INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST, THEORY AS TO WHY

After thinking about the circumstances of the U.S. and their allies in the Middle East, trying to keep a sense of objectivity, and understand what the underlying factors relating to this involvement might suggest, I postulate the following theory.

For many years the western powers have been involved in the political activities in the mid east region. Much of the time our involvement has not been, nor has been taken as constructive to those who inhabit the area. Countries such as Iran have even confronted us, (the U.S. at least) effectively causing us to change the way we assert our self-interests. Due to oil being in high demand and much of that substance being present in that area, it has been necessary for us to stay engaged.

At the same time, Islam that at the turn of the last century was waining has now, due to a large influx of wealth become ascendant. This newfound prosperity has unfortunately been stratified, at best cause a huge disparity between rich and poor. Due to high birth rates this population is also growing at a staggering rate. This is causing political upheaval in many of the area’s governments. Groups such as Alqada and Hezballa have formed to oppose these disparities, and to also counter-act the influence of the West on what can be a very closed and uncompromising religion. Other religions are often looked upon as a threat to Islam and treated as totally un-acceptable. (See Saudi Arabia) This unbending fundamentalism is directly attributed to the teachings of
Mohammed. This is a fact that will not change.

In many of the nations in the west, the predominant religion is that of Christianity. As birth rates have fallen in many of the richer nations, they have allowed workers to enter their respective countries. Now that the populations of Islamic people in these nations have increased, many of the people in these countries see Islam as a threat to their way of life. It very well may be just that, due to the nature of fundamentalist Islam.

On 9-11 fundamentalist Islamic terrorists attacked the U. S. This however, was not the first shot fired in this conflict. For many reasons, other attacks had been perpetrated on the west, such as the USS Cole, the barracks in Beruit, the embassy in Teheran and others. Assassinations, such as that of Anwar Sadat are also closely associated with this movement toward Islamic fundamentalism.

When the U.S. was attacked it reacted by sending troops to Afghanistan to route out the leadership of the group who had admittedly planned and committed the attack. Shortly thereafter, they then invaded Iraq, toppling Sadam Hussein and the Bathest Sunni party out of power.

When I first examined the accounts of these activities, I took as truth the reasons given for our involvement. W.M.D.’s. As we all know this was not the case. The data was slanted so that we would become militarily involved. I believe, that the nations involved were mis-lead for a reason.
Look at the big picture. THIS IS A WAR. A WAR ON TERROR. Islamic fundamentalists have been attacking the western world for years. These terrorists are from every nation that has a large Islamic population. They enjoy very wide spread support in their respective countries.
These are the dividing factors that keep them banding together and wreaking untold havoc on the western world.
Political and nationalistic pressures.

The divide between Sunni and Shia’ factions of Islam. Both are equally bigoted toward other religions, they do not however, get along.
The divide between rich and poor.
Greed.

The Theory:

Our involvement in Iraq is to keep Islam divided. The threat of a unified Islam is to all countries that are not of Islam. It is to keep Iran from unifying the region under Shia’ Islam. It is to keep the Sunni from doing the same under the banner of the tribal leadership of the Arabs. By dividing your enemy they are made less effective and more vulnerable. Divide and conquer.

To democratize Iraq would drive a wedge in fundamentalism and unify the Iraqi people. If achieved it would act to stabilize the region.

By our very presence in the country we draw the militants to a place where they are engaged away from ourselves. As we all know much of the resistance is by foreign nationals. They are pouring into Iraq from all borders. As long as this status quo is sustained, our borders as porous as they are will be less likely to be attacked.

Our leadership cannot admit to such strategy due to the very nature of this war on terror. When confronted with an enemy who does not wear a uniform he must be drawn out. By drawing them to Iraq they can be destroyed.

The leaders of the west cannot admit this war is on Islam for one reason. It would be correctly construed as being against a religion, Islam.

There is only one problem that makes this strategy unacceptable. The non-combatants. This war is killing children. That is not acceptable.

What is the alternative? If we pull out of the region, any security that the Iraqi people have now is lost. If we pull out, the combatants will seek us out where ever we are. Here? Yes, in my opinion. I think the only viable solution is to partition the country until all parties can come to a point of reconciliation The Kurds in the north, the Sunni in the west and the Shia’ in the east. By dividing these regions on ethnic lines a short-term peace can be enforced. Then the factions can hammer out a political solution.

Until some stability is introduced into the country no peace is possible.

Sorry.... I hope you can read that...
Wayne

Will fix it. Hope that is more what you were aiming for. Anthony listed the programs when you try to cut or copy and paste that do that... but brain on vacation right now to recall which.

Thanks Veiled...
Wayne

No prob, that is what I am here for :)

Thats one hell of an insightful read Wayne, thanks. Let's look at Gaza... for the same reasons as mentioned above, religion is the cause of the longest standing war that just won't give. Political factions stand their ground for nothing more than religion, no greater purpose, but they are fighting for religion. How scary is that? Why they all can't just accept and respect others religions, regardless their beliefs, just get along I say.

Yeah, it's an interesting way of looking at it...Divide et impera certainly seems to work like a charm...and while I agree that fundamentalism seems to be taking over in some areas I would hazard a guess that it's not religion itself that causes it but people (who are already hardliners) who bend religious teachings to suit their own needs (especially where there is a lot of room for interpretation)...I would also say that there seems to be a lot of Christian fundamentalism out there as well...

Still...personally, I don't buy into Huntington's idea of the 'clash of civilizations'...I'd say it's mainly driven by geo-political and economic interests...

I must agree that its not Islamic religion that says kill others, terrorize and blowup innocent people. Islam religion says quite the opposite. Its these extremists that read only what they want to read, more to the point, they make shit up and brainwash recruits that some higher purpose exists, which we all know just isn't real. Islamic religion though clearly states that any person living by Islamic law through religion is not to kill, ever. These terrorists aren't religous, their simply crazy terrorists that want to kill people.

Agreed. I'd say anyone, claiming to follow a religion of any kind, who kills people, especially innocent people, is not religious at all...

Why do y'all continually beat a dead horse...