Pop Quiz

In the wake of Stein-gate, I've been trying to think of other questions we should ask politicians. Peter Beinart has suggestions:

Whenever government officials show up on television, interviewers should throw in a Stein question or two. For instance, who is the supreme leader of Iran? Who was Mohammed Mossadeq? What is Bashar Assad's religion? Which European country colonized Lebanon? Can you name an Iraqi ethnic group besides Arabs and Kurds? For most politicos, passing up an appearance on "Meet the Press" or "Larry King" is inconceivable, and so they'll do what Reyes is hopefully doing now: study.

These are probably way too hard. I would think the "Hezbollah is Shiite, al-Qaeda is Sunni" fact could be grasped by reading newspapers now and again, and still seemingly nobody's got it. At any rate, in case any congressional staff out there want to brief their boss, the supreme leader of Iran is Mohammed Khatami (bonus fact -- he's Azeri not Persian), Mohammed Mossadeq was a populist Prime Minister of Iran in the early 1950s overthrown by US and British intelligence essentially at the behest of western oil companies, Bashar Assad is an Alawite, Lebanon was colonized by France, there are Turkomen in Iraq.

UPDATE: I've been gone all day, but as I'm sure you'll read in comments, I myself made a mistake here. Iran's Supreme Leader is Ali Khamenei.

Comments

Uh...Matt...the Supreme Leader of Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Mohammed Khatami is the reformist former president of Iran.

But you're right that Ayatollah Khamenei is, in fact, Azeri.

Posted by Mr. Noah | December 14, 2006 10:39 AM

The question is why we want Congressmen to be studying these things. I don't think any amount of cramming for encounters with beat reporters is adequate preparation for the position of Imperial Overlord (or whatever it is we think we're doing in central Asia). Personally, I'd rather Congressmen study up on the chemistry and physics of alternative energy sources.

Posted by alkali | December 14, 2006 10:45 AM

Yeah, THIS will increase the credibility of the media and double-down on our American commitment to civics: "I'll take world history trivia for $200 billion, Alex."

Look, what Stein did was okay, barely, even if it was essentially gotcha! But anybody who's dealt with journalists knows that, collectively, the profession's knowledge is thin and highly colored by a very narrow perspective, and in the end, is fundamentally irresponsible: elected officials need to know what they DON'T know, more than an endless collection of highly tendentious "basic" facts.

Believe me, if politicians started asking journalists questions like this, you'd lose.

Heed the essential lesson in democracy in the old standup routine:

"America is not a serious nation. (The crowd growls.) No, it's true -- we're NOT serious. (the crowd grows hostile) I'll prove it to you: who is more important to us than our veterans? (crowd mumbles yeah, so?) The brave men and women who sacrifice so much to preserve our freedom? (the crowd, still hostile, belligerently challenges: Yeah, well?) Okay, who's the Secretary of Veterans Affairs? (crickets chirp, comedian pauses for the punch line)

Okay, what was the name of the pig on Green Acres?"

Posted by theAmericanist | December 14, 2006 10:47 AM

Can you name an Iraqi ethnic group besides Arabs and Kurds?

As of early 2004, there were 13 Jews there.

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 14, 2006 10:48 AM

I believe the correct plural is "Turkomans", not "Turkomen".

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 14, 2006 10:53 AM

Uh...Matt...the Supreme Leader of Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Heeee!

Matt gets 80% on the quiz. B- isn't bad.

Posted by Al | December 14, 2006 10:54 AM

Lebanon was colonized by France

Unfortunately not - France ruled Lebanon under a mandate after the First World War, but didn't colonise it. Unless you are referring to the establishment of the Crusader Kingdoms in the Middle Ages?

This isn't a gotcha, because getting the right answer gives you two data points: why is Lebanon so Frenchy? Because it used to be under French rule. So why didn't the French have a long, destructive war in Lebanon, as they did in Indochina and Algeria? Answer: because, without a long-standing colonial association, they were much less attached to Lebanon - it wasn't part of the empire.

Posted by ajay | December 14, 2006 10:56 AM

"Uh...Matt...the Supreme Leader of Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Mohammed Khatami is the reformist former president of Iran.

But you're right that Ayatollah Khamenei is, in fact, Azeri."

I think this might be a rare case where a correction/update is appropriate -- acknowledging the original slip-up of course.

Posted by peep | December 14, 2006 10:57 AM

What the heck is an Alawite?

Posted by Virginia Dutch | December 14, 2006 11:02 AM

A very strange sort of Shia Muslim. They venerate Ali, the fourth Caliph, not just as a revered leader but as a sort of incarnation of God.

Posted by ajay | December 14, 2006 11:04 AM

Unless you are referring to the establishment of the Crusader Kingdoms in the Middle Ages?

Ha. Ah, the cycles of history...

Posted by right | December 14, 2006 11:21 AM

Peter Beinart: Dead wrong on the war, but knows what an Alawite is. Strange, the things people deem important.\

I'd rather have Silvestre Reyes, who may not know a Sunni from a Shiite, but knew enough to vote against the Iraq war. Gosh, I bet Michelle Malkin knows al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Let's make her the head of the Intelligence Committee, to avoid embarassment.

Posted by Steve | December 14, 2006 11:49 AM

There are Assyrians in Iraq, also.

Posted by live | December 14, 2006 11:51 AM

"Okay, what was the name of the pig on Green Acres?"

Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Kotter! It was Arnold!

The problem with Beinart's little trivia game is that some of this knowledge is really only valuable if one is trying to show off or win money on Jeopardy. You don't necessarily need to remember the word "Alawite" off the top of your head to understand that Syria's ruling class is generally secular and their politics tilt toward the Shiite factions, but they fall outside of the simplistic Sunni/Shia narrative. You don't need to know what an Alawite is to understand that Assad promotes Hezbollah, and plays ball with Hamas, but has no real interest in supporting Sunni extremists such as al-Qaida.

I get the feeling that Beinart knows all the names and dates, but has no grasp whatsoever of the actual way the various factions interact in the Middle East. Which might account for the facile hawkish nonsense he excreted in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 14, 2006 12:04 PM

Mohammed Mossadeq was a populist Prime Minister of Iran in the early 1950s overthrown by US and British intelligence essentially at the behest of western oil companies . . .

I've read one book about this episode, by a left-leaning author who is perhaps too uncritically admiring of Mossadeq. By his account the British were motivated by oil and made no bones about it. The U.S., however, was motivated by the Cold War strategizing of the Dulles brothers (after the Truman administration turned down several British requests to get involved). It's not clear if American oil companies had any influence on the decision, although they ultimately benefited from the post-coup re-organization of the Iranian oil industry.

Of course this could all be wrong. I'm just wondering if 'essentially at the behest of western oil companies' is based on evidence, or is just a 'feel-good' throwaway line.

Posted by David Tomlin | December 14, 2006 12:15 PM

Assyrian in Iraq probably means a religion and not an ethnicity. There are some Persians running around, I think.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | December 14, 2006 12:19 PM

Even leaving aside the fact that politicians aren't experts on anything except getting elected, there's an odd tension here in the demand for politicians who can answer these sort of questions about the Middle East, which is that there is considerable mobilisation in the United State to make try to exclude from political influence those people in the US who actually know about the Middle East. The people with the most paper qualifications for these sorts of subjects in the US are Juan Cole & co, but TNR and many others are engaged in a constant struggle to exclude them from public prominence, leaving the field to ignorant politicos and Bernard Lewis.

Posted by otto | December 14, 2006 12:25 PM

Assyrian in Iraq probably means a religion and not an ethnicity.

My impression is it can be either or both, as with 'Jew'.

Posted by David Tomlin | December 14, 2006 12:27 PM

So. . . is the consensus that Matt failed this take home test? 60% (70% if he gets partial credit for the France answer)

Posted by a | December 14, 2006 1:40 PM

Modern Assyrians are Christians -- there is no religion called 'Assyrian.' They are generally considered an ethnically distinct group. See e.g. AINA.

Posted by live | December 14, 2006 1:52 PM

If you are like me, all of these posts about how ignorant our leaders are of Islam has made you realize that you are also embarrassingly ignorant of Islam. Fortunately, today I discovered this thread on Making Light where user "little light" posts clear, concise explanations of the history and theology of various Islamic sects and how it relates to modern politics. I highly recommend it.

Posted by DavidS | December 14, 2006 1:56 PM

I would give credit for France. It was a trick question - the correct answer is "none", right? Since Lebanon wasn't a "colony" of the France, nor the Ottoman Empire (or any other European country). But I think the question was getting at who ruled Lebanon under the mandate.

Posted by Al | December 14, 2006 2:01 PM

It's unclear to me whether the "Chaldeans" constitute a discrete ethnic group or whether "Chaldean" has just become a name for some Christian Arabs, but they're in Iraq too. I believe that Tariq Aziz, who is a Christian and not a Sunni like most of the rest of the Ba'athist hierarcy, is a Chaldean. There are also some Armenians in Iraq.

Posted by k | December 14, 2006 2:06 PM

DavidS, seems like your Making Light link isn't working ... I'd like to see the thread, can you try again? tnx.

Posted by live | December 14, 2006 2:12 PM

I was going to bring up Chaldeans as well. I had never heard of them until I read some reference to them in an Elmore Leonard novel, of all places. Apparently there are a lot of Chaldeans in Detroit.

Posted by Dave | December 14, 2006 2:20 PM

"Chaldean" generally refers to the Chaldean Catholic Church, the branch of Christianity to which many Assyrians belong. It is a Uniate Catholic Church, i.e., in union with Rome but with its own patriarch and liturgy. Some of them actually pray in Aramaic, the language of Jesus.

Posted by Roberto Rivera | December 14, 2006 2:48 PM

here's the making light link:

click

Posted by right | December 14, 2006 3:06 PM

Why link approvingly to Beinart and TNR any more? Why prop up their professional credibility?

That and Khatami. A botched post.

Posted by brendan | December 14, 2006 3:31 PM

It does seem to me that we--as citizens, as political leaders, it doesn't matter which--ought to know somewhat more than we do about a country in which we are fighting a war, and have been for more than 3 years. I'd agree that some of the essentially factual material is of less importance than the interpretative material--what does al Queda want to accomplish? Does the leadership of Iran (and/or Syria) want to accomplich the same ends? In concert with or in opposition to al Queda? What's the significance of the religious difference in Iraq? Are they a consequence of doctrinal differneces (and, if so, what are those differences)?

I could go on, but why? We'd all rather play "gotcha" it seems than think about what we need to know to make semi-rational and sane decisions.

Posted by Donald A. Coffin | December 14, 2006 3:50 PM

Umm... Given the way the French ran Lebanon, it's more than fair to say they colonized it. Much in the same way they colonized much of West Africa.

Mandate is simply a nicer word for colony.

Posted by faux facsimile | December 14, 2006 4:03 PM

People are missing the point here. Knowing these facts is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowing enough about the Middle East to be making reasonable decisions. So if someone is demonstrated NOT to know the facts, there's an inference - you can argue about how strong or weak it is -- that the person hasn't read or heard much about the issues and therefore shouldn't be trusted to make the decisions. Yes, of course we realize that knowing the facts is the whole ball of wax on "Jeopardy" but not in real life. Since broadcast journalists only have a few seconds to make a point, naturally they use "gotcha" tactics but that does not weaken my preference for my leaders knowing the difference between Shiite and Sunni.

Posted by applecor | December 14, 2006 4:22 PM

There are some Persians running around, I think.
Al-Sistani for one.

Posted by Eric the Political Hack | December 14, 2006 4:23 PM

Aren't most Shiites in Iraq Persian?

Posted by MikeY | December 14, 2006 5:19 PM

Aren't most Shiites in Iraq Persian?

No, Iraqi Shi'a are almost entirely Arabs. Sistani is an exception because he is actually Iranian born.

Posted by Eric the Political Hack | December 14, 2006 5:36 PM

Khamenei, Khatami, let's call the whole thing off.

Posted by Grumpy | December 14, 2006 7:48 PM

I'd give ya "colonized" for the French in Lebanon. The British had a League of Nations Mandate for Palestine too; it didn't stop them fighting a guerrilla war against Jewish terrorists over it.

Posted by brooksfoe | December 14, 2006 8:26 PM

I resent the implication by certain commenters on this thread that Arnold Ziffel of Hooterville is an obscure figure of trivia.

Posted by artappraiser | December 14, 2006 8:52 PM

Funny thing, Bush also likes to disparage facts and go with his gut, which is apparently all the qualifications Reyes needs from people on this blog.

Excommunicating anyone who wasn't against the war is childish. Plenty of intelligent people talked themselves into it, and plenty of rank stupid people were against it from the get go. Just because your knee-jerk cynicism was validated by Bush's rank incompetence -- an incompetence driven by a lack of curiousity, which, if he had some, might manifest itself with some recall of basic facts -- doesn't mean you have the foreign policy crystal ball.

Posted by ScottS | December 14, 2006 9:57 PM

[blah blah blah] -- doesn't mean you have the foreign policy crystal ball.

Who said they did?

At least said blah blah-ers had the minimal virtue of being right. Right about what's to come? Well, the burden of proof is on those who would disagree, at this point.

Posted by moose | December 15, 2006 2:25 AM

david, regarding the Mossadegh coup, even Ken Pollack in the Persian Puzzle highlights the oil-motivated nature of the coup. The British were worried as hell Mossadegh would nationalize Iran's oil. Indeed he threatened to do it if the British didn't sit down to renegotiate the current contract.

The brits then go to America and basically talk them into it, hyping the fear of Mossadegh turning to the commies, and the oil precedent it could set. Not a shining episode in either country's history. Of course, Pollack also portrays Mossadegh as slightly unhinged and extremely politically tone-deaf. But that's not why the coup happened, just why he had a bunch of enemies that thought they could benefit from it, and worked with the foreigners.

Posted by rashad | December 15, 2006 5:21 AM

faux:Umm... Given the way the French ran Lebanon, it's more than fair to say they colonized it. Much in the same way they colonized much of West Africa.

Mandate is simply a nicer word for colony.

No, it isn't. Please think carefully about this. "Colonise" doesn't mean "rule in a nasty way" or "rule by another country". It's a common English word, describing getting some of your people to go and live somewhere else (where there may or may not be other people living already) forming a colony.
So Britain colonised Australia. Lots of Brits went out and lived in Australia.
Britain ruled but did not colonise postwar north-west Germany; it was under the authority of the British Occupational Government, but no or very few Brits left Britain to settle in Germany.
Potentially, if we send people to live and work on the moon, we will have colonised that too.
In the same sense, there was no significant French colony in Lebanon- certainly not by comparison to true colonies like Indochina and (especially) Algeria. It was under a French mandate but not a French colony.

Posted by ajay | December 15, 2006 6:40 AM

Dave:

The Chaldean population (along with a significant population of Lebanese Maronites) of southeastern Michigan is centered in the northwest suburbs (West Bloomfield, Bloomfield Hills, Troy, etc.) not Detroit itself, because, well, no one actually lives in Detroit if they can help it. West Bloomfield has the odd claim of being the suburb with the strangest demographic makeup i've encountered - its roughly 40% Jewish, 40% Chaldean and 20% WASP. As far as I know, almost all of the Iraqi Christians in Michiagn are Chaldean Catholic, and self-identify as Chaldean, not Assyrian. There is a significant population of Assyrians in the Chicagoland area who are Assyrian Orthodox.

Posted by mcsokrates | December 15, 2006 2:31 PM