Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
I guess the question really boils down to this:
How much of a threat is radical Islam?
|
Islamic extremism is a regional event that resulted in an attempted murder of Nasser, the murder of Sadat, fall of the Shah of Iran, unrest in the Stans (former Soviet republics), Georgia, Turkey, etc. For the most part equivalent to domestic violence. Left alone, they will usually resolve the conflict. But if an outsider tries to impose a solution, then all will turn on the outsider.
However the world does have some responsibility to the region. For example, the invasion of Kuwait received proper responses. But one must be careful to not remain or get involved beyond limited events. It was where we made a major mistake when our civilian leaders failed to plan for Iraqi surrender in 1991 - leaving Schwarzkopf to jury-rig a solution. As a result of mistakes made in Washington, we stayed and became a target of regional extremists. We made another mistake when we undermined the Oslo Accords and supported the most right wing Israeli extremists at the expense of Israeli centrists.
Muslim Brotherhood is the enemy of non secular governments such as Turkey, Egypt, Saddam's Iraq, and Asad's Syria. Leave local powers to their local conflicts and America can leave the French as a more hated western power. But we did not do that. When we don't act as honest brokers between Palestinians and Israelis, then we too become targets. When we favored Maronites in Lebanon over Druze and Shities, then again, 200+ American Marines died.
Important to represent our interests while not taking sides. How we deal with Saudia Arabia demonstrates the need to understand a potentially unstable situation. The mistake is when our leaders express everything in terms of black and white - as Oliver North would do and George Jr does today.
In an international domestic conflict, the outsider is welcome only as an honest broker IF 1) it does not try to force a settlement, 2) does not try to negotiate a settlement until parties are ready to talk (when enough people have died on all sides - high death rates essential to ending conflict among extreme positions), and 3) does not overstay its welcome. A narrow path to walk - a path that requires pragmatism - and not the extremist viewpoint of 'good verses evil'.
In the Middle East, there is no good and evil. There are many parties with numerous religions, cultures, wealth, opinions, educational backgrounds, historical hatred, and needs. Some such as Sharon and 1980 Saddam are more interested in dangerous and self serving political agendas. But this only means that the outsider must tread with advance knowledge.
Unfortunately, too many with opinions of the Middle East (ie Oliver North) have virtually no knowledge of this region. Ignorance is why Americans have been killed here and there. Why does the secular government in Jordan remain so stable and so popular when sitting right in the middle of so much extremism and hatred? If one cannot answer that, then one has insufficient information to answer Undertoad's original question. What is the driving force that may only make American's an even greater target of extremist Islam? Oil in the Caspian Sea.