POL - a horrible thought but a good idea?
 

Alright, so I was thinking and I came up with an idea but Im sure that some of you all can poke holes in this idea and make me see that it isnt all its cracked up to be.

The state of affairs today has the Islamic spectrum torn between two seperate ends. On one end is Shiite and the other Sunni, however there is also Al-Qaeda and its affiliates extremists that perhaps fall more in step with one side or the other but whatever dealings exist with the moderates of that spectrum, they are certainly under the table and not admitted to. The one thing both sides of the spectrum have in common is, to some degree a hatred of America, and a much more commonality in their hatred for Israel. So be it.

What the above leads me to and perhaps our government to is an inability to "spot" the enemy, know thy enemy, and deal with the "friendlies" because they shapeshift all the time and change on a monthly basis. What we end up with are enemies behind every corner but an unknowing of who that enemy is.
These two ends of the spectrum, certainly fomented through our flipping the IRaq table on its head, are now at "War" with eachother. If not admittedly than certainly behind the scenes, there are major sections of both ends that would like to see nothing more than the destruction of the other, yet we stand in the middle as a moralistic referee, however succesful or failing it may be.

What if Western forces pulled out of ALL Islamic held areas, other than those where we can strategically accomplish a humanitarian goal, ie. Darfur, with the UN, Nato, African union and on a shorter term basis. The two ends of the spectrum fall into all out civil war engulfing most Islamic states. At some point wouldnt one of the groups begin to get the upper hand leading to an eventual powerful group, yet only one group.

At that point we would know our enemy, and have one Major enemy, IE. USSR to deal with as opposed to this hybrid islamic army that exists in the alley down below? Couldnt we then regroup and fight one large scale battle instead of the battle that is going on now where we see a future of small bleeds? Is it possible that someday down this path there could be a D-Day to "save the West?"

I understand that this is not PC and would be unworldly bloodshed that would certainly be on our hands. When looking at the saving of a civilization, long term, is this something that is bantered about in the halls at the Pentagon or DoD? Is this totally left field? what are the economic ramifications? What if "they" get a nuke? What about the Muslims who believe in peace (I once stated that I felt the only way to win the war on terror is to have the moderates of Islam fight the extremists - I still beleve this but see no impetus or motivation for the moderates to actually do this due to their economic worries and protection)

What do you think?

I doubt it gets much play at DoD, simply because it's a virtual political impossibility that it would be allowed to happen. "Oh those poor , we've got to do something to help them, it's our moral duty", the speeches just write themselves really.

Politics aside, the biggest downside I see is that, prior to "D-Day", you're opening the door to allowing the surviving group to have too much influence over the world's oil supply even for a limited time.

It's a reasonably pragmatic approach but one that I really don't see as being implemented absent a wholescale shift in the American psyche.

I hadnt thought about the oil implications which are exacerbated by the recent crap going on with Chavez down South...talk about handing your freedom over.

Leaving aside humanitarian concerns, what would we (and the rest of the world) do for oil while they were fighting it out among themselves?

It seems that we have to be there, in part, to make sure that there is at least enough stability in the region to keep the oil flowing.

While it might be in our long term interests to let them fight it out among themselves, no politican is going to win re-election when gas is $7.00/gallon.

dola--

beat to the punch.

The humanitarian concerns and moral effects could be humongous too in the era of information and instant news too, not to mention the REAL effect that people would die in enormous proportions which any sensitive human being, including myself, might have a very hard time swallowing. The oil effects would be tangible immediately though and devastating worldwide, right? This keeps us locked to the ME and this referee position.

There's also no reason to think the Shias or Sunnis would come out dominate in any reasonable length of time. Look at how long it took Europe to stop fighting over religion. Are we prepared to let the Middle East be a free fire zone for a decade? Two decades? One hundred years?

Now if could find an energy source that freed us from ME oil this is something to think about. Eventually the problems within the Muslim world have to be solved by Muslims. Letting it happen while we look on from afar is a much better option than getting stuck in the middle, which is what I hope the folks at DoD are thinking about.

A phased withdrawl from the entire Middle East in order to create an all out civil war that we wouldn't be involved in at all, unless this "all out civil war" somehow reached the scale of Darfur? Doesn't that sound completely plausible given your 'what if'?

Mark me down as skeptical. :)

If it wasn't for oil, that's exactly what we would do, imo.

If it wasn't for oil we probably wouldn't be there in the first place.

The USSR was a country. Islam is a religion. Completely different things.

For one, history shows that generally-speaking if you fight a religion, you only make it stronger in the long run.

For two, think about your contention that Islam would eventually coalesce into one bloc for us to take on. Could you show me an example of where this has happened in history? Christianity is 2000 years old, but has a large number of very well-defined factions. Judaism is even older, and has some pretty distinct groupings.


We've had this conversation before. The populaces of first world countries are, on the whole, not willing to commit their troops, long-term, to purely humanitarian missions in hostile environments.


Absolutely agree. Various Islamic factions have been fighting for almost 1200 years. What's to think they'll stop anytime soon?

Frankly, I've always thought the best avenue for peace in the region was to be found in the rise of secularist states, whose leaders (even if they were/are dictators) valued stability as a way to enhance their commercial endeavors.

My solution? Pull out and implement a policy of "back-door" support for secularist states in the Middle East. Encourage them to, over time, develop essentially free-market states. In the end, the rational, self-interested citizen of these states is more likely to choose a route to attainable material goals and personal comfort over religious radicalism. I'm not saying such a plan would have quick results, but it probably wouldn't take 1200 years, either. ;)

Obviously.

Are you sure it will work?

Are you sure your plan will? Oh yeah, you haven't articulated a plan.

Well, duh.

If Western forces pulled out of all Islamic held areas than the threat of terrorism in the West would fall to about zero. As others have said though, it's just not a realistic option because it's not a "War on Terror" that's being waged, it's a war on resources.

Um, no. Unless you consider "Islamic held areas" to include Israel, and perhaps Italy and Spain.

And parts of Idaho...

I wouldn't call what's going on in and immediately around Israel terrorism neccessarily - certainly not one-sided terrorism, anyway.

The war wouldnt end, it would be titled something else because according to the Quran, as far as I know, the end goal for Islam is One Islamic world.

Read Revelations? Same idea, but for Christianity. Religion is what you make it - don't believe the propaganda.

Amongst extremists it is, yeah. Extremist make up a small minority however, and like flere says, that's the goal for just about every religion. All this "War on Resources" is doing is creating more and more extremists.

Y'know, until this moment I never really considered you an idiot. Thanks for the clue, I can't believe I hadn't noticed. Either you've got a good disguise going or my perceptive abilities have slipped a lot lately.

Anyone know what the current line of thinking is on oil shale? We have something like 95% of the world's supplies, and it's the equivalent of several trillion barrels. I always heard it was financial feasable assuming a permanent oil price of above $50 dollars. Is the answer to so many of our problems right under our noses?

What can I say, I'm a master of disguise.

But do feel free to do a little research in to Palestine sometime. More specifically, Israel's annexing of regions that is leaving Palestinian cities completely cut off from their actual country, not to mention water, electricity, etc., and making them prisoners inside their own towns, being forced to travel on dirt roads because they aren't allowed on the highways that now fall under Israel's jurisdiction.

I'm not saying that Palestine and Hamas are the good guys and Israel the baddies, I'm just saying that it's plain ignorance and hypocrisy that allows Israel to get away with what it does.

To quote Noam Chomsky from his book Failed States, page 262:

"...if Hamas were to agree that Jews may remain in scattered areas in the present Israel, while Palestine constructs huge settlement and infrastructure projects to take over the valuable land and resources, effectively breaking Israel up into unviable cantons, virtually seperated from one another and from some small part of Jerusalem where Jews wouuld also be allowed to remain. And they might agree to call the fragments "a state." If such proposals were made, we would-rightly-regard them as virtually a reversion to Nazism, a fact that might elicit some thoughts. If such proposals were made, Hamas's position would be essentially like that of the United States and Israel for the past five years, after they came to tolerate some impoverished form of "statehood.""

And to beat you to it, yes, Noam Chomsky is about as left as they come, and is no fan of Israel, but that doesn't refute the facts.

You should read what Noam Chomsky wrote about Cambodia sometime.

perhaps im mistaken to think that A chiristian effort to Convert the world for the most part, unless you consider Bush a crusader, et al, would remain mostly non-violent means. Id bet there are some that would use the argument that that is exactly what is happening, but back to the point of the first post. Outside of oil, if we pulled out, I DO believe that the shia and sunni contingent would battle. I DO think it would take too long to settle itself out for us to wait. The OIL issue makes it a non-starter, as pointed out.

All of the rest of the hoohah in here is undebatable at FOFC, only a few times has someone changed their mind about something in a political thread AND that wasnt the point of this thread anyways. I was ONLY limiting my line of thought to the hypothesis above, NOT the state of Palestine, or the caliphate, etc. perhaps you cant delineate between them i dunno, but the point of this thread was NOT to have the same debate over and over again. This would hopefully be something new, a new hypothesis although one that is unfeasible.

I have. By no means do I agree 100%, or even probably 60%, with Chomsky's views, even in the book I quoted. But again, that doesn't refute the facts, which are available in plenty of other sources outside of this particular book.

The problem with any political thread that deals with the Middle East is that it just completely sets off my hypocrisy alarm. Usually I'm a pretty calm, laid back kind of guy that doesn't get worked up easily, but when it comes to this topic it just ticks me off when I see people who, just a year or two ago, scoffed at the idea that the US was only in Iraq for the oil, yet now accept that obviously that's what they went in there for, and that it was always the case. And that's just one of the many issues to do with Middle East that boils my blood.

I really try and stay out of these threads, but they make me so angry that I can't just sit back and not say anything. Not angry at the posters I disagree with mind you, just angry at the politicians who are able to subtlely sway people's opinions on serious issues to serve their own selfish interests. It's a topic that seems to work me up like no other.

I know this wasn't the thread for it though, and I'll try not sabotage political threads in the future. I'm well aware of how futile it is, but like I said, I find it hard to ignore at times.

I'm not sure who you're talking about, but it's never been that simple. The most simple way to put it is that our interest in the region is based on two factors, the existence of Israel, and our economy's need for affordable energy. Our interest in Iraq stems from our interest in the region, and is not neccesarily directly connected to either of those.

imo

Flasch, how are you defining "Islamic held areas"? Does that include parts of Dearborn too? All kidding aside, it does sound like you are conflating "Middle-eastern" and "Islamic"...

Ok, even though I promised to try stay out, I'll chime in again. :D

I pretty much agree with you, but I still think that it is that simple. It's not just the need of oil for the US's economy though, but also the need to keep the oil in the Middle East under a decent amount of control - and hence out of the control of other nations. Even the support of Israel is probably, again IMO, due to the need to have a trusted and well supported ally in the region, which comes back again to the importance of the region as a rich source of oil.

The US support for a Jewish state goes back to before the Civil War, fwiw.

That might very well be so, but the amount of money and military aid given to Israel, not to mention the US's policy of overlooking and even supporting Israel's breaches of international law, goes above and beyond merely supporting a Jewish state out of good intentions alone. Surely you would agree that there would be other motives?

Not to get all conspiracy theory here, but some of our support of Israel is because of the relatively high representation of Jews in policy making circles.

Although, US foreign aid to Israel was at very low levels until the 1970s. This implies that the motivation for US support is primarily strategic in nature.

I think our relationship with Israel is motivated mainly by ideology and culture. The fact that they are in that region is just a silver lining.

imo

If you are talking about the American public in general, then I agree with you that it is the ideology behind Israel and the right of a Jewish state that fuels support for that nation over it's neighbouring Arab countries.

At a political high policy level however, we'll have to agree to disagree. Klinglerware raises a great point, and that's what I was leading up to.

I happen to think those two things cannot be so easily separated in our country. Call me a silly patriot who believes in freedom and the flag and all that.

I used to think that was true too, in my own country as well as yours. The past few years I've gained a much deeper & direct understanding of how international (as well as national) politics works. Sometimes I wish I hadn't, but forces outside of my control made that impossible. That's what has turned me so cynical.

I think that I wouldnt have a hard time drawing lines around the sections of the world that would get involved in a internal religious Islamic war and which side some of the people in some cities in the ME would fall on. I think that this could be done with some gray areas as well. I dont think its naiive to be able to see that Syria is Sunni and some of Lebanon is Shiite, etc. etc. etc.

regardless the whole idea was kaybashed when oil got thrown in, which I naiively forgot about.

I believe that in my lifetime oil will be obsolete. So it's not a stupid question; what happens then?

I'll call bullshit on the US only being in Iraq for the oil. Well, I'll call bullshit on the specific motivation I believe you are levelling. We are involved in the middle east, generally, because we don't want our economy screwed up by having our access to oil cut off. We aren't in Iraq, specifically, to lay claim to their oil. This wasn't a case of "Blood for oil", or any sort of Empire building exercise to grab petroleum reserves. The motivations were many, and have been discussed at length, but staking a direct claim to Iraqi oil simply wasn't on the list.

If I've mistaken your position then I apoligize for any insult. If however, you are one of those morons running around with "No Blood for Oil" bumper stickers, then I think I understand your position, and you understand what I think of it.

Lieberman is simply surrounded by peers in Congress.

Yes, you are mistaken. I'm certainly not one of those people, and I think I made my position understood a few posts later. While I think oil is the dominating factor, it's more to do with keeping control of the resource in friendly hands than the actual oil itself.

Whew. I'm actually glad, because I had you pretty well in the "he's a reasonable chap" poster category. I thought I had badly misjudged you for a bit.

As for Israel, and the US support for them. I think we simply sympathize more with Israel. In broad strokes, they won the war, it should be pretty clear that they get to draw up the lines on the map. The US public typically finds it pretty difficult to side with terrorists that target and kill Civilians including women and children. Now the Palestinians can make a good case about simply being oppressed, and the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory are a huge incursion, but those things somehow pale in comparison to suicide bombers taking out whole families in restaurants.

For me, I could back Palestine, if they took their sovereignty seriously, and cracked down on the millitant groups. If you want to be a sovereign nation, then you damn well better be able to keep elements of your society from launching rockets at your neighbors. If a bunch of rebels in Ciudad Juarez started lobbing explosives into El Paso, you'd damn well bet that if Mexico turned a blind eye to the acts, the US wouldn't hesitate to do many of the same things that Israel has done. In short, I think the Israelis present a more sympathetic cause for most in the US.

Well, there is one rather ugly thing that I don't think has been brought out yet in this debate. And that would be Iran and their pursuit of nuclear weapons (public statements to the contrary not withstanding). If the Iranians acquire the ability, then the whole Sunni-Shi'a conflict gets really, really scary, I think. A lot of other Mideast states (all Sunni) I think are chirping they'll get into the club if the Iranians do, particularly Saudi Arabia. They've got the money and can certainly acquire weapons or the brains to make weapons in short order. Now, all of the sudden, you've got oil-and-water religious factions talking about "consuming our enemies in holy fire" and similar terms and this time pretty much meaning it. The US and USSR were able to walk the nuclear tightrope for 50 years without falling off (though coming close a number of times) because both sides knew that nuclear armageddon would leave winners and losers much worse off than before. Deterrence and MAD in some sense did work because the winner's victory was certain to be pyhrric. When you have individuals who are convinced that death in martyrdom will lead to great rewards from your God, what incentive is there to care about the world you're leaving behind? I think if the Iranians get nukes, then a region-wide holocaust is a very real possibility (laying aside the possible destruction of Israel or various cities in the US and Europe as an outgrowth of the Iranian program).

The situation is f#$ked.

It's going to get really interesting when and if Iran possesses nuclear weapons.

I don't see any support to the assumption that the ME would devolve into Sunni/Shiite infighting if we bolted. The only even slightly religious war between Arabic countries since WWII was Iran/Iraq, and that wasn't really rooted in religion as both are Shiite (but the rulers of Iraq have traditionally been Sunni). In fact, only Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan are majority Shiite, and Iraq is the closest of any ME country (save Lebanon, which has a large Christian population) to being 50/50, and even there the ratio is 2-1, so there isn't much internal turmoil.

It's sad that "the animals learning to respect human life and differences in beliefs" is not an option.

I know it's obviously not that simple and I may get ripped for that but hey, I'm not the one blowing up innocent people because they don't believe what I believe.