This book supplies a strong dose of historical realism for a region that seems to attract political ideologizing. The very structure of the book - of its 10 chapters, just two are devoted to the Arab-Israel conflict - goes against standard political/media wisdom. From the opening sweep of Ottoman history, you realize you are reading serious history, albeit couched in an energetic and politically incorrect style. This is the kind of book where you are never at risk of losing sight of what the author is trying to say. The major point I came away with is that Middle Eastern fundamentalism will continue to threaten the world unless local regimes are given the opportunity to control it. Iraq was once uniquely equipped to control the Shiites - and the Saudis still are. Ottoman Turkish policies are a model worth applying; Western liberalism is not. Pragmatism and balance of power may yield more than all the `new ideas' that politicians brandish to establish their niche. Repeatedly, Sieff sees history as more the work of individuals and their genius or folly than of blind socio-economic processes.

Don't let the somewhat kitschy title put you off. This book provides a very good overview of the current conflicts (yes, multiple conflicts, not just one) in the Middle East and offers an explanation for how things got that way. The overall tone and point of view is right of the political center, which I assume accounts for the "politically incorrect" title.

Normally, this book title would be a turn off to me because I think of "politically incorrect" as one of the code phrases that those on the radical right use to justify offensive commentary. That is not the case with this book, however, as the author seeks to support his assertions with historical references, analysis and commentary from other respected thinkers. He minces no words and calls out a number of leaders on all sides, but he is not offensive, just outspoken.

For me, who tends to be left of center, this book was a good way to gain an alternative perspective on the Middle East, and all of the troubling issues that are associated with that part of the world. Martin Sieff is no friend of writers like Tom Friedman, but he does reference them and others with respect and is precise in his criticisms of their thinking, especially relative to globalization.

There are a couple of places where I think Sieff stretches things a bit to accommodate his rosy view of people like Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, and that keeps me from giving this book 5 stars. But, to his credit, Sieff makes it clear where he is coming from and doesn't try to pass off his views as mainstream.

Overall, this is a well-written book that gives readers a quick, easily digested conservative view of the Middle East and its conflicted cultures; I found it well worth the read.

One caveat for those considering the Kindle edition, which is the one I purchased: Kindle does not render maps well, so if you do not already have a strong grasp of the geography of the Middle East, buy the book in hard copy so that you can read the maps clearly.

This is a well-written, easy to understand, and interesting treatise on the Middle East, however there are very few sources provided for many facts and many more assertions and claims.

Look, folks... no book is perfect.

But I have to say that at least this book attempts to be readily accessible, engaging, and thought-provoking.

I like that, for the first time, I was given a perspective on the Middle East that draws out the influences of movements like socialism as a major contributory cause of so many 20th century Arab dictatorships. Even if the accounts are conservatively-biased, at least it's an unapologetic springboard for dispute.

All I ask of any book is that it provoke me to think, even if only to disagree. And this book does exactly that, and I often find myself agreeing.

When the author can't even get modern day events correct happening right in front of him, how can you put any credence in anything he has to say about events that occurred in the past? He states plainly that the "2007 troop surge could never work", and yet we know, here in the middle of 2008, that it HAS worked. Even hard-core left-wing liberals have stopped claiming that the troop surge was a failure. When I got to that line in this book it made me toss it in the trash because it shows that the author is NOT really an "expert" on Iraq and the Middle East at all. If you want an accurate and unbiased report of what has happened on the ground in Iraq over the past few years, read Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New 'Greatest Generation' of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope instead.

You know someone has an underlying agenda when they bash the current administration for being stupid for not sending in enough troops, and then also say, essentially, that "sending more troops would not help". At the same time, this author makes the case that ruthless and oppressive subjugation is the only way to "conquer" Iraq and that the Iraqi's can't even begin to fathom "democracy" it is so foreign to them and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done about that. This is just another platform for attacks on the Bush Administration.

If the last 100 years of the Middle East were not so tragic, this book would provide the basis for a script of a Monty Python comedy movie.

It describes the unusually incomptent actions of western an eastern leaders of many nations and political parties in causing the mess.

If you change names, dates, and places it would describe the 1930-1939 road to the second world war.

Anyone who wants an overview of the History and current staus of the Middle East without the myths, preconceptions or instant analyises of "experts" who have an axe to grind must read this book. The author debunks the reputations of some of the major players historical and current and gives praise where praise is due. His thoughtful if somewhat opinionated analysis puts a perspective on this part of the world that you will not find in the mainstream media. His analysis are thoughtful, succint and blows away a lot of the "conventional wisdom" we are subjected to every day. This book should be "must reading" for those in government making the day to day decisions regarding policy in this part of the world. They would learn a lot and maybe wouldn't have made so many mistakes

There can be little doubt at this stage in the game that the West's Middle East policy over the last century has consistently made things worse, turning a placid and romantic backwater into a seething maelstrom of mostly impoverished hatred. Martin Sieff in "The politically incorrect guide to the Middle East" brings this out with great aplomb. His central thesis is that western policymakers have never really understood the Middle East, and the more idealistic the policymakers, the more horrendous the mistakes they made. His very high level of erudition and beautifully witty writing make the book both an education and a pleasure to read.

Probably Sieff's most valuable point is that attempts to remake the Middle East according to our own ideals are wholly misguided. Thus TE Lawrence's fantasy of happy independent Bedouin states, Dwight Eisenhower's fantasy of a contented pro-US region freed from the hated "imperialism," Jimmy Carter's fantasy of an Iran that would throw out the Shah's authoritarian but stable rule and replace it with a benign social democrat government, Bill Clinton's fantasy of a stable Palestinian state run by a terrorist madman and George W. Bush's fantasy of an Iraq that is just waiting to become a Western style democracy were all inexcusable errors. Cynics, realists and predators have done far less damage.

Sieff's political incorrectness involves overturning some cherished liberal myths. He shows that the Ottomans, far from being genocidal maniacs who took joy only in massacring Armenians, in fact ruled a remarkably successful multicultural empire that fell apart only when modernity hit the Istanbul government. He shows that Saudi Arabia, far from being an evil-minded autocracy, is in fact a strong and tough-minded polity with a better in-depth understanding of the sources of Islamic extremism than any Western state. He shows that "Islamofascism" is largely a myth, and that the Islamic extremists take their ideological fodder not from the highly civilized (by the standards of its time) mediaeval Arab world but primarily from the sewers of Communism, anarchism and hatred of the Capitalist West on which most terrorist groups draw. They don't hate our freedom, but that hate our culture (with some justification) and our economic dynamism (with much less.)

I would raise two areas of disagreement. First, the abysmal economic performance of the Middle East is largely due to governments controlling its major resources, particularly petroleum; Sieff does not discuss in detail how this problem might be overcome.

Second, as a long-standing and eminent Middle East expert, Sieff can hardly be expected to support my own preferred Middle East policy, which is as far as possible, to ignore the region altogether. US foreign policy in particular over the last 20 years would have been greatly improved by doing so.

This book is a disappointment. It is the worst of a generally good selection of P.I.G. books. Statements and opinions are made without any sourcing information, and some of those opinions seem flawed. He also seems far too generous with Saudi Arabia.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East

Of great importance to us at this time, this book gives information on the past actions that brought us to the major problems the Western World now has in the middle east. You will not get this information from the majority (if any) of the media that supplies us with almost all our news, and has enormous effect on the decisions made by our politicians who are affected by their (usually) uninformed constituants.

The author's grasp of the facts of history is outstanding. The information as to the origins of the problems is excellent. His suggestions for the solution, unfortunately, while possibly correct, are not as certain. What is certain is that if we do not find a solution, things are going to get a lot worse before they have any chance of getting any better.

Once again, Martin Sieff has proven to be one of Washington journalism's most original thinkers. Mr. Sieff brings razor sharp critical acuity, fueled by an impressive knowledge of history and politics, to his work. In fact, his understanding of world affairs, history, and politics puts that of most of his contemporaries to shame. You may not agree with all of Sieff's conclusions, but you will find them challenging and thought provoking.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East provides a fast-paced, insightful, and often witty analysis of this troubled and often misunderstood region of the world. Martin Sieff's iconoclastic thinking on things and people ranging from the Ottoman Empire to Jimmy Carter may have you reconsidering what you thought you knew. And true to the book's title, his ideas are bound to rattle a few cages along the way.

Don't get me wrong, this book is full of great insights, by a man who spent 40 years in the Middle East. I am glad I bought this book, and I like a lot of the material in the book.

... and yet, I can't get over the impression that he is whitewashing the Saudis. Look in the index, and try to find the word "Madrassa". Madrassa is a fanatical, Wahhabi, fascist-type school for grade school kids, and the Saudis have funded over 800 of them (with their oil wealth) in Pakistan alone. Any word of this in the book on how the Saudis are so expert in dealing with Islamic terrorism ? No. What about the alleged Saudi funding of terrorist groups in the Philippines (and all over), and the fact that there were documents found in Saudi government buildings (allegedly) in the Balkans right after 2001, showing the targets of U.S. government buildings ? What about the fact that the Saudis - supposedly so adept at dealing with terrorists - didn't warn the U.S. prior to Sep. 2001, even though it would have been very easy for them to do so (they didn't get tough internally on terrorists in the 'Kingdom' until they themselve were hit) ? What about the virulent anti-Semitic and anti-western literature that one can find (so I have read) in Saudi-funded "Islamic centers" in the U.S. ? Any mention of that ? I think that Sieff is right in that the Saudis are very good at dealing with terror in their own country, and that part of the Saudi elite really does want to stop Bin Ladin and Al Quida. But at the same time, I also believe that another part really doesn't. Foreign Affairs magazine had an essay on "The Schizophrenic Saudi State" which stated just that: some of the princes are very pro-Western, and some hate the West. It is not as simple as Sieff states. They are not such great allies after all, unless you consider an ally someone who takes trillions of dollars from you and then buys Islamic schools all over the world that teach that you are the Devil.

I would take this book with a BIG grain of salt. Read Robert Baer's book "Sleeping with the Devil", about the REAL Saudis.

Too bad that Americans are so ignorant about the middle east that they can uncritically accept books like this as accurate. When I was getting a degree in Near Eastern Languages and Literature I remember the students who had no time to take the first two quarters of ME history but all showed up in the last (modern) quarter so they could inject their opinions on all the current political topics and make sure that no anti-Israeli (in their opinion) sentiments got expressed. If you're interested in the ME you will do better to read books written by authors who actually have some in-depth knowledge of what they are talking about. This book misrepresents the Ottoman Empire, Islam, and just about every other topic it discusses.

This little book tackles a big problem, the Palestinian/Israel conflict. The lessons learned apply to Iraq war. We have to understand ME mentality, radical Islam and social structure which suggests that without a profound change in Palestinian society no progress in peace process can happen. Democracy is the rule of men but Islamic rule is the rule of Allah. Ottoman and Saudi control was and is brutal but efficient and law and order that is achieved by politically incorrect means results in normal life and less civilian casualties. Applying Western standards to govern the Middle East is unacceptable to the Middle Easterners. Saudi is not the problem but the solution.

As is with this entire series, THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO, the Middle East is another great installment.

Martin Sieff's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East", the fourteenth book in a series that maintains interest for me even with many doubtful claims, is really disappointing.

Sieff's most fundamental thesis in "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East" is that the West does not understand the culture of the Middle East, so that what works politically is very different from what the Left find acceptable. For example, Sieff argues Islamic traditions mean democracy cannot work in the Middle East, and that only a firm, traditionalist monarchy like the Ottomans or al-Sauds has any hope of bringing stability and peace. He argues democracy in the Middle East leads inevitably to the type of radical Islam that inspired the Iranian Revolution and modern Islamic terrorism. Typically for a US conservative, Sieff also argues that Israel is another critical element of stability in the Middle East and the conflict in Palestine today is not the fault of Israel.

As in the guides to global warming and capitalism, Sieff aims to show that the US will always be dependent on oil to produce nitrogenous fertilisers which are essential for farming. This is certainly a critical issue, but Sieff overlooks two facts. Firstly, reducing fertiliser use would reduce the current obesity epidemic and make production on much low-cost but ecologically unsustainable farmland impossible (to great ecological benefit). Secondly, he overlooks that the reason modern-day farming on marginal land depends on the Middle East (and North Africa) is their monopoly on reserves of the essential nutrient phosphorus. The Middle East and North Africa possess an even higher proportion of world phosphate reserves than oil reserves - so that Sieff's omission of this is hard to forgive.

In his assessment of Middle Eastern politics, Sieff is quite off-target. Whilst his assessment of the "Ottoman" Middle East as a primitive but peaceful backwater may be quite accurate, the Ottomans were always fighting wars. Robert Spencer, who wrote an earlier book in the "Politically Incorrect Guide" series, make me doubt severely whether Muslim fundamentalism really is new like Sieff would like to proclaim. Spencer's deeper historical analysis suggests the peacefulness of the Ottoman Middle East was due largely to the military weakness of teh Muslim world.

Also completely overlooked is the fact that the United States funded the Muslim Brotherhood for a very long time because its absolutism and intolerance made it the most effective weapon against the potential spread of socialism that Stalinist Russia was funding - aided by highly popular Communist parties in Iraq and Iran. Indeed, observers inside the CIA are well aware the White House kept no dossier on extremist Sunni groups until after September 11, 2001. US support for the Wahhabi-based al-Saud family is actually related to its support for these groups. Osama bin Laden only became a terrorist because Carter and Reagan funded him in the war against the Afghan PDPA.

Whilst it is true that bin Laden wants to overthrow the al Saud dynasty, many princes and clerics, as Dore Gold has shown, are very sympathetic to him. Other writers have serious doubts the Saudi rulers can do what Sieff would like them to for other reasons, chiefly corruption and declining living standards since the real price of oil peaked around 1980.

Iran's history also leads me to question his assumption that Iran is naturally fanatical and conservative. As Zbigniew Brzezinski shows, Iran's radical Islamists are actually a quite small and declining proportion of their population, which today is highly urbanised and faces many of the same demographic and social problems as Europe and East Asia. It is really very unlikely radical fundamentalism will endure in Iran. though Iraq is less advanced, demographers and other social scientists no doubt believe in the long run it will develop in the same way Iran has.

All in all, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East" is very disappointing. Many facets of the modern history of the region are totally overlooked, and many of the opinions given quite dubious. Indeed, it often seems as if Sieff wants to do little more than placate the Republican Party against critics of its policy in the region.

I would recommend istead either "Hatred's Kingdom" by Dore Gold or "The Choice" by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

This is an excellent book and certainly provides some controversial (aka politically incorrect) views of Islam, the Palestinians, Israel, and how we got to where we are. Martin Sieff shows how inch by inch and small decision by small decision we have arived with a worldwide conflict with Islamofascim starting with that arrogant aristocrat Winston Churchill and continuing with each US administration since 1917.

Sieff points out that our politically correct views have and continue to cost the lives of American soldiers, Iranian dissidents, Iraqi's, and Israeli Jews. He points out that the ridiculous and misguided attempts by the US and the western democracies to establish democratic governments in the middle east was not only doomed to failure from the outset but it is making matters worse as we pursue this bankrupt policy. The reality is that the Islamic Middle East is a tribal culture that is opposed to any central authority unless it is imposed with a mailed fist. Blood feuds are common and the battles between Sunni and Shia goes back a thousand years and is not likely to end anytime soon.

Perhaps the best chapter that puts the whole thing into historical perspective is the chapter on the Ottoman Empire. Sieff points out that the Ottomans ruled the region for more than 400 years and during that period ignorance, apathy, and squalor were the pillars of the Empire but the result was peace and tranquility. It was only when the trendy western democracies interjected their ideas of democracy, socialism, and representative government that things went to Hell in a handbasket.

Another fascinating point addressed in the book is that the Saudi's are not the problem but have in fact conducted a sustained and largely effective war against Islamofascism. While it is true that Arabia is a monarchy with draconian laws by western standards, it also is an effective ally and a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. The West has never fully grasped the strategic situation in the area where the Shiite Iranians were checked by the Sunni Iraqi's with the help of the Saudi's.

The section on the Israeli-Arab Wars was also well worth the reading because it puts the history into perspective. It not only describes how the Israeli's managed to defeat much larger armies but how those Islamic governments reacted and why the situation continues as it is today. This is not a whitewash of the Israeli's nor is it a blanket indictment of the Arabs, but it does show that if Israel were to vanish today nothing would change because Israel is not now nor has it ever been the motivating factor behind the carnage that has plagued the area since the fall of the Ottomans.

Overall this is a very good book with many excellent insights. I think Sieff could have provided more detail regarding the western actions following WW I and WW II that led us to this mess but he provides enough to show the foundations to the current conflicts and the rise of militant Islam. Although Sieff mentions the Muslim Brotherhood he doesn't provide many details regarding the actions of this terrorist group, which has behind several assassinations (e.g. Sadat) and much of the mayhem since its founding in the 1920's. However, the real stunning revelation in this book was that Yasser Arafat was homosexual and the Romanians had photographs to prove it. While I am not an advocate of blackmail it seems to me knowing how the Islamic world views homosexuality our state department could have used this information as leverage to get Arafat in line. It also was astonishing that Arafat had personally ordered the execution of an American diplomat and the CIA had the recorded telephone conversation when he issued the order. One would think that our state department would have used this information more effectively. This book is filled with small facts like these that simply take your breath away when you realize that the American response from one President after another is to do nothing other than to continue the failed policy of trying to bring democracy to the region. The Ottomans had it right and we should listen.

This is good book -- easily and quickly read -- not a page turner but very close. I highly recommend it.