A Theory of Military Intervention in the Middle East

Now that the business day is almost over, and my mind is about to play games, I would like to come up with a simple theory explaining the logic behind the military interventions of the U.S. and other Western powers in the Middle East. Those are normally aimed at non-democratic countries (Iraq, Lybia, Syrian and Iran). Based on the recent experience, it would be fairly accurate to project that such interventions normally result in such countries becoming non-countries a.k.a. failed states. These are entities with dysfunctional central governments, or no central governments at all, controlled by warlords and living off chaotic economies. I.e. non-democratic countries become non-democratic non-countries. Logically, the negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative. It means, that a non-democratic non-country roughly equals a democratic country. Same logic applies to the notion of prosperity. Based on the above, I can conclude that the military interventions in question have been successful, as they have produced the desirable result, which is democratic countries. QED.

If you wish to see the whole picture, you need to go back to around 1900 and the conditions prior to WWI. That is where the seeds of today's map began.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

If you wish to see the whole picture, you need to go back to around 1900 and the conditions prior to WWI. That is where the seeds of today's map began.

---

http://mondediplo.com/IMG/arton2057.jpg

The Ottoman Empire no longer exists and Britain and Italy both surrendered their empires as nation states emerged and demanded independence.

Except Israel.

Israel was part of the British Mandate for Palestine which came about as a result of Britain winning the land after fighting the Ottoman empire. Even before Britain won that, the intent of establishing a homeland for Jewish peoples:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
- The Balfour Declaration, 2 November 1917

This means to suggest that Palestine in principle needs to shut the hell up. Israel in principle needs to shut the hell up.
The intent of Balfour is obviously a one-state solution because "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine", that is that both of them should have full political and religious rights within that new nation.
The fact that neither of them have ever agreed to this, only shows that both sides are wrong. If you take either side in this pathetic and perpetual bloody conflict, I think that you're also wrong as well.

Put up, shut up, and get along.

Apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Brought peace?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The fact that neither of them have ever agreed to this, only shows that both sides are wrong. If you take either side in this pathetic and perpetual bloody conflict, I think that you're also wrong as well.

---

Well put.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Brought peace?

---

Whose quote is this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Whose quote is this?

---

A British comedy movie. A must watch. https://kickass.to/life-of-brian-197...-t6571340.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Now that the business day is almost over, and my mind is about to play games, I would like to come up with a simple theory explaining the logic behind the military interventions of the U.S. and other Western powers in the Middle East. Those are normally aimed at non-democratic countries (Iraq, Lybia, Syrian and Iran). Based on the recent experience, it would be fairly accurate to project that such interventions normally result in such countries becoming non-countries a.k.a. failed states. These are entities with dysfunctional central governments, or no central governments at all, controlled by warlords and living off chaotic economies. I.e. non-democratic countries become non-democratic non-countries. Logically, the negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative. It means, that a non-democratic non-country roughly equals a democratic country. Same logic applies to the notion of prosperity. Based on the above, I can conclude that the military interventions in question have been successful, as they have produced the desirable result, which is democratic countries. QED.

---

An interesting theory.

But it's rather hard to imagine that coming from someone posting this theory from Belarus, the influence and interventions of the western world are seen as a negative in all cases. Is Belarus a failed non state, or is it a state that is changing for the better?

It would seem to me that after western influence and military actions ended the deaths of millions in the country, there was another void and grab for power, one that still has influence today. Would it have been better if western influences didn't get involved?


It is rather interesting though, that in the Israel/Palestine issue, the thought seems to be that they should all just deal with things because western powers have made the decisions.


So given the two examples, do people want the rule of western powers to decide what a country will do, or is the country in fact sovereign and subject only to their own will?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

An interesting theory.

But it's rather hard to imagine that coming from someone posting this theory from Belarus, the influence and interventions of the western world are seen as a negative in all cases. Is Belarus a failed non state, or is it a state that is changing for the better?

It would seem to me that after western influence and military actions ended the deaths of millions in the country, there was another void and grab for power, one that still has influence today. Would it have been better if western influences didn't get involved?


It is rather interesting though, that in the Israel/Palestine issue, the thought seems to be that they should all just deal with things because western powers have made the decisions.


So given the two examples, do people want the rule of western powers to decide what a country will do, or is the country in fact sovereign and subject only to their own will?

---

You make a good point... however, if the free will of the nation is to massacre thousands of their own people, should the rest of the world simply sit back and say "Well it's their business to run their country their way"?

Where I agree that certain 'Western ' powers tend to try to dictate how the rest of the world lives, and they shouldn't. Human rights need to be upheld, people shouldn't be victimised by their own country based on anything as trite as colour, religion, or gender.

My view is simply that we all have the right to be different, but we all have the right to be treated the same. (I know that this is an overly idealistic view of things, but it is a philosophy I try to live by)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anfield5

You make a good point... however, if the free will of the nation is to massacre thousands of their own people, should the rest of the world simply sit back and say "Well it's their business to run their country their way"?

---

Hence the reason why Syria is impossible.

It'd be "nice" if it was as simple as a regime destroying its own people - we're sort of fine with that* but when you have a regime destroying its own people, undefined sets of rebels, a militant group from another country being involved, an unrecognized militant "state" as well as a downtrodden ethnic group who everyone seems to hate for simply existing, what then?
How do you even describe what's going on, much less pick any side which is going to be coherent?

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk_pHZmn5QM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

An interesting theory.

But it's rather hard to imagine that coming from someone posting this theory from Belarus, the influence and interventions of the western world are seen as a negative in all cases. Is Belarus a failed non state, or is it a state that is changing for the better?

It would seem to me that after western influence and military actions ended the deaths of millions in the country, there was another void and grab for power, one that still has influence today. Would it have been better if western influences didn't get involved?


It is rather interesting though, that in the Israel/Palestine issue, the thought seems to be that they should all just deal with things because western powers have made the decisions.


So given the two examples, do people want the rule of western powers to decide what a country will do, or is the country in fact sovereign and subject only to their own will?

---

Belarus is doing tolerably okay. The government is authoritarian and being active in politics is going get you into trouble, but personal liberties are generally being observed and the quality of life is pretty decent. The political situation is like weather, there's no point complaining. It just is. If you don't like rain, you can't stop it, you can only carry an umbrella with you and mitigate the consequences.

Speaking of the Middle East, I was just being sarcastic. I mean how much of an improvement is what happened to Iraq and Libya, even from the American point of view? To me, the biggest rift that exists in the Middle East is not the one between Arabs and Israel, but the one between the "progressive" secular regimes and monarchies. There is mutual hate between two groups. American generally side with the latter against the former. That's pretty irrational in my view and based mostly on the memories of the Cold War, when Syria, Iraq, Libya etc. were friends with the Soviet Union, and Gulf monarchies were friends with Western countries. That time is long gone, but the perceptions are still there.