Sarwar Kashmer, US News - Prof. Larry Goodson of the U.S. Army War College has told me he believes the Middle East is in the midst of a 30 Years War, similar to the one that roiled Europe from 1618-1648. It is an intriguing comparison with which I largely agree.
The 30 Years War wasn’t just one war, but actually a series of wars fought by numerous nations for a variety of reasons, including religious, dynastic, territorial and commercial rivalries. Its destructive campaigns and battles occurred over most of Europe. It is conventionally held to have begun after the future Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand II, in his role as king of Bohemia, attempted to limit the religious activities of non-Catholic groups and impose Roman Catholicism on his domain. Needless to say, the Protestant nobles of Bohemia and Austria rose up in rebellion.
When the war ended, the notion of a Roman Catholic empire in Europe, headed spiritually by a pope and temporally by an emperor, was permanently abandoned. With the signing of the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the essential structure of modern Europe as a community of sovereign states was established.
As was the European 30 Years War, the mayhem in the Middle East today is fueled by a series of wars fought by multiple nations on multiple fronts, ranging from the borders of Iran to the borders of Turkey and down to the Arabian Sea. The reasons behind the wars in the Middle East are as numerous and complex as the ones that drove the the 30 Years War.
Overlay on top of this the fact that the map of the Middle East as we know it now is largely the creation of France and Britain, the early 20th century’s colonial powers. Maps of the region prior to World War I have none of the countries that are at the heart of today’s war-torn Middle East. Today’s Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Yemen were created by the colonial powers after they carved up the Ottoman Empire, whose collapse was a casualty of the war. The borders of these countries are no more than lines in the sand created for commercial reasons to suit the balance sheets of the colonial powers. Likewise, today’s Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar came to be in the years after World War I. All three rose to prominence after the discovery of oil, and they are largely dependent on a ongoing a commercial understanding with the West: These countries receive protection from the West, which seeks, in return, a steady flow of oil.
... When all is said and done, the Middle East will emerge from its torment stronger and more stable than it is now. The new map of the region probably will not look anything like it does now. It may have new borders, countries and even governments. And in the end, this is a conflict that cannot and should not be influenced by the United States. It is a transformation that must be undertaken by the Arabs themselves.
Sarwar Kashmeri is a fellow of the Foreign Policy Association and an adjunct professor at Norwich University. His most recent book was “NATO 2.0; Reboot or Delete?”
2 comments:
An end of war indicates a period of peace and prosperity. That in turn indicates social and economic stability. The days of shoving down despotic rule into people's throats for stable periods of time are coming to end with modern communications. Since the current systems (government, economic, social etc )do not have long term stable method of social and economic prosperity with stability peace will not come into that region and for most of the world at large. In other words years to decades to centuries, time has no meaning--it is war never ending until ways are found to have social and economic prosperity wide spread. It is more likely we are entering a 1000 year dark age than end of war in the middle east in 30 years as it stands now.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/09/why-islamic-reform-is-delayed/
Realists will want to read it...and print a copy to share widely. Iowa is extremely lucky to have such an extraordinary teacher!
Post a Comment