Iraq & Lebanon, Iran & Syria: What is Next?

[EXCERPT] This quick analysis of circumstances in the region may be known to those who seek an analysis that is void of personal goals and interests and political ideology. However, it should always be taken into account because the questions it raises are of utmost importance as we look at the future of this region and the future of its people. For instance, where will the conflict in Iraq lead to? The maintaining of this violent conflict will not end with the withdrawal of US forces, for example, nor will it end with the monopolization of authority by one group or another. Moreover, it will not end by the Iranian domination of Iraq. Iraq is a country that is made up of various ethnicities and sects; it has always been like that and always will be, and no one group, however powerful and long-lasting, will be able to subdue all other groups. Disregarding this fact will only lead Iraq to continuous violence until every last Iraqi is affected or until the unwanted partition has taken place. Perhaps the persistence of violent and horrific acts or partition serves one foreign party or another; however, this will not serve the interests of the Iraqis themselves, regardless of the instant gains of this or that party. The same applies to Lebanon, of which the legitimacy of its existence is based on its multiple ethnicities and sects, and any attempt to overlook or omit this fact equates disregarding the Lebanese legitimacy, therefore, obliterating Lebanon. In that country today, there are those who are fuelling political conflict out of sectarian and regional interests. This may serve a foreign party and may serve the interests of individual groups, but Lebanon will ultimately be the loser because once pluralistic Lebanon ceases to exist, everybody will eventually cease to exist.

Is it that the Iraqis and Lebanese – long experienced with politics as they are – are not aware of such matters? This is not the case inasmuch as the external observer, especially when the interest of the region as a whole is taken into account, has a more accurate vision. Those practicing politics and involved in its inferno are often blinded by a short-lived interests that they seek to gain, or by a political ideology that captures their minds from within, or by certain sectarianism that hinders sound vision. Any state, despite its policies or doctrines, is ultimately concerned with its own interests, regardless of any bright slogans that are raised. The case should be the same for Iraq and Lebanon if they are to continue to exist. In light of the violence in Iraq, and in light of this tension and escalation in Lebanon, the warlords of both countries should ask themselves one question that may be the key to everything; what is next? It is a simple question, the answer to which however is the answer to everything.

Turki al-Hamad: Iraq is a country that is made up of various ethnicities and sects; it has always been like that and always will be, and no one group, however powerful and long-lasting, will be able to subdue all other groups.

Jaysun: The same can be said of America. So what?

humint: Outstanding observation. Virtually all Americans are coming from somewhere. If you were to measure identity as a function of family heritage, Americans have one or more geographical breaks, whereas our friends in Iraq do not. It's not uncommon for families to be able to trace their lineage back many generations. Here in the United States, most of us either cannot or simply do not for lack of interest. Recall the phrase "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free." That is the starting point of America's national identity. It's an identity that almost every culture on the planet can relate to but does not share.

Along a similar line - When an Iraqi travels to the United States, they have made an investment and a commitment to the Journey that does not occur when America went to them. I think many Iraqis thought that they were going to become part of the "land of opportunity", overnight. If Americans had %100 control over the script, I have no doubt Iraq would have. It's a pleasant fantasy many Americans still like to have. "If only we had done this or that" they say. War however is one of the most complex social relationships any two nations can engage in. I think the commonsense notion that we are losing in Iraq has more to do with "control" than it does "war". We're certainly not in a position to lose a war with Iraq under any of the current circumstances. For sure, the mess could get messier but that is not losing in any historical sense. So how do Americans get some measure of control back and engender a sensation of winning amongst other Americans? That is another post entirely.

Here's another difference between Iraqis and Americans for you. Americans tend to be control freaks whereas Iraqis are more interested in power. The difference is subtle but important. If you can control a situation, a symptom of that control is power. If, on the other hand, coming from a culture where cooperation is rare, power is conceived to be a static quantity. Power in the Middle East is accumulated parasitically, harvested from other corrupt overlords. To the average Middle Easterner, power is the spoils of conquest, never cooperation. Cooperative command and control took an American team to the moon. That spirit has a lot to do with the identity of Americans. Americans all came from somewhere so they expect that they are going somewhere, if not now, eventually. In other words, Americans have a future - Iraqis only have the present. al-Hamad is asking his fellow Middle Easterners to transcend the present and consider their future. His words are very powerful.

Control freaks and those interested in power are one and the same in my view. The difference is in the framework. In a society in which a guy in his underwear can take a salad bowl full of parts in his garage and make it into something useful to everyone else (and thereby become rich) then individualism is of the utmost of importance. The idea that someone can become rich while in underwear, with a salad bowl, etc. had made America the leader in many important advances. What incentive does a common Middle Eastern person have to invent the airplane, assembly line, or light bulb?

More importantly, in my view, would be the fact that America is a more Christian nation traditionally. And as such we've relied on Truths such as:

"...And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

And even without Liberty there still exist a market. And that market emphasizes something other than the individual. That market is similar to the current Middle East situation. But as America moves further and further from Christ we can expect more and more problems.

It isn't something for man to figure out. It's something that had mandated from the birth of days. And we can try to rationalize that and attempt to change that all we want - but it'll never matter. God is in charge. America is on God's side (at least we used to be) and He'll determine the final outcome.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.