by Jack Lee
Solving the problems of the Middle East and promoting peace is akin to untying the Gordian knot, but it doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
In the coming paragraphs you’re going to be exposed to the complex world of US foreign policy, something rarely seen in the media (or in the White House as of late). We’re going to take a look at how forces of human nature eventually collide with repressive, violent religious beliefs. And lastly we’ll discuss how governments in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Syria, etc., have all utterly failed to meet the basic needs and expectations of their citizens leading to revolts and radicalism.
The Middle East problems are many and they didn’t arrive overnight with the Arab Spring movement. That was a trigger, (a symptom) but it was not the cause, nor was it invasion of Iraq by the USA and also in Afghanistan. We may have exacerbated existed problems by our blunders and nativity, but we by no means were the root cause.
The causes of what appears to be endemic violence can be traced back many decades, and some of the problems go back long before the United States was even a sovereign nation.
The driving force behind the Arab Spring movement was the result of long-building trends, and long-brewing problems that undermined the authoritarian bargain (contract) by which these states maintained support from and control over their societies, and that produced the widespread discontent that burst into the open in late 2010.
The roots of the problems can be broken down as follows:
1. A broken state-society relationship
2. Massive rise of educated, unemployed youth
3. Failed to response of the State to public needs
4. Citizens forced to social protest
5. Government’s heavy handed response to social protests
6. Control over society is being determined by brute force and that leads to resistance, chaos, anarchy and ultimately refugees
7. Failed State to State relationships between competing states lead to proxy wars and opportunistic power grabs
Woven within the issues noted above is the long standing belief among the Islamists (fundamentalists) is that they would on have truly great religion, that makes them free and content, if only the state equaled their piety and allowed them to live in strict adherence to Sharia Law. Islamists have been confronted with often violent results, throughout their Islamic history by moderates who rejected their extremism and pressed for reform and those outside the religion that encouraged them to seek reform that would make them more compatible with evolved notions of human rights.
Most recently, this has fueled the revolutions in Egypt in 1952 and Iran in 1979. In the USA, the attack on 9/11/2001was an indirect result of the Islamists as adopted by Al Qaeda. And this has been followed by the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011. This revolt created (in part) the opening for more radicalization (Islamists) and the rise of ISIS that dovetailed with their beliefs. However, the mostly Shia Iraqi government under President Maliki was a major contributing factor. They pushed aside the Sunni and discontent grew. This led to the early endorsement of ISIS radicals by many Iraqi Sunnis.
Islam itself is not the problem, but it is the factions within Islam that are at odds over the degree to which Islam should shape government, laws and society.
This long standing debate has various sub- groups, from religious sects to avowed terrorists, to be set apart from the mainstream Muslim. This battle for the hearts and minds of greater Islam has led to extreme violence, discord and warring tribes and sects. The Islamists have created a cycle attack followed revenge attack, and attack again, and its repeated over and over and this has been going on for centuries.
This cycle of perpetual violence has become a self- tightening noose on the neck of Islam. As the violence grows so do the numbers directly involved, and it spreads. Thus the fear of a Sunni v Shia showdown becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In light of these internal Islamic problems is it any wonder that westerner democracies have been drawn into this barbaric fight? No, it was absolutely inevitable. The worlds is a shrinking place. The global relationships that have evolved among the world’s great societies do not bode well for the isolationist. We can’t just let them fight it out and then deal with the victor, those days are long gone.
We have a vested interest in doing what we can to relieve the stress points for war. For example, working with our partners we take out the extremists, support the moderates, and use creative, intelligent diplomatic solutions to de-escalate the trend towards genocide.
END of PART ONE
Definitions:
1. Islamists Political arm of Islam