The Middle East - If ?

[whiffey]

USA and UK are often (well, usually, nowadays) portrayed as unwanted Western aggressors in the area, who cause more trouble than they prevent.

So, to speculate, if all USA / Western forces and diplomatic influences were to withdraw from the Middle East, Afghanistan - what might happen ?

To go a wild step further, if the State of Israel were to be dismantled, never mind how, would the Islamic countries, rid of the worst two Peoples of the Book and infidels, settle down to an eternal nirvana ?

Or would the area fall into tribal, sectarian, religious warfare ?

More British soldiers killed yesterday, let's just pull out and leave the area to sort itself out ?

Just speculation, but I often wonder.

[Theland]

The Islamic ummah has one desire, establishing the Caliphate worldwide, no matter how long it takes. Israel would be the first in a tumbling row of dominoes because then they would turn their attention to the west. Maybe a good idea to pull out of those countries and sit on the borders, keeping them in.

[Loosehead]

As above, they will find someone else to be the enemy. They will not rest until they've cleaned the Infidel from the Earth for Allah. Only then can islam be content.

[jno]

and yet, before the foundation of Israel, the Middle East wasn't really a problem. Since the collapse of the Muslim Ottoman empire - which had long ago ceased expanding - the only upheavals had been European countries pouring in trying to annex countries. So they're now paying the belated price for their own expansionism.

Whiffey mentions recent British deaths as proof the region won't sort itself out. And yet Britons weren't dying in Iraq before they invaded; and Iraqis weren't either, at least not in anything like their current numbers. So perhaps the solution is for western countries to stop invading people? Will this ever happen?

[jake-the-peg]

If we pulled out too soon there'd be civil war followed by either a failed state or a radical Islamist regieme.

We'd be back where we were in 2001 or worse

If you invade a country dismantle it's police, government and armed forces and then pull out it's not going to be pretty.

It would give all the anti-western groups a perfect base to operate from and a wonderful opportunity to point to the west and say "look what they've done, come and join us to avenge your brothers, fathers, mothers etc."

You don't really think do you that if we pulled out that would be that and the terrorist threat would evaporate do you?

[whiffey]

jno, another maybe immoral question I ask myself, is - would the West be justified in taking military action purely to safeguard its own commercial interests or cultural future ? So if USA/UK were to fabricate reasons to go in to a country, would that be ok if the West's oil supply were at stake, or a potential nuclear threat were to be perceived, or to limit the spread of extreme Islam ?

I don't always answer myself No nowadays.

[jno]

well, they perceived a potential nuclear threat from Iraq. Only it wasn't there. One of the morals of Iraq is that politicians will perceive anything they damn well please, and lie about it. So I'd set the barrier for intervention a lot higher than western politicians would. But my main point is that much of the upheaval in Islam these days is a result of western actions. Al-Qaeda was originally a fringe sect. Now it's booming - not as a result of 9/11 itself but because of the western reaction. Personally I had nothing against the US attacking Afghanistan in response to 9/11 and most Muslims would I think have been happy if it had stopped there. But going into Iraq for no particular reason (and ranting on about doing the same to Iran) has given them the impression they are under threat and should fight back. Wouldn't you do the same, in their shoes?

[whiffey]

No jake of course not, but it is now common to speak as though the Iraq affair was the direct cause of the 7/7 London bombings and the increase in terrorism in Britain. This scapegoat attitude threatens to deflect attention from the real enemy within.

[jake-the-peg]

I think 7/7 was indirectly caused by Iraqi invasion.

It was doubtlessly a fabulous recruiting tool, a bit like the way in which internment in Nortern Ireland swelled the ranks of the IRA.

It's not clear about Kahn but Hasin Hussain who blew up the bus got involved in 2003. Whether the attack would have been possible without the involvement of those who got involved as a result of Afghanistan is open to question. As is whether we would have been seen as a legitimate target.

You could also well ask whether we'd have been able to stabalise Afghanistan by now if we weren't fighting in 2 fronts.

In either case it's all water under the bridge and we have to concentrate on
a) Stabilising Iraq and Afgahnistan and
b) Not getting drawn into another stupid thing in Iran

[Gromit]

I have this radical theory that all peoples are the same.

If we are playing te 'What if' game I would prefer to speculate on what it would be like if the West had not interferred in the first place. I would say that the middle east would be a prosperous region with its oil wealth and if it didn't need to spend vast amounts of money on arms. As mentioned previously, they all got on fairly well together when they were part of the Ottoman Empire.

There would be even greater chaos if we suddenly and unorderedly withdrew now.

[dyli795]

whiffey "Just speculation, but I often wonder." Me too, more and more of late. Worth a try, see how it goes, we could always change our minds again, though I don't know why. it's not like we're going to lose ground or anything. The two civilizations are like chalk and cheese, there's nothing wrong with that if it's how people want to be. We'll follow our values and not try to impose them on an unwilling recipient. Westerners aren't all arch angels or somethin.