself repeating stuff you've already said, either stop or dig deeper.
March 15, 2011
My favorite thing about the Politically Incorrect Guides is that you hear perspectives that don't often get talked about. I'm sure many of those in the know would dispute many of the things that are said, but I am glad to hear the other perspective that doesn't normally see the light of day. One example is that I have always wondered who exactly Palestinians were - because as far as I could tell they are just Arabs and there is nothing unique about them. Saying this is almost dangerous though, and I've only received dirty or confused looks whenever I've mentioned this. The P.I.G. talks about it and tells how the Palestinians are just Arabs who happened to live in Palestine. They had no identity of their own until the Arabs of neighboring countries began to label them differently and purposely kept them out of their countries to use them as a foil against the Zionist movement. Arafat of course picked this up and made Palestinian an ethnicity and a national identity even though until recently the Palestinians were no more a national people than are Nevadans or Virginians. I also appreciate the realist perspective on the Middle East, as I am not a fan of forcing democracy down the throats of other peoples. It seems to degrade the achievement of our forefathers, who worked at freedom for hundreds of years before we hit upon the right formula, to expect that anyone instantly can do democracy as well as it has worked for the American people.
May 30, 2020
This one was a mixed bag for me. My second Politically Incorrect Guide, after The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, which I did not like at all.
On the positive side; this book is incredibly informationally-dense. Author Martin Sieff packs quite a lot into the ~230 pages here.
There's a brief history of the Ottoman Empire, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. He also spends a bit of time talking about many of the big events in the Middle East of the last ~50 years; the Soviet and American invasions of Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein and the Assads, Baathism, and many more.
Sieff astutely informs the reader that the dream of modern, secular democracies in the Middle East is not a tenable goal. Their entire cultural paradigm is completely different and detached from our Western one. I agree 100%. Good stuff.
On the negative side; the book contains many interesting opinions; including how Islam is not an inherently violent religion, and that jihadist violence is a relatively modern phenomenon.
Saddam and Bashar Assad were/are very bad people because they killed many of their citizens.
But Saudi Arabia is actually our friend, despite being completely ideologically opposed to every value that our modern, liberal, secular democracies hold dear.
Saudi Arabia is our friend because they provide stability to a volatile Middle East (okay, I agree). They are also bulwarks against the Iranian threat (okay, I'll agree, again).
Good broad-based, big-picture arguments, to be sure. But Saddam and Assad are horrible monsters who apparently did not do either of the aforementioned...
The same can be said of Baathism, which the author derides frequently. It is far from the perfect political ideology, but Baathists are generally opposed to the violent, regressive Islamists that threaten to take their respective countries back to the 6th century.
They would seem to me to make better allies than the 6th-century cavemen who are hell-bent on slaying the Infidel, wherever he hides.
The reality of the situation is that the Middle East is a gigantic firecracker; full of tribal tensions just waiting to go off, so there are no easy answers.
In any case, I don't need to agree with the narrative of the entire book to have enjoyed it, and this book was very well-researched, written, and delivered.
The intro is well worth its price alone.
This was a welcome change from the previous Politically Incorrect Guide I read.
I'm not sure there will ever be a book on the politics of the Middle East that will meet the approval of everyone who reads it. Views on this topic - mirroring the region itself - lie on many of society's most contested fault lines.
I would recommend this short, dense book; either as a reference or as general reading - to anyone interested.
4 stars.
On the positive side; this book is incredibly informationally-dense. Author Martin Sieff packs quite a lot into the ~230 pages here.
There's a brief history of the Ottoman Empire, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. He also spends a bit of time talking about many of the big events in the Middle East of the last ~50 years; the Soviet and American invasions of Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein and the Assads, Baathism, and many more.
Sieff astutely informs the reader that the dream of modern, secular democracies in the Middle East is not a tenable goal. Their entire cultural paradigm is completely different and detached from our Western one. I agree 100%. Good stuff.
On the negative side; the book contains many interesting opinions; including how Islam is not an inherently violent religion, and that jihadist violence is a relatively modern phenomenon.
Saddam and Bashar Assad were/are very bad people because they killed many of their citizens.
But Saudi Arabia is actually our friend, despite being completely ideologically opposed to every value that our modern, liberal, secular democracies hold dear.
Saudi Arabia is our friend because they provide stability to a volatile Middle East (okay, I agree). They are also bulwarks against the Iranian threat (okay, I'll agree, again).
Good broad-based, big-picture arguments, to be sure. But Saddam and Assad are horrible monsters who apparently did not do either of the aforementioned...
The same can be said of Baathism, which the author derides frequently. It is far from the perfect political ideology, but Baathists are generally opposed to the violent, regressive Islamists that threaten to take their respective countries back to the 6th century.
They would seem to me to make better allies than the 6th-century cavemen who are hell-bent on slaying the Infidel, wherever he hides.
The reality of the situation is that the Middle East is a gigantic firecracker; full of tribal tensions just waiting to go off, so there are no easy answers.
In any case, I don't need to agree with the narrative of the entire book to have enjoyed it, and this book was very well-researched, written, and delivered.
The intro is well worth its price alone.
This was a welcome change from the previous Politically Incorrect Guide I read.
I'm not sure there will ever be a book on the politics of the Middle East that will meet the approval of everyone who reads it. Views on this topic - mirroring the region itself - lie on many of society's most contested fault lines.
I would recommend this short, dense book; either as a reference or as general reading - to anyone interested.
4 stars.
November 11, 2011
A great primer on the Middle East from a very knowledgeable and non-partisan (despite this being a Conservative Book Club main selection) source. The amount of information being thrown at you is a little overwhelming, and the tone is a little dry, but this book will likely alter your perspective of the world at large.
January 10, 2022
Man, shut the fuck up
October 25, 2009
This guy knows his stuff. Helped shed some light on an area of the world I've long wanted to have sorted out in my mind. Really enjoyed finding out the histories behind why things are the way they are over there and what we should be doing differently in our dealings with these countries (Hint -- it's a LOT different from what we actually ARE doing. Gee, I wonder why it's not working out so well...would love for Obama to read a copy of this).
May 31, 2020
The concept of the "politically incorrect" books is confusing. It claims to present arguments unacceptable by western academia. The question is who should we trust, the professors of the academia or the right-wing war mongering of Martin Sieff? A depressing book which shakes any hope for the Middle East or humanity.
May 13, 2020
a piece of garbage in a book form.
Not all lives are equal.
Jews' life matters, while Arab life's and livelihood are accepted collateral damage.
people suffered under colonial rule because the people were not democratic enough to accept the imperialism.
Arabs killed deported in Palestine is a small price to have the shiny country of israel
Not all lives are equal.
Jews' life matters, while Arab life's and livelihood are accepted collateral damage.
people suffered under colonial rule because the people were not democratic enough to accept the imperialism.
Arabs killed deported in Palestine is a small price to have the shiny country of israel
June 15, 2018
I have some serious mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, it is clear that this author believes himself to be a very intelligent person (and I say that without having read any of his other books where he brags about being a master of cycles of change) who has a lot of insight to give, but on the other hand, he is not quite as thoughtful or as worth agreeing with as he thinks himself to be. It is very clear that the author has a very cynical, even deliberately Machiavellian viewpoint [1] but it is also clear that this is not a mindset I share or appreciate. At best, the shrewd and worldly wise advice of the author is something that one should engage in without having any illusions as to the trustworthiness of the person giving the advice, but at worst, the author has a moral blindness that leads him to insult anyone whose behavior in the Middle East is motivated by any kind of idealistic concerns, whether on the right or the left. And that blind hostility to morality and idealism is not something I can endorse either.
This book of about 200 pages is divided into ten chapters. The author begins with a plea to bring back the Ottoman Empire to keep the Middle East as a backwater under harsh military rule that keeps its people from fighting each other (1). After that, the author rather sensibly points out that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not the fault of Israel and that it is based on anti-Semitic Muslim propaganda going back to the pre-Independence period (2). After that the author gives some depressing history about Iraq and its history of failure (3) and some unpleasant thoughts about radical Islam (4). After the author has some critical comments to make about Iran (5), gives a fairly lengthy discussion of the Arab-Israeli wars from 1947-1973 (6), and then praises the Saudis as part of the solution to the Middle East rather than part of the problem (7). After this the author discusses wars and peace in the Middle East since 1975 or so (8), the history of September 11 and failures on the part of the Clinton and Bush presidencies (9) and what works and what doesn't work with regards to peace in the Middle East (10), closing with the same sort of suitably cynical advice that he began with.
Again, this book is to be noted mainly for its extreme hostility towards Western idealism and its extreme cynicism. The book could not have been more cynical if it had been written by Kissinger or Machiavelli themselves, and in fact, much of the commentary reads like Machiavelli's own diplomatic reports on the Holy Roman Emperors of his day that he interacted with as a Florentine diplomat of the early 1500's. This is not to say that the advice is bad; it would certainly be wise for the United States to encourage Saudi Arabia to be a counterweight to Iran and the idea of spreading democracy to the Middle East at this time is certainly unwise in light of the general lack of political maturity of the region. To say that much of the advice of this book is either blindingly obvious (for example, the author's insistence that other nations, including Israel, will act according to their understanding of their best interests and not our own) or cynical is not to say that it does not deserve to be taken seriously, only that it does not lead the reader to trust the writer even as the advice is taken into account.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
This book of about 200 pages is divided into ten chapters. The author begins with a plea to bring back the Ottoman Empire to keep the Middle East as a backwater under harsh military rule that keeps its people from fighting each other (1). After that, the author rather sensibly points out that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not the fault of Israel and that it is based on anti-Semitic Muslim propaganda going back to the pre-Independence period (2). After that the author gives some depressing history about Iraq and its history of failure (3) and some unpleasant thoughts about radical Islam (4). After the author has some critical comments to make about Iran (5), gives a fairly lengthy discussion of the Arab-Israeli wars from 1947-1973 (6), and then praises the Saudis as part of the solution to the Middle East rather than part of the problem (7). After this the author discusses wars and peace in the Middle East since 1975 or so (8), the history of September 11 and failures on the part of the Clinton and Bush presidencies (9) and what works and what doesn't work with regards to peace in the Middle East (10), closing with the same sort of suitably cynical advice that he began with.
Again, this book is to be noted mainly for its extreme hostility towards Western idealism and its extreme cynicism. The book could not have been more cynical if it had been written by Kissinger or Machiavelli themselves, and in fact, much of the commentary reads like Machiavelli's own diplomatic reports on the Holy Roman Emperors of his day that he interacted with as a Florentine diplomat of the early 1500's. This is not to say that the advice is bad; it would certainly be wise for the United States to encourage Saudi Arabia to be a counterweight to Iran and the idea of spreading democracy to the Middle East at this time is certainly unwise in light of the general lack of political maturity of the region. To say that much of the advice of this book is either blindingly obvious (for example, the author's insistence that other nations, including Israel, will act according to their understanding of their best interests and not our own) or cynical is not to say that it does not deserve to be taken seriously, only that it does not lead the reader to trust the writer even as the advice is taken into account.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
September 17, 2025
Ignore the cringe inducing book name, which does a great disservice to Sieff, who has spent decades reporting on middle east, and great power politics.
The book actually provides a deep and complex understanding of the middle east, the power structures, intrigue, doublespeak and the tension between the rulers and the ruled, that has existed since the fall of the ottomon empire in 1917 until today. It provides a potted history of the region, being suitably contrary when needed (thereby attracting the title from its market-minded publisher) with trenchent observations on
1. the state of middle eastern society (the fight between modernism and conservatism)
2. its political structures (why monarchies work and democracies dont)
3. ideological underpinnings (the shiite islamic revolution of 1979 has nothing shiite or islamic about it)
4. why the good guys are the ones that provide stability in the region (The Saudis?!)
Among other things, all convinced argued and presented, packed with the sort of journalistic details one accumulates over decades in the field, and a fine **realistic** starting point to understand the region as opposed to books mired in academic utopia.
The book actually provides a deep and complex understanding of the middle east, the power structures, intrigue, doublespeak and the tension between the rulers and the ruled, that has existed since the fall of the ottomon empire in 1917 until today. It provides a potted history of the region, being suitably contrary when needed (thereby attracting the title from its market-minded publisher) with trenchent observations on
1. the state of middle eastern society (the fight between modernism and conservatism)
2. its political structures (why monarchies work and democracies dont)
3. ideological underpinnings (the shiite islamic revolution of 1979 has nothing shiite or islamic about it)
4. why the good guys are the ones that provide stability in the region (The Saudis?!)
Among other things, all convinced argued and presented, packed with the sort of journalistic details one accumulates over decades in the field, and a fine **realistic** starting point to understand the region as opposed to books mired in academic utopia.
August 3, 2019
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East by Martin Sieff tries to dispel erroneous myths about the state of the Middle East today and how it got to where it is. It attempts to cut through the politically motivated interpretations and definitions of the history of the region including religious explanations for misunderstandings and actions of various groups. He present how mistakes by the western powers including Britain and the US set up much of what we see today, including trying to foster democratic governments when the people did not understand it and were not ready to accept it. The conditions were nothing like what the allies dealt with in Germany or Japan after WWII. Great read for anyone who wants to get factual history without the usual spin.
October 22, 2022
Políticamente incorrecto, desde luego. Este fue, si no recuerdo mal, el primer ensayo que leí cuando era adolescente, y me parece una buena introducción tanto para esa clase de lecturas como para entender un poco mejor la situación en Oriente Medio en general (y además escrito por un corresponsal que estuvo más de 30 años cubriendo sucesos allí).
La única pega que le veo, y me da lástima, es que el libro ahora se ha quedado un poco desfasado después de los acontecimientos ocurridos en la década de 2010: la (mal llamada) primavera árabe, la guerra de Siria, la muerte de Bin Laden, la aparición de Isis y las nuevas formas de terrorismo...
Aun así, sigue siendo una lectura de mucho interés para entender mejor lo acontecido en esta región a lo largo del siglo XX.
La única pega que le veo, y me da lástima, es que el libro ahora se ha quedado un poco desfasado después de los acontecimientos ocurridos en la década de 2010: la (mal llamada) primavera árabe, la guerra de Siria, la muerte de Bin Laden, la aparición de Isis y las nuevas formas de terrorismo...
Aun así, sigue siendo una lectura de mucho interés para entender mejor lo acontecido en esta región a lo largo del siglo XX.
January 5, 2020
This book provides a lot of useful information, told in an easy-to-follow style of writing. You could tell the author’s strong tendencies to respect or dislike vehemently certain political leaders (for what they did as well as for their personal character flaws he saw in their leadership), which are supported by facts he presents. The benefit of this style, which I appreciated, is that the author brings these leaders to life; the caveat is that whatever facts he presents is tainted with the author’s biases and particular narrative. But in a region such as the Middle East, a totally neutral documentation is almost impossible — and I would mistrust anyone who claims to do so — so I appreciated that the author is open and honest through his style of writing where he stands in the questions about the Middle East.
July 1, 2025
This book has not aged well, the ideas for solving the problems in the Middle East were fanciful at best, and have been shown to not be the silver bullet he prescribed. While there are a few facts that are not widely known that can be gleaned from this book, it isn't worth the time to find them. In addition, the author leaves some facts out which would torpedo his ideas. The years between the publishing of this book, and current day show the authors myopic understanding. In fairness, his book is one of many that have failed to predict or suggest solutions that later have failed across many disciplines.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 11, 2023
great to read this to get a perspective on the ongoing hamas - israel war on 2023
June 2, 2025
The worst type of bias is the one preaching it’s far from it. Terrible.
April 13, 2016
I bought a bunch of Politically Incorrect Guides back when they first came out. I liked the first several I read, but then it seemed like they were just rushing these out on any topic they could think of due to the success of the first few. The first few I read, such as the ones on the Civil War and Science, were in-depth studies by clear experts in their fields. Although I liked this one on the Middle East, it seemed like much more of an overview than some of the others. I’m glad that it constrained itself to really just covering the 20th century up until about 2007 and not the region’s entire history, but even covering that time period in just over 200 pages really doesn’t leave much room for depth and analysis.
However, I do think this provides a good foundation for learning more about the Middle East and helped me to fill in gaps in my knowledge, particularly about the time leading up to WWII and the 60s and 70s. I wish there had been a little more analysis and less A happened, then B happened, then C happened. That doesn’t mean the author didn’t let his opinion sneak in, but for the most part it read like a list of facts rather than a cohesive narrative. I just don’t think I’ll remember a lot of things from the book as well as I do when it’s presented a little differently.
For those assuming this will come from an entirely pro-Republican perspective, the author has major issues with Bush and believes most of our presidents on both sides have been fairly inept at dealing with the Middle East, primarily because we expect them to act like a Western democracy. I think Ford is the only president he really praises, and that’s mainly because Ford got out of Kissinger’s way.
A few of the highlights of what I learned:
1. The term “Palestinian” was originally used to refer to Palestinian Jews. This term was used to refer to Jewish people living in the area until the 1950s. After the creation of Israel they began using the term “Israelis” or “Israelites” to refer to themselves and that caught on. When Arafat came to power in 1964, he needed a term for the Arabs in the region, many of whom had been kicked out of the neighboring countries and didn’t have a cohesive identity. He started using the term Palestinian and obviously it stuck.
2. The Ba’ath party was started by socialists interested in social justice. The founders were people who had Western educations and had become Marxists. Instead they ended up becoming totalitarian dictators led by Saddam Hussein (who idolized Stalin). Weird how that always seems to happen…
3. Saudi Arabia has been our ally more often than I thought. Bin Laden likely used people from SA in the 9/11 attack on purpose to try to break our relationship. Historically though, we tend to work together and our someone we need in the area. I also learned more about their history and how we blow Lawrence of Arabia's role in helping them develop way out of proportion. I really didn't know much about him either, so I found that section quite helpful.
However, I do think this provides a good foundation for learning more about the Middle East and helped me to fill in gaps in my knowledge, particularly about the time leading up to WWII and the 60s and 70s. I wish there had been a little more analysis and less A happened, then B happened, then C happened. That doesn’t mean the author didn’t let his opinion sneak in, but for the most part it read like a list of facts rather than a cohesive narrative. I just don’t think I’ll remember a lot of things from the book as well as I do when it’s presented a little differently.
For those assuming this will come from an entirely pro-Republican perspective, the author has major issues with Bush and believes most of our presidents on both sides have been fairly inept at dealing with the Middle East, primarily because we expect them to act like a Western democracy. I think Ford is the only president he really praises, and that’s mainly because Ford got out of Kissinger’s way.
A few of the highlights of what I learned:
1. The term “Palestinian” was originally used to refer to Palestinian Jews. This term was used to refer to Jewish people living in the area until the 1950s. After the creation of Israel they began using the term “Israelis” or “Israelites” to refer to themselves and that caught on. When Arafat came to power in 1964, he needed a term for the Arabs in the region, many of whom had been kicked out of the neighboring countries and didn’t have a cohesive identity. He started using the term Palestinian and obviously it stuck.
2. The Ba’ath party was started by socialists interested in social justice. The founders were people who had Western educations and had become Marxists. Instead they ended up becoming totalitarian dictators led by Saddam Hussein (who idolized Stalin). Weird how that always seems to happen…
3. Saudi Arabia has been our ally more often than I thought. Bin Laden likely used people from SA in the 9/11 attack on purpose to try to break our relationship. Historically though, we tend to work together and our someone we need in the area. I also learned more about their history and how we blow Lawrence of Arabia's role in helping them develop way out of proportion. I really didn't know much about him either, so I found that section quite helpful.
August 24, 2014
This was a great book that was easy to read and I thoroughly enjoyed. There was a few grammatical errors that drove me nuts, enough in the beginning to become a small distraction. However with that said this book gave very new and insightful ideas on how America can do a better job with the middle east. I believe using Saudi Arabia in a greater capacity is a great and inspired idea. The author clearly has a great understanding of the middle east and his ideas should be carefully considered by our leadership. Since he finished this book so much has changed. Mobarak the President of Egypt was removed and replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood extremist. Then the Muslim Brotherhood was replaced again by a military coup. Iraq was abandoned as we were just beginning to stabilize the region. Bashar al-Assad is fighting for dear life against Al-Qaeda on steroids called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Iraq is also fighting the Islamic state and is becoming a political pawn of Iran. Iran is seriously close to building a nuclear weapon and Israel is fighting Hamas for its right to exist. The middle east is an important region and it would be a determent to everyone in the world if it was to fall to extremist Islamic terrorism and socialism.
January 28, 2009
A book with "political incorrectness" in its title might make you imagine that you're likely to be exposed to radical viewpoints, but I didn't feel the ideas expressed were grossly out of the mainstream. The author clearly isn't a fan of liberal author Michael Moore or ex-President Jimmy Carter, nor Bill Clinton to some extent, but there are plenty of people who share those views. If the few anti-Democratic Party comments in the book don't distract or distress you, then you'll find the book contains brief snippets of information covering a wide range of topics on the Middle East, most of which appears rational and reasonable. His conservative leanings are apparent, and it's hard to accept some statements, such as his praise for President Bush's successful topping of Saddam Hussein, but blaming the subsequent recovery problems on "liberal do-gooders" who bungled the peace. So while not wanting to accept responsibility for poor planning or poor choices by the Bush Administration in this regard, it's a minor element of the book, and the wide range of ideas and topics covered provide a good background into key elements of the Middle East.
January 18, 2010
I learned bunches about the recent Middle East history. Somehow, the public schools that I attended for 16 years forgot to mention any of it.
Sief has his bias, and he is certainly clear about it, but his outline of the situation in the Middle East smacks of realpolitik and wonderful hindsight.
The best lesson I take from The P.I.G. to the Middle East concerns a warning to Americans: "We will never be able to apply our Western democracy onto another cultural group of people (particularly Muslim Arabs, but in reality, ANYONE!) without disastrous, or at least uncomfortable and expensive, consequences.
Read it! Let's talk.
Sief has his bias, and he is certainly clear about it, but his outline of the situation in the Middle East smacks of realpolitik and wonderful hindsight.
The best lesson I take from The P.I.G. to the Middle East concerns a warning to Americans: "We will never be able to apply our Western democracy onto another cultural group of people (particularly Muslim Arabs, but in reality, ANYONE!) without disastrous, or at least uncomfortable and expensive, consequences.
Read it! Let's talk.
June 17, 2013
We all keep wondering why Middle East is the way it is. Why can't there be peace? Why, in spite of best efforts by so many American Presidents, there is no hope for peace?
This book is a must read to answer all these and many more questions.
The biggest mistake we all make is assuming that what has worked for western civilization, and in India will work elsewhere. But the Authors clearly, using example of Ottoman Empire, show why the Middle east should be ruled the way they did it. And why The House of Saud is doing such a wonderful job.
A must read for anyone who wants the enigma of Middle - east understood.
This book is a must read to answer all these and many more questions.
The biggest mistake we all make is assuming that what has worked for western civilization, and in India will work elsewhere. But the Authors clearly, using example of Ottoman Empire, show why the Middle east should be ruled the way they did it. And why The House of Saud is doing such a wonderful job.
A must read for anyone who wants the enigma of Middle - east understood.
August 3, 2009
A main thesis is that Western-style democracy is not the answer in the Middle East, and it gets the point across using examples such as the Ottoman empire and present Saudi Arabian government. Good description of past and present conflicts in the region. Strong governments (that will quell extremists, as the Saudis do) and quiescent tensions seem to be the answer to prevent open war and let the people of region survive and prosper.
May 7, 2016
Very readable, almost finished in a day. I loved the references for further reading and the exploration of the impact of specific people on historical events. The book covered many events that I knew very little about and it was worth reading for that reason alone. However, I would have preferred a book that presents historical fact and allows the reader to draw his own opinion. This book pushes one agenda and draws one conclusion.
November 5, 2015
I really wanted to finish this book because the topic interests me, however the writing and poor editing made it a tedious read. The author kept jumping back and forth when it came to dates and any conclusions he made weren't based on anything he had written before. It left me more confused than before I started reading this. It's too bad.
April 6, 2022
This book was published in 2007, so it is not up to date. Sieff is very critical of Churchill and the Bushes, especially the move to bring democracy to the Mideast. I think this is a position held by many conservatives these days. The end of the Qaddafi, Mubarek and Hussein regimes has shown that democracy is mistaken in these areas that have no democratic legacy.
December 24, 2009
Not the best way to make friends with the self-proclaimed "open-minded", but it is certainly good information to know. All of this is available in different forms elsewhere, but this is a great collection of the basic facts.
April 29, 2008
Excellent info. on Middle East; balanced perspective; author shows good and bad decisions made by Arabs and Israelis, Democrats and Republicans alike. Gives reader a good grasp of what's happened/happening over there.
December 12, 2010
Slly me, I didn't realize Politically Incorrect meant politically polarizing...
May 13, 2011
Modern history told in a quite (dangerously) cutting edge way and with some rather surprising views & interpretations.
February 25, 2015
Easy read. It's nice to have a different view than what the media re-hashes or the people in cowboy hats and flag shirts at the congressional representative meetings are yelling.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews