Middle East?

[eriador]

I ran accross this today:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

It's an article about re-drawing borders in the middle east, creating and resizing countries to make the region more stable. The map they're proposing looks something like this:



I personally think that if the changes were made, it could very well work out, but I'm afraid that it would never get that far. There are too many conflicting interests to let it actually happen, the largest of which is America's desire to have all the governments in the region support American policy (ala latin America). Many of these states would have to have moderate to strongly anti-american governments to stay in line with their people, and I don't think that America will ever let that happen.

[luminousnerd]

That's interesting. I agree with your diagnosis, so to speak. On one hand it really sucks that America wouldn't let that happen. On the other hand, I can see where they're coming from. A united organization that hated America really wouldn't be good, when America's government is so fragile.

And while we're on the subject of proposed maps that probably wouldn't work, here's mine. Except that it definitely wouldn't work, instead of probably.

[anonshadow]

That's absolutely ridiculous. Who do Americans and Europeans think they are? You can't just redraw the borders of a couple countries, apply them, and say, "ho-urr, wasn't that supposed to work?"

How would *you* feel if Iran marched into your backyard and said, "So. We're, like, in it for the oil. But, while we've completely destabilized the region and turn California into a war zone, we're going to reappropriate territories. Yo, Texas, you've got so many Spanish speakers, just join Mexico. And the northeast, you're all elitist, so you can break away and do your own thing. So on, so forth--oh, but you would be thrilled, right?

[luminousnerd]

That's absolutely ridiculous. Who do Americans and Europeans think they are? You can't just redraw the borders of a couple countries, apply them, and say, "ho-urr, wasn't that supposed to work?"

How would *you* feel if Iran marched into your backyard and said, "So. We're, like, in it for the oil. But, while we've completely destabilized the region and turn California into a war zone, we're going to reappropriate territories. Yo, Texas, you've got so many Spanish speakers, just join Mexico. And the northeast, you're all elitist, so you can break away and do your own thing. So on, so forth--oh, but you would be thrilled, right?

Not a good example I'm afraid. America has a basically stable economy, a good sense of nationalism, and no real reason to change. I don't know how true this is, but I heard somewhere that the majority of middle-easterners don't know the name of their own country.

[Claire]

Honestly, we discussed redrawing the borders of Iraq a lot in my politics class last semester, and we decided that there isn't a real conclusion. Turkey would HATE a Kurdish state, and the oil isn't spread through the country so one state would almost definitely have all the resources.

[jotabe]

Problem is that the borders in near-middle east are the ones we (western countries) created, without attending to the natural borders or nationalist feelings that there were, only to our economic interests.

Redrawing borders is an interesting intellectual exercise, though unfortunately is completely impractical. The current borders have created too many interests in the citizens of those countries nowadays, what means that to change them, too much blood would be shed. The best that could be done, nevertheless, is dividing Iraq in 3 countries, so at least the 3 nationalities would have a region where they could be "safe", and the posibility of a civil war all along Iraq would be reduced (if you give them something to protect, it will be a lot more stable than if you tell them: "winner takes all").
Yes, Turkey can complain. But the part that would complain more bitterly is the agnostic, nationalistic soul of Turkey, not the islamist one. And as long as the nationalists gain power, it shouldn't be bad, because they are the ones who are more interested in joining the EU (unlike the islamists currently in power), and taking any action against the kurds would make that possibility vanish.

[eriador]

Problem is that the borders in near-middle east are the ones we (western countries) created, without attending to the natural borders or nationalist feelings that there were, only to our economic interests.

The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.

[jotabe]

honestly i didn't read that article until after i posted

[fawkes]

Wouldn't redrawing the borders just create more problems?

[jotabe]

It actually would. The author of the article says so too.
But it would create problems mostly in the head of each of the current countries (since their personal wealth and power depends on the current statu quo), and as most of these governments are tyrannical, they wouldn't consider troublesome resorting to force in order to conserve their power.

[jotabe]

Luminous, you are wrong... that map would probably work... in the future. As the concepts of freedom and separated powers extend over the world, peace and cooperation would be possible even between countries with antagonistic interests (we do have them inside of Europe, for example). EU and USA are in a close enough relationship that could result in mutually open borders in the near future. That huge accomplisment would eventually lead, by imitation, to a worldwide customs union, with free movement of people and goods.

[Jayelle]

...because randomly drawing the borders of Africa worked out SO well.

bah.

[anonshadow]

Yep. Can you believe these people not falling down on the ground and worshipping those borders? Stroke of f****** genius.

[anonshadow]

That's absolutely ridiculous. Who do Americans and Europeans think they are? You can't just redraw the borders of a couple countries, apply them, and say, "ho-urr, wasn't that supposed to work?"

How would *you* feel if Iran marched into your backyard and said, "So. We're, like, in it for the oil. But, while we've completely destabilized the region and turn California into a war zone, we're going to reappropriate territories. Yo, Texas, you've got so many Spanish speakers, just join Mexico. And the northeast, you're all elitist, so you can break away and do your own thing. So on, so forth--oh, but you would be thrilled, right?

Not a good example I'm afraid. America has a basically stable economy, a good sense of nationalism, and no real reason to change. I don't know how true this is, but I heard somewhere that the majority of middle-easterners don't know the name of their own country.

Um, yes a good example, I'm afraid. America is very different throughout, and many people of one region don't like the people of another. Sure, it's not the same as the situation in the middle east, but the feeling is the same: you wouldn't like people stomping all over your backyard and taking liberties like that.

If you don't know how true something is, just don't bring it up. If you can't give your source on a "fact" that stupid, don't tell us about it.

I highly doubt that that's the case. It sounds like elitist racist propaganda to me.

It was a bad idea to draw arbitrary borders the first time. Doing so a second time wouldn't make it better.

[Olhado_]

The best reply in this entire thread (in my opinion, of course):

you wouldn't like people stomping all over your backyard and taking liberties like that.

I believe, from everything that I have read, that there are other reasons besides "freedom" and "liberty" that we are over there because besides for Saddam's Iraq and the Taliban’s Afghanistan the other countries do have a say in their government and in many countries they are also educated. It is just we make them out to be the "bad guys" because they want to be independent and do not want to be told what to do, either by American, the UN, Europe, Israel, or anybody.

Take Iran, for example, the people are educated the economy is decent, compared to most of the economies in the Middle East. The people still have a little say. They still protest. They still make their views known, like in this most recent election they did not like the behavior of their President so they did not vote for his party. They may not be the best government in the world, but they still have a say.

Also take a country like Palestine, we were perfectly willing to help them when we a party like Fattah was in power, which listen to us and was perfectly willing to do almost anything we told them to and even line their pockets while they are at it. Yet, when the Palestinian people voted them out because they wanted a change and voted in Hamas. A party that actually funded schools, hospitals, and helped citizens rebuild homes. We stopped our attempted to help because they refused to recognize a country that treats them like animals, who builds a wall around them, who does not allow them to trade to trade, who invades them for taking one solider prisoner, when they hold thousands of men, women, and children. Do you think you would recognize a country who treats you like that? I do not agree with what they are doing to Israel, either.

Then there is the Lebanon, the last countries which I will mention in my little rant and all I will say is this if my government stood by and did not nothing to try and defend me, while another sovereign country bombed my home I think I would consider voting for a group like Hezbollah too, who at least stood up against them and was also there to help rebuild when my home was destroyed. (Also an interesting note, there really is a Christian party in Lebanon that is siding with Hezbollah.)

Anyways, this has turned into a little bit of a longer post then I wanted, but my point is this that I agree with the poster who believes that no one would want a country or a group marching in and telling them this is what we want you to do.

[luminousnerd]

Um, yes a good example, I'm afraid. America is very different throughout, and many people of one region don't like the people of another. Sure, it's not the same as the situation in the middle east, but the feeling is the same: you wouldn't like people stomping all over your backyard and taking liberties like that.

If you don't know how true something is, just don't bring it up. If you can't give your source on a "fact" that stupid, don't tell us about it.

I didn't state it as a fact. There's nothing to back up. It's just my opinion on the matter. How come I'm not allowed to share mine, but yours is all-powerful?

Besides that, I wasn't even fully disagreeing with you. I just thought your example was misleading.

I was kind in my reply, I certainly didn't attack your character, and here you are acting like a s*** to me. What gives?

removed offensive word

[zeroguy]

Since you asked to me notified when you act obnoxious, here it is (and not to mention bordering on breaking forum rules with name-calling):

I was kind in my reply, I certainly didn't attack your character, and here you are acting like a s*** to me. What gives, dickweed?

[luminousnerd]

I know it seems ridiculous of me to retort when I asked you to do it, but honestly he was a jerk to me, I don't know many people who wouldn't be a jerk back.

But you're right, shouldn't have sank to his level.

[Fish Tank]

Yeah the article pretty much says.... "there's no help for the Middle East."

At least from Americans or Europeans.

Why don't we just let them settle their problems? Our means are just as bloody as theirs.

[jotabe]

Because the problems of your neighbour sooner or later will end up affecting you. And even with more reason in a globalized world.

[Andorbal]

And another problem is that we've already meddled in their affairs. I think isolationism may have worked if it was the policy from the get go. The more you start to interfere, the harder it is to stop.

Andorbal.

[zeroguy]

but honestly he

She. (And "her", later in the post.)

[luminousnerd]

but honestly he

She. (And "her", later in the post.)

Sorry. Somewhat hard to tell online :/ my bad though, I'm sure I've been told that before.

[anonshadow]

luminousnerd, I sign all of my posts, "Elena." Elena is my name; Elena is also most definitely not a guy's name.

I don't know how true this is, but I heard somewhere that the majority of middle-easterners don't know the name of their own country.

That was not an opinion. You shouldn't have tossed it out there if you didn't know how true it was, and it absolutely reeks of prejudiced dogma that has no basis in reality. I seriously doubt that "the majority" of middle-easterners cannot name the f****** country they live in. If you can't pull up stats, I don't see what prejudiced garbage like that adds to a semi-serious discussion.

[liquifiedrainbows]

As long as both of the opposing groups still exsist there will be no peace. It doesn't matter how it is divided because the two sides are fighting with eachother about much more then boundaries and will continue after any boundaries are drawn.