Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That is because the outside intervention, for good or ill, destroys or alters the existing power structure and patterns of interaction.
Depending on the nature of the intervention, the outside force either imposes a new structure (Balkans 1990s) or leaves it to the natives to work out a new system. The Brits tried to do the former in Palestine pre-WWII, but were never completely successful. The intervention of WWII and the resulting formation of Israel left the locals to work out a new system (with the added bonus of outside tampering). They have been "negotiating" the new structure of relationships for the past sixty years.
In Iraq, it seems to me that we have made some stabs at the former (i.e. we have in many ways imposed certain guidelines at least and enforced a new power structure) -- but given that our presence is inherently temporary, it will end up being the latter.
I would be surprised if a unified Iraq emerged and lasted, say, 30 years. I think it likely that the ethnic, religious, and resource divisions are too strong.
S_A_M
|
I agree with you on the source of the problem. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a solution. I think your prediction for Iraq is on target, and I think it will wind up iinfecting neighboring countries like Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, and others.
Spanky is correct, at least to the extent he posits that people tend naturally to favor organizing along common cultural grounds, rather than the arbitrary lines drawn by departing colonial powers. Where I part company with him is his feeling that these various ethnic groups will be allowed by the existing givernments in the region to redraw the map without major civil war in multiple countries, leading ultimately to a permanent state of hostilities and more political instability.
I pray that I'm wrong. But I'm going purely on hope and faith.
