World events will soon be coming to a head. 9/11 is a precursor for a world revolution against militaristic US policy and arrogant US unilateralism. On every continent, in every region, we see enemies and potential threats.
The arab world is not likely to modernize, or revert to forms of representative and socioecological forms of government. Simply put, the problems of the people stem from their natural resource wealth and their commitment to theism in governance of all affairs. At one time, the Islamic Middle East was the center of enlightenment, science, philosophy, and theistic discussion. As the centuries passed, however, the Middle East slipped noticeably behind.
Instead of keeping pace with the times, and forming modernistic and proactive policy, the entire region has lapsed into a state of affluent victimhood. Affluent because of their natural resources, and victimized because of a noticeable lapse behind the West in terms of social and economic justice, political representation, and non-oil exports.
The question of "how did this happen?" has changed into "who did this to us?". The answer is often "the West" and "Christendom". Many contend that Middle Eastern terrorism is a result of poverty. In fact, many of the 9/11 hijackers were very well off. Osama bin Laden himself came from a very good economic background, with lawyers, businessmen, and doctors in his family.
Middle Eastern countries are rich in black gold - a likely exhaustible supply, though not in the immediate future. This collective Middle Eastern gold mine often insures profitability and government services for its citizens. At least, for the autocrats controlling it, and in return, citizens are granted many basic services by the government...health care, jobs, etc. Yet to which much is given, little or none is asked. Political freedoms in most of the Middle East remain low, with participation in government often unheard of, or marginalized or monopolized to a great degree.
Anger towards the West stems not out of a perceived economic difference, or a "hatred of freedoms", as Bush puts it, but out of anger towards US policy, support of Israel being in primacy. We are not likely to change our position on the Israel-Palestine conflict any time soon. Neoconservatives, who support the Jews on a religious basis, as well as out of a militaristic ally arrangement, hold much sway in Washington. The Bush administration in particular is very staunch in their rigidity of the Israeli position.
Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiyah broadcast almost daily from Palestine and Iraq. The moderates in the Muslim world are slowly losing faith in US credibility and trust in US actions. With both conservatives and radicals in Muslim societies preaching a "return to Islam" as prime and necessary in the political equation, it is unlikely that the very charged Palestinian issue as well as the invasion of Iraq and destruction of holy places will subside in importance among the populous.
The future of Iraq does not bode well. In many places, chaos, not soldiers, reign supreme, and it is now easier than ever for Middle Eastern militants to attack US soldiers. With soldiers stretched thin, the border of Iraq is now extremely porous. Gone are the days when one needed a passport scam or a quick pass to enter the US and fight in the anti-US jihad. Now one can simply drive 150 miles to Iraq and find targets aplenty to attack.
Legitimacy in the Iraqi legislative process is increasingly based on opposition to the US. One possible scenario (if ironic and perhaps even funny) in the equation of Iraq's future is a virulently anti-US government springing up in the place of the somewhat isolated Hussein regime. Imagine the somewhat odd situation; a "liberated" country instantly rebels against its liberator.
It has happened before, though usually in the context of real and overt militaristic imperialism. In this case, at least in the US, the "liberation" of Iraq is not perceived as instantly territorial or expansionist; it is just indirectly implied by our deeds and actions. This distinction has allowed the war surprisingly little criticism at home even to this day.
It is common knowledge that the execution of the war was a shamble. Rumsfeld's "light, streamlined" troop deployment led to a widespread security (possibly insecurity) situation, with mass looting, chaos, and anarchy following the fall of Hussein and the Ba'ath party. The "de-Baathification", the removal and decommission of all Baath party officers, led to thousands of jobless, angry Iraqis placed on the street with pilfered military hardware. There is a general consensus that much of the equpiment used by the insurgents was formerly under the posession of the Iraq army; with unemployment in Iraq hovering around the 50 to 60 percent mark, there is no doubt that many former officers in the army have turned to the resistance as a way to execute political goals and remove the occupiers.
The situation in Iraq is likely to get far worse before it gets better, and that is if it gets better. Blame will be laid at the collective feet of the United States no matter what the outcome. In fact, there are two major fears about Iraqi democracy: the West fears it failing, and the Middle East fears it working. A functional, legitimate, representative democracy, along with a thriving country, could prove politically destabilizing in border states, such as Iran and Syria.
No matter what the final outcome, the US can and will recieve blame for the situation. Khomeini was very telling when he referred to the US as a "great Satan". As wrote Lewis, Satan is not an imperialist; Satan tempts. Western cultural values and ideas in the Middle East are extremely unwelcome. It is likely this "representative democracy" will be viewed in the same light.
Im too fucking tired, and the caffiene has runned out.
The arab world is not likely to modernize, or revert to forms of representative and socioecological forms of government. Simply put, the problems of the people stem from their natural resource wealth and their commitment to theism in governance of all affairs. At one time, the Islamic Middle East was the center of enlightenment, science, philosophy, and theistic discussion. As the centuries passed, however, the Middle East slipped noticeably behind.
Instead of keeping pace with the times, and forming modernistic and proactive policy, the entire region has lapsed into a state of affluent victimhood. Affluent because of their natural resources, and victimized because of a noticeable lapse behind the West in terms of social and economic justice, political representation, and non-oil exports.
The question of "how did this happen?" has changed into "who did this to us?". The answer is often "the West" and "Christendom". Many contend that Middle Eastern terrorism is a result of poverty. In fact, many of the 9/11 hijackers were very well off. Osama bin Laden himself came from a very good economic background, with lawyers, businessmen, and doctors in his family.
Middle Eastern countries are rich in black gold - a likely exhaustible supply, though not in the immediate future. This collective Middle Eastern gold mine often insures profitability and government services for its citizens. At least, for the autocrats controlling it, and in return, citizens are granted many basic services by the government...health care, jobs, etc. Yet to which much is given, little or none is asked. Political freedoms in most of the Middle East remain low, with participation in government often unheard of, or marginalized or monopolized to a great degree.
Anger towards the West stems not out of a perceived economic difference, or a "hatred of freedoms", as Bush puts it, but out of anger towards US policy, support of Israel being in primacy. We are not likely to change our position on the Israel-Palestine conflict any time soon. Neoconservatives, who support the Jews on a religious basis, as well as out of a militaristic ally arrangement, hold much sway in Washington. The Bush administration in particular is very staunch in their rigidity of the Israeli position.
Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiyah broadcast almost daily from Palestine and Iraq. The moderates in the Muslim world are slowly losing faith in US credibility and trust in US actions. With both conservatives and radicals in Muslim societies preaching a "return to Islam" as prime and necessary in the political equation, it is unlikely that the very charged Palestinian issue as well as the invasion of Iraq and destruction of holy places will subside in importance among the populous.
The future of Iraq does not bode well. In many places, chaos, not soldiers, reign supreme, and it is now easier than ever for Middle Eastern militants to attack US soldiers. With soldiers stretched thin, the border of Iraq is now extremely porous. Gone are the days when one needed a passport scam or a quick pass to enter the US and fight in the anti-US jihad. Now one can simply drive 150 miles to Iraq and find targets aplenty to attack.
Legitimacy in the Iraqi legislative process is increasingly based on opposition to the US. One possible scenario (if ironic and perhaps even funny) in the equation of Iraq's future is a virulently anti-US government springing up in the place of the somewhat isolated Hussein regime. Imagine the somewhat odd situation; a "liberated" country instantly rebels against its liberator.
It has happened before, though usually in the context of real and overt militaristic imperialism. In this case, at least in the US, the "liberation" of Iraq is not perceived as instantly territorial or expansionist; it is just indirectly implied by our deeds and actions. This distinction has allowed the war surprisingly little criticism at home even to this day.
It is common knowledge that the execution of the war was a shamble. Rumsfeld's "light, streamlined" troop deployment led to a widespread security (possibly insecurity) situation, with mass looting, chaos, and anarchy following the fall of Hussein and the Ba'ath party. The "de-Baathification", the removal and decommission of all Baath party officers, led to thousands of jobless, angry Iraqis placed on the street with pilfered military hardware. There is a general consensus that much of the equpiment used by the insurgents was formerly under the posession of the Iraq army; with unemployment in Iraq hovering around the 50 to 60 percent mark, there is no doubt that many former officers in the army have turned to the resistance as a way to execute political goals and remove the occupiers.
The situation in Iraq is likely to get far worse before it gets better, and that is if it gets better. Blame will be laid at the collective feet of the United States no matter what the outcome. In fact, there are two major fears about Iraqi democracy: the West fears it failing, and the Middle East fears it working. A functional, legitimate, representative democracy, along with a thriving country, could prove politically destabilizing in border states, such as Iran and Syria.
No matter what the final outcome, the US can and will recieve blame for the situation. Khomeini was very telling when he referred to the US as a "great Satan". As wrote Lewis, Satan is not an imperialist; Satan tempts. Western cultural values and ideas in the Middle East are extremely unwelcome. It is likely this "representative democracy" will be viewed in the same light.
Im too fucking tired, and the caffiene has runned out.