The Mideast may be the exception to the rule that simple
answers to complicated problems are always wrong. It seems to this simpleton that for one
hundred years or more, the people of that convulsed part of earth have been more
consumed by clan and tribal and sectarian struggles for supremacy than by any
sense of or pride in nationhood. The
only peace they have endured is under the thumb of a caliph or a dictator like
Saddam or Kaddafi, or under an Ayatollah or a Shah or an Emperor or
whatever. And too often the thumb
belongs to a member of a minority -- a sure formula for eventual resurgence of
violence and bloodshed. So what are we thinking
mucking about in this mess?
Already, many Syrians
are railing against our attacks on IS or ISIL or ISIS or whatever because it is
helping Assad redirect his fire against the (majority) Sunni rebels -- whom we
hope, hope, hope are moderates dedicated to self-government and rule of
law. Fat chance, that.... And the
Ayatollah must be grinning from ear to ear as we hammer away at his hated
Sunnis and get further drawn into certain blow-back.
There are three nations that are reasonably
self-governed. In the case of Israel, it
is trending toward mid-eastern style authoritarianism. In the case of Turkey, "reasonably"
may be at risk, but relative to other mid-east areas, it's done a good job for
nearly one hundred years at developing a structure of law and giving rights to
all citizens -- yes, including women. In
the case of Iraqi Kurdistan, not yet a nation but an independently governed
region aspiring to nationhood, it's only 20 years old or so, but it too exhausted
tribal struggles to develop accommodating legislative processes and a
multi-ethnic and multi-sectarian governing structure. And so far, Kurdistan proves successful at growing
its economy and providing an improving quality of life for its inhabitants.
Keep in mind that the boundaries of the other
"nations" in this huge region were arbitrarily drawn by non-Arabs
just about one hundred years ago, with no regard for and too little knowledge
of the tribes, clans, families and sects of the people they were
circumscribing. What is sacred about
these imposed boundaries that we must insist on their maintenance?
The simpleton here suggests that we back Turkey (which we
are bound by NATO treaty to do) and support a declaration of independence by
Kurdistan, providing each financial, military, and humanitarian aid ... and
leave the Arab rest to fight it out among themselves. Will it be bloody? Yes.
Humanitarian crimes? Yes. Women oppressed? Yes. Millions
of refugees moving about seeking help?
Yes. Does this include Palestine
and Lebanon and Egypt? Yes.
And what of Israel? That's a huge emotional
and policy pit that this simpleton cannot fathom except to know that a two
state solution has been made impossible by Israel's expropriations and that a
sectarian democracy is an oxymoron. Yes, we need to slowly and steadily
disengage there too. Israel can stand on
its own feet and is going its own way.
Better to watch the chaos until it burns itself out than to
be drawn into muddles we don't understand, with unreliable allies and where
every move we make delights one and pisses off innumerable others who grow to
hate and to seek revenge.
A simpleton's answer to be sure, but perhaps the better of
all bad options in this case.
PS: to those who say we created ISIL or broke Iraq so must
fix it, the simpleton says we didn't teach Sunnis to hate Shiites, or Persians
and Turks to hate Greeks, or Moslems to feel superior to Copts, or Wahhabis to
believe all others are unenlightened inferiors, or Jews to believe in a covenant right to seize Arab lands ... read your history. Step back and leave untouched what one cannot
fathom. And to those who say 'but the
women, the women:' All we can do is
improve the way we treat our fellow women, with true respect and full equality,
and let our example lead others to change; neither the sword nor the sermon will do the job.
