Middle East: carved up by caliphates, enclaves, and fiefdoms? - Polidicks

[IMG]http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/83300000/jpg/_83300442_83300441.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE=BBC News][B]Nearly a century after the Middle East's frontiers were established by British and French colonialists, the maps delineating the region's nation states are being overtaken by events. [/B]Countries created to suit the imperial designs of London and Paris are being replaced by patches of territory carved out by jihadis, nationalists, rebels and warlords. The border between Iraq and Syria is under the control of the so-called [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32829096"]Islamic State[/URL]; Syrian Kurds are experiencing the kind of autonomy their counterparts in Iraq have had for years; ethnic, tribal and religious leaders are running territories in Libya and Yemen. As some of the nation states disintegrate, once powerful capital cities become ever more irrelevant. The rest of the world may have embassies in the Middle East but, increasingly, there are no effective ministries for them to interact with.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32930004"]BBC News[/URL]

Almost like the nation-state and the institutions they stand for are arbitrary and fictive or somethin'. It does show the duality of it, with ISIS on one end and plucky Kurdish reds on the other. Begs the question whether nationalism will rise in a tide of conquering ala fascism in the 30s, or in a time of deconstruction and balkanization.

The middle-east is not our problem to fix.

The "imperial designs" of London and Paris was largely to fuck over the Turkish empire and prevent them from trying to take over Europe again. Which was pretty reasonable really. Technically a bunch of shitty nation states warring with each other still accomplishes this. It certainly isn't very nice, but the objective remains accomplished.

It's a clusterfuck of instability. Personally, I think we need to intervene to a limited extent. I think when it comes to defeating ISIS, we should do more than what we are (currently, we've been going at them in just a drone and airstrikes campaign, and we've utilized our special forces on rare occasions). I would advocate the deployment of troops to attempt to bring the conflict with them to a speedy conclusion, and similar efforts should be undertaken against Al-Nusra and other such radical organizations and movements. Mainly, what we need to do is clean up the infestation of extremism and of extremists that is ravaging the Middle East today. But that's easier said than done of course. I don't really see a quick and easy solution to this problem. And that's because there isn't one. There is so much diversity in the region with tensions, cultural and religious and political tensions, that it could never be as simple as sending troops in, killing everything in our way, and leaving. This might be a decent enough strategy against ISIS and their allies, but then there is the issue of trying to rebuild after all the extremists and rebels have been defeated, and then trying to keep the peace between what factions are left after the worst ones are gone. The Iraqi state is in particularly bad shape. I don't know if the country will be able to regain its unity as before, or if it will remain fractured forever. But it's in bad shape. And Syria has been devastated by their civil war, and with them, we have the additional challenge of dealing with the Russians who are backing Assad and warning us to stay away (or else they'll do what? Who knows.). Fuck this chaotic shit. There's so many possible avenues of action we could take and so many different plausible outcomes to each one-- good outcomes and bad outcomes. Things are out of control; not completely, but it will be years and possibly even decades before any semblance of order returns over there. And so many lives and so much money will be lost in the meantime. It's a tragedy. A chaotic tragedy.

It's kind of what happened in a lot of countries in Africa. White people controlled things and dictated everything, even though they were in the minority. Then when it became an untenable situation, there was chaos. That's because when people aren't allowed to be part of the ruling process, then suddenly one day they are in charge, they don't know how to run things. Then you mix tribalism, religious sectarianism, and valuable resources into it and it's a messy situation. Countries like Syria and Iraq could be screwed for a long time.

[QUOTE=Reshy;47850617]The middle-east is not our problem to fix.[/QUOTE] We caused the problem with our border designs. Whether that means we should fix it depends on one's sense of responsibility I guess.

[QUOTE=GunFox;47850644]The "imperial designs" of London and Paris was largely to fuck over the Turkish empire and prevent them from trying to take over Europe again.[/QUOTE] It was just Imperialism to enrich themselves. The Ottoman Empire hadn't been a threat for 300 years. [QUOTE=person11;47850829]We caused the problem with our border designs. Whether that means we should fix it depends on one's sense of responsibility I guess.[/QUOTE] I think toppling governments and supporting tyrants/radical rebels is where the west should take on some blame. Even without the western Imperial powers drawing arbitrary borders there would still be tons of national and sectarian conflict since an Empire had just fallen apart when they made them.

[QUOTE=GunFox;47850644]The "imperial designs" of London and Paris was largely to fuck over the Turkish empire and prevent them from trying to take over Europe again. Which was pretty reasonable really. Technically a bunch of shitty nation states warring with each other still accomplishes this. It certainly isn't very nice, but the objective remains accomplished.[/QUOTE] Now that makes sense. Fuck Turkey

I read the title as Middle Earth at first and for a second I believed it was real. This is just as interesting too I guess.

[QUOTE=person11;47850829]We caused the problem with our border designs. Whether that means we should fix it depends on one's sense of responsibility I guess.[/QUOTE] There really isn't a right answer. Our last 10 years of attempted intervention only made things worse. We thought we could fix it by getting rid of the iron-fisted dictators, but all that did was open up a power vacuum for all sorts of armed groups looking to make their own extremist states. We can't just keep bombing the leaders of every extremist organization that comes to power in the area, because that won't fix anything, it'll just keep fueling the fires of unending war. Getting rid of the Nazis was easier than this shit.

That's because the borders are fucking shit! The only way to fix it is to basically purge the place and completely depopulate it, removing all traces that Homo Sapiens was ever there, then resettle it again

[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;47851082]That's because the borders are fucking shit! The only way to fix it is to basically purge the place and completely depopulate it, removing all traces that Homo Sapiens was ever there, then resettle it again[/QUOTE] Your flagdog says you're from Serbia. I remember that not very log ago your own neighborhood was going through some very bad shit in your own aftermath of toppling dictators and different ethnicities forces into arbitrary borders. Somehow you managed to make it through without being purged off the face of the Earth, right?

[QUOTE=Reshy;47850617]The middle-east is not our problem to fix.[/QUOTE] Honestly I agree with this. After over 10 years of conflict in the Middle East, I think it's safe to say, at least for America, that we're all very tired of basically baby-sitting and playing whack-a-mole with every terrorist organization that pops up from the mountains. Hell we tried to get the local armed forces to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, and put alot of money and effort into their training, and it was all shot away by nuts with rusty AK-47s.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;47851152]Your flagdog says you're from Serbia. I remember that not very log ago your own neighborhood was going through some very bad shit in your own aftermath of toppling dictators and different ethnicities forces into arbitrary borders. Somehow you managed to make it through without being purged off the face of the Earth, right?[/QUOTE] Pardon him, the prospect of kebab removal will always take the lead on other sane alternatives as far as he's concerned. One thing with Kosovo was the geographical location of the conflict. In an era where you had people actually placing their hopes in the idea of a European union that could hold some relevance in a polarized world, you couldn't just let Kosovo remain in conflict while preaching continental unity. The only concievable way of saving the middle east, I believe, would be panarabism. I'm not saying the rest of the world will literally save the region by not touching it, but so far each military intervention from other continents has only contributed in making the situation worse.

[QUOTE=davidrb18;47851404]Pardon him, the prospect of kebab removal will always take the lead on other sane alternatives as far as he's concerned. One thing with Kosovo was the geographical location of the conflict. In an era where you had people actually placing their hopes in the idea of a European union that could hold some relevance in a polarized world, you couldn't just let Kosovo remain in conflict while preaching continental unity. The only concievable way of saving the middle east, I believe, would be panarabism. I'm not saying the rest of the world will literally save the region by not touching it, but so far each military intervention from other continents has only contributed in making the situation worse.[/QUOTE] How would panarabism work when the root cause for most of these conflicts is religious i.e. Sunnis vs. Sheeites? [editline]1st June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;47851237]Honestly I agree with this. After over 10 years of conflict in the Middle East, I think it's safe to say, at least for America, that we're all very tired of basically baby-sitting and playing whack-a-mole with every terrorist organization that pops up from the mountains. Hell we tried to get the local armed forces to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, and put alot of money and effort into their training, and it was all shot away by nuts with rusty AK-47s.[/QUOTE] 10 years? Really?

[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;47851237]Honestly I agree with this. After over 10 years of conflict in the Middle East, I think it's safe to say, at least for America, that we're all very tired of basically baby-sitting and playing whack-a-mole with every terrorist organization that pops up from the mountains. Hell we tried to get the local armed forces to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, and put alot of money and effort into their training, and it was all shot away by nuts with rusty AK-47s.[/QUOTE] this wouldn't be a problem if we stopped using the same failed tactics for tackling terrorist activity our government is trapped in this rut-like mode of thinking where it believes that the only foreign policy tools it needs to use as a superpower are its money and its military but as i've stated over and over again, research indicates that military intervention is ineffective at tackling terrorist activity, and the true origin point of terrorism is a lack of political representation along with a lack of effective policing, which is usually tied in broader terms to corruption and cronyism and nepotism and such. if we want to stop terrorism, then we ought to strengthen the effectiveness of foreign governments by tackling corruption, enabling police agencies with intelligence and equipment, and emphasizing strict adherence to a constitution that follows values such as majority rule, minority rights, and the balance of power within government. it might not be an easy or practical fix by any measure, but at least it's one that doesn't involve wasting thousands of lives and billions of dollars. [editline]june 1, 2015[/editline] given the optimistic ratings, i guess i should clarify. bolstering constitutional effectiveness, fighting corruption, and strengthening police agencies are all [I]preventative[/I] measures. we have many tools and methods for fighting terrorists individually, but we can't manage to kill the groups in a lasting manner, at least not without a similar group popping up in its place. obviously, changing iraq's political structure isn't going to kill the islamic state overnight, but by using the measures i indicated, we reduce the capacity of terrorist organizations to recruit new members, and thus make it actually mean something when we thin their numbers with things like airstrikes.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;47851237]Honestly I agree with this. After over 10 years of conflict in the Middle East, I think it's safe to say, at least for America, that we're all very tired of basically baby-sitting and playing whack-a-mole with every terrorist organization that pops up from the mountains. Hell we tried to get the local armed forces to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, and put alot of money and effort into their training, and it was all shot away by nuts with rusty AK-47s.[/QUOTE] We (the US and and west in general) have been part of the mess there. Funding the Saudi/extremist regimes. Supporting Israel, enabling them to be dicks to everyone nearby. Bin Laden himself said the US intervening the in the gulf war made Al Qaeda as strong as it became, and even that war was based on pretense, Saddam did invade Kuwait but that video posted here a day days ago showed the US lied to its people to get support for the invasion. Then theres arms selling there. We (the west+ russia and probably china) sell arms to the middle east, those arms help everybody kill each other. The shells used to drop chemical weapons in syria were acquired from the US. We say "its their problem" and that we shouldn't get involved but we're part of the problem and that attitude of "they gun kill each udda anyway we dun need get involve" is another part of the problem. It is currently in our interest to keep them as they are, fragmented they can't unite and demand better deals for oil/resources etc. Fragmented they provide demand for arms. And their location is geopolitically useful, so its in our interest to meddle and keep them on side. If we can help them get their shit together then eventually they could become an economic powerhouse with resources, open up non-exploitative trade and market opportunities for mutual gain. Similar situation in africa. We get good prices for resources, we sell them goods, we get interest from loans, we sell them weapons and we can play political games. We are part of the problem because we (our governments/corperations) have no real interest in big investments to improve some far off place. edit: I've said it once before. It's like a modern day "white mans burden" in the 1800s the europeans were all like "blacks/indians/none whites gonna kill each other, we need to civilise them and protect them from themselves" resulting in exploitation, racism and jingoism. I would say its a similar thing today. We might lose soldiers doing this but thats not much compared to the multibillion dollar rebuilding contracts, arms contracts, transport contracts and the resources we gain access to by having a friendly government unable to bond properly with its neighbours so they compete with each other to keep price low.

So basically the Sykes-Picot agreement of the early 20th century, the degradation of said agreement after it being exposed & capitulation of the Ottoman empire caused for most of this to happen? To be frank, this could have been avoided a whole century ago if western powers were smart enough to realise such things would happen and went about that in a more sensible way rather than listening to those most powerful & influential (aka the late Sharif of Mecca) and actually setting up meetings with all tribal leaders from all areas. But then again it's the past so, what can you do. [U][I]In my opinion[/I][/U], essentially cracking down on disproportionate representation, non-secular violence & aggravation (aka Shiites vs Sunnis), corruption & a lack of proper follow-through from governments here is what we should be doing. You could say it's kind of like sanctions, but in a way that isn't as stupendous, more focusing on trade embargoes or freezing of foreign-owned assets that benefit the state until said ultimatums are met or agreements made that ensure the constitutional & judicial equality that all deserve.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;47850609]Almost like the nation-state and the institutions they stand for are arbitrary and fictive or somethin'. It does show the duality of it, with ISIS on one end and plucky Kurdish reds on the other. Begs the question whether nationalism will rise in a tide of conquering ala fascism in the 30s, or in a time of deconstruction and balkanization.[/QUOTE] Actually this kinda points that the nation state is not arbitrary :P [QUOTE=shutter_eye5;47851864]So basically the Sykes-Picot agreement of the early 20th century, the degradation of said agreement after it being exposed & capitulation of the Ottoman empire caused for most of this to happen? To be frank, this could have been avoided a whole century ago if western powers were smart enough to realise such things would happen and went about that in a more sensible way rather than listening to those most powerful & influential (aka the late Sharif of Mecca) and actually setting up meetings with all tribal leaders from all areas. But then again it's the past so, what can you do. [U][I]In my opinion[/I][/U], essentially cracking down on disproportionate representation, non-secular violence & aggravation (aka Shiites vs Sunnis), corruption & a lack of proper follow-through from governments here is what we should be doing. You could say it's kind of like sanctions, but in a way that isn't as stupendous, more focusing on trade embargoes or freezing of foreign-owned assets that benefit the state until said ultimatums are met or agreements made that ensure the constitutional & judicial equality that all deserve.[/QUOTE] Not really. The dissolution of the ottomans and habsburg austria actually had a lot of parallels. They were both huge multi national/multi ethnic empires which got shredded once they lost ww1. In essence the position of both was very similar. There was a very strong difference though between both. The ottomans were incredibly heavy handed in their rule, they worked on a principle of divide and conquer as opposed to the habsburgs who always had to deal with fairly strong national movements and in some cases let them be. As such, there really wasn't much else imperial powers could have done. There wasn't really any base for national states in the middle east at that time. The people were too divided, so they tried to put together some form of state being, which worked okay for a fairly long time. Essentially the result was dictators doing all they can to hold their nations together from internal dissent. It's sometimes hard for Europeans or americans to understand, as we all have strong notions of the nation state. People understand that notion and welcome it. The tribal community mindset is to an extent alien to us and it's because it's not been part of European history for a good 500 years. That's not to say the tribal mindset is bad or good. But it's different.

The worst borders drawn were Iraq. The sheer number of cultural groups (Kurds, Arab Sunnis, Arab Shiites, Jews, Arab Christians, Assyrians, Turks, Turkmens) that were slammed into a tiny country was only the start of it. Then there was the massive political divide of the tribal groups who, let's face it, were the majority [I]until the Brits took over[/I], and then the moderates from the cities (like Mosul and Baghdad) were the ones to start making decisions. And then, of course, we can also blame the Baath party too. Before you go on and say "But Saddam would have stopped ISIS!" Yes, he would, but remember he liked to torture and massacre his own people. When the Baath party was in power in Iraq, there were favors given out to certain groups, including religious ones, but nobody was able to get into power if they weren't hand picked by the ruling party. That sort of system leads immediately to hurt feelings, and when you have a gigantic wealth gap, hugely different cultural and ethnic groups, tribal and modernist, hardliner religious groups and moderates: You get the shit that we see today. The sanctions put on Iraq after Desert Storm only worsened this problem, and the 2003 invasion was icing on the shitcake.

Well you know what they say, Islam will always find a way. Isis probably won't be the first caliphate.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;47851546]How would panarabism work when the root cause for most of these conflicts is religious i.e. Sunnis vs. [B]Sheeites?[/B][/QUOTE] [media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=70eU840lc38[/media]

[QUOTE=person11;47850829]We caused the problem with our border designs. Whether that means we should fix it depends on one's sense of responsibility I guess.[/QUOTE] This is bullshit. [I]We[/I] didn't cause any problems with border designs. Men long dead a hundred years ago did this, we did nothing. Just because the state that made those lines in the sand still exist today does not mean we hold responsibility as a nation to fix those issues. The middle east was just fine when the lines were just made, I didn't read about some group like ISIS rising up there in the 1920s.

People say the West should distance itself from the Middle East as if globalisation isn't a thing.

At this point the breakup of both Syria and Iraq is inevitable, several nation states will rise along with the likes of Kurdistan. It may not be the prettiest solution but it's the one that could stabilize things, the second the Shia government in Baghdad started to marginalize the Sunnis and Kurds they lost all rights to ruling them. Syria is just a mixed bag of all sorts of fucked up, it can't be broken down in to a single paragraph of how things fell apart. Several nations including mine stuck their fingers in to the pie and tried to change things their way and it fucked it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47852728]This is bullshit. [I]We[/I] didn't cause any problems with border designs. Men long dead a hundred years ago did this, we did nothing. Just because the state that made those lines in the sand still exist today does not mean we hold responsibility as a nation to fix those issues. The middle east was just fine when the lines were just made, I didn't read about some group like ISIS rising up there in the 1920s.[/QUOTE] When I say 'we' I mean the abstract concept of the USA as being a part of Western society, which colonized most of the world and left a huge scar spanning from Africa to the Middle East and Asia. Western Imperialism and all who worked in its favor did this. Of course, whether that means the West should fix it's own manmade problem or not depends on if individuals in the West say "oh [I]I[/I] did not do anything, I am not to blame for this and therefore the society I live in has no responsibility to fix what it did" [editline]1st June 2015[/editline] Whether we presently as a society is to blame for what our society's forebears did is a moot point: we are not to blame for what we did not do. Whether we, however, have a responsibility to fix our ancestors' problems is what's up for debate. I personally think we do have a responsibility, but others are going to disagree and that is ok I guess.

[QUOTE=MattSif;47853560]At this point the breakup of both Syria and Iraq is inevitable, several nation states will rise along with the likes of Kurdistan. It may not be the prettiest solution but it's the one that could stabilize things, the second the Shia government in Baghdad started to marginalize the Sunnis and Kurds they lost all rights to ruling them. Syria is just a mixed bag of all sorts of fucked up, it can't be broken down in to a single paragraph of how things fell apart. Several nations including mine stuck their fingers in to the pie and tried to change things their way and it fucked it.[/QUOTE] Syria won't get broken up in the long run, I think it has a much better chance of staying unified than Iraq does. As a reporter on CNN said yesterday, "No one in Iraq is fighting for [I]Iraq[/I]. They fight for their group, whether it's the Kurds, Daesh, Sunni tribes, or Shi'ites. Iraq only lives on as a concept"

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47854733]Syria won't get broken up in the long run, I think it has a much better chance of staying unified than Iraq does. As a reporter on CNN said yesterday, "No one in Iraq is fighting for [I]Iraq[/I]. They fight for their group, whether it's the Kurds, Daesh, Sunni tribes, or Shi'ites. Iraq only lives on as a concept"[/QUOTE] Syria has dozens of various cultural groups that were held together by a minority, they won't be held together by a strong man after Assad is gone. It's just as fucked as Iraq, maybe moreso.

[QUOTE=MattSif;47855110]Syria has dozens of various cultural groups that were held together by a minority, they won't be held together by a strong man after Assad is gone. It's just as fucked as Iraq, maybe moreso.[/QUOTE] Those minorities are very small, though. Iraq doesn't have an overwhelming majority group, like Sunni Arabs in Syria. Iraq has Sunnis, Kurds and Shi'ites all in large numbers.