Hi Nadine. You're on the edge of it but it's a little more complicated than that.
Start out with the proposition that, left to determine their own future, many population in the Middle East are currently tending more strongly than ever towards some form of radical Islamic governance. And when I say that I'm not implying that the majority of the people in the various populations would invariably "choose" such leadership, although they certainly might, and in some instances, have.
What I mean more precisely is that the ones whose votes really count, i.e., the ones passionate enough to fight for their choice, would overwhelm the passive preferences of the rest of the population.
There are many reasons why this is so, not the least of which is that in many Middle Eastern nations the governments have been corrupt and brutal, but that doesn't matter now because it is what it is.
So, if you believe, and you clearly do, that "Sunni and Shiite Islamist extremism" is dangerous to Israel, America, and the western world, what do you do?
Forgetting for the moment the question of whether we have the "moral right" to stop them from doing what they would otherwise do without our interference, if we try to intervene militarily to block their path to their future of choice, we will further radicalize, and have already further radicalized, entire populations of Muslims. In simple terms we will simply be fanning the coals of Islamic extremism into raging flames.
What would that mean to us?
There are hundreds of millions of Muslims and it would be sadly ignorant for us to imagine that in today's world of widespread, efficient, miniaturized killing technology we can sit atop their powderkeg of seething hatred and resentment and force them to change their course. The harder we fight to suppress their desires, the more they'll want what we say they can't have, and what they believe their clergy, their history and their culture entitle them to enjoy.
That's simple human nature; the things we "think" we want are always most beautiful when they're just beyond our reach and they get even more desirable if we think we've been unfairly deprived of them.
So I start there. You postulate that if we leave Iraq then Iraq will turn further towards Islamic extremism which might lead to even more widespread extremism in the region. I think you're right. By definition then, we're standing in the way of what the Iraqis...the ones willing to fight for their beliefs...want. Put another way; if left alone they'd go there but we're not leaving them alone.
Having already explained why I think we CANNOT stop the flow of a river flowing in that direction, the question then becomes, can we live with it short term and where might it lead?
You make the assumption that "Islamic extremism" equates to something like Al Queda leadership. I don't think you're right, and in most nations I suspect the leadership would flow to leaders more akin to Sadr or Sistani but, for the sake of argument, I'll accept the notion that it would be Al Queda-like leadership.
So, assuming we don't have the power to deradicalize the Middle East, and assuming we can't "force them" to accept non-extremism leadership, we'd be left to deal with extremist Islamic leaders in Middle Eastern nations, maybe even Bin Laden's twins. Can we live with that?
You'd evidently say "no," probably because you see them as homicidal maniacs driven to "rule the earth" and blindly hating those of us who are "free."
I think you're wrong. I think that like all of those who have come to power only to be labeled that way by our own leaders, the leadership of Islamic extremist nations would be rational to some degree. We've seen that with North Korea's "madman," Libya's "madman" and even with Saddam Hussein. Each of them wasn't quite mad enough to take the "madman" steps we were warned of.
But if they were even more insane, would they attack us, even peripherally?
Why would they? Why would it be in their interest?
They'd not only have much of what they want but they'd have the responsibility of governing the chaotic mess that is the Middle East...and we'd HAVE THEIR ADDRESS.
What would they gain by attacking us, even peripherally? Would it drive us out of the Middle East...no, we'd already be out. Would it solidify their leadership...,no, their problems would be local. Would it satisfy their populations...no, people live locally, not globally...and we'd HAVE THEIR ADDRESS.
(Are you seeing a pattern here where we'd have their address? I.e., no more living hidden in the shadows, death just a push of a button away where they choose how many and we push the button.)
So I'd say that short term they'd have plenty to do without kicking the tiger.
And they would sell us oil. They have to sell oil to survive and the west is a huge part of their market. We might not like the price but the price we're paying to stay there is huge too.
But what about long term?
Long term might actually be the "cure."
Let them have their social experiment. The Iranians tried conservative, religious, radical rule and within a generation their experiment was imploding at its very core. The younger generation was chaffing at the bit, trying to break free and enjoy more personal freedom and less dogmatic leadership.
I've said it before and it's still true; the best cure for those who think they want to live under radical, Islamic rule is a decade or two of living under radical Islamic rule.
But they'll have to learn that for themselves.
So leave them alone. It's their house and they have to live in it. If they harm us, we'll harm them bigger. If they leave us alone, we'll leave them alone. Give old hatreds a chance to die natural death. Let them have their social experiment and either progress or regress. If they progress they'll probably have to join the 21st century and if they regress they'll stay stone age stupid and be forever impotent in the larger scheme of history.
But what do you do about the Arab/Israeli conflict; that festering sore of a problem in the Mid East?
I suspect those who said to build a wall had it right but you have to build it high, you have to guarantee Israel's existence, you have to get Israel to stop retaliating against populations for the actions of the terrorists, and Israel has to make concessions that will allow the establishment of a Palestinian state that can actually survive economically, politically and socially.
And that is a much harder issue.
But trying to use our force to restrain the tide of Islamic extremism in the Middle East is a policy doomed to failure and plagued with unintended consequences. Ed
|
