It's amazing to me how ignorant our "leaders" are. Both parties need to require their elected lap-dogs to attend a class and educate them on the realities of the Mid-East.
President Brick O'bama has okay-ed the use of US surveillance drones to keep an eye on ISIS forces (the ultra-radical Islamic terrorist group) operating in Syria and Iraq. What he hasn't authorized is the use of force against ISIS fighters across that line in the sand marking the border between Iraq and Syria....we don't want to violate Syrian airspace.
Here's the problem with that thinking: SYRIA AND IRAQ AREN'T REAL COUNTRIES! Neither are Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, or Saudi Arabia. They aren't now and never have been.
They are "nations" with borders arbitrarily set up by the victors (Britain and France) after World War I. During that Great War the two decided quietly to divvy up the Mid-East after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), who was fighting along side eventual losers Germany and Austro-Hungary.
According to the Sykes-Picot Agreement France would exercise their sphere of influence over the northern part of said territory (the current areas known as Syria and Lebanon), while Britain would oversee their sphere of influence over the southern part (now known as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, and Israel).
But "national identity" was a foreign concept to the Arabs. Their society was (and still is) organized around "families", which are part of "clans", which are part of "tribes". They routinely band together to form temporary alliances when their short-term interests merge. But when their interests change those alliances break up and new alliances with former enemy tribes take their place. Regional politics are always fluid, therefore national boundaries are meaningless to them.
They don't give a rats ass about "borders". Kurds don't see themselves as Turkish Kurds or Syrian Kurds or Iraqi Kurds. They have no allegiance to any nation-state. To say that we shouldn't violate "Syrian" airspace is a farce, as there is no Syria, and therefore no Syrian airspace to violate. There are only various families and clans and tribes which congeal now and then into interest groups.
I'm not saying we should or shouldn't go after ISIS forces across that mythical line on a map that defines Syria, but just that that shouldn't enter into our decision. And above all, we should give up on trying to introduce "democracy" to the people of the region. They will never swear allegiance to any "country". Why should we waste American lives and national treasure trying to set them up?
Screw 'em!
S
We wouldn't have a problem going into Syria if Putin weren't their biggest fan.
ReplyDeleteBut the reality is the Russians could no more block our move into "Syrian airspace" than we could block their move into the Crimean peninsula.
DeleteHmmm...good points Scot! I never viewed it that way.
ReplyDeleteLowandslow for President, I'd vote for you.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I wish I could have a penny – well, a thousand pounds – for every time I’ve pointed this out to people who say things like “Why aren’t the Iraqis grateful to us for liberating them?” To be fair, I would have had no idea in my younger days, but the Gulf War saw all this illustrated to me.
ReplyDeleteIt's always been true that the seeds of future wars are planted in current ones. The British and French divided up the Middle East after WWI just as you said and we're still paying the price. This wasn't what Wilson wanted but he couldn't secure Congressional involvement, which might have improved the situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the tribal nature of the middle east countries, or nations if you will. And Britian really did a number on the area even for a couple years after WW2.
ReplyDeleteBut the borders of many if not most 'countries' are also determined by politics. Some times it seems to work long enough to be accepted, e.g. the US. Sometimes not, e.g. the Balkans. Germany's border, along with Poland, the Czech Republic, etc were determined by mostly the US and USSR post-WW2.
The US has long been cocooned, first by our geographic isolation by oceans, then a strong isolationist tendency that persists today. We have no history of success in the role of world policeman, a position that we occasionally try to fill.
Excellent points. I wonder if the tribes there will ever settle into some sort of status quo?
DeleteWeren't we pissed at Bashar al-Assad not too long ago and threatened to intervene in Syria? Now we have to decide who is the lesser of two evils now that ISIS is in Syria threatening Assad - Assad or ISIS. Geez.
ReplyDeleteI know this doesn't contribute anything to your precise and succinct explanation, but sometimes I wonder what the world of global politics would look like if women were in charge.
ReplyDeleteThey'd probably do a lot better job than the guys do now!
DeleteThe one and perhaps only good thing about the 'troubles' in the Middle East is the hope that perhaps we can finally see the fallacy of the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, a totally meaningless concept.
ReplyDelete