General Question

stanleybmanly's avatar

Is Obama right? Must the people in conflict in the Middle East sort out matters for themselves?

Asked by stanleybmanly (24153points) December 29th, 2015 from iPhone

After all, when has outside involvement ever improved any situation? The sole exception I can recall is the quick in and out excursion of the first George Bush expelling Iraqis from Kuwait.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

8 Answers

Bill1939's avatar

Unless Islam’s religious leaders find a way to accommodate different Muslim faiths, as Catholics and most Protestant religions have done, the conflict in the Middle East will never end no matter what we and other nations do.

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

Iraq invading Kuwait was a modern-style invasion. It’s the kind of thing we’re used to, and the kind of thing we’re prepared to rebuff, so no wonder it’s the exception (though I don’t mean to disrespect the way George HW Bush handled it). The funny thing is, Christianity went through the exact same sort of internal conflict in Europe 500 years ago. But Islam was founded roughly 600 years after Christianity, which really puts it a bit ahead of schedule. This hasn’t stopped the West from wondering how any group of people could be so barbaric, though. What short memories we have.

kritiper's avatar

It would be better if they would, But because the world economy is just that: a world economy, we get involved because the world’s matters are ours and well as theirs.
”...when has outside involvement ever improved any situation?” How about WWII?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Not while all of our oil is under their sand.(conservative)
Would north america even be there if it wasn’t for the oil? (my self)

keobooks's avatar

How long have there been attempts at negotiations? I think at least since the 1940s. At best, they do no good and change nothing in the region. At worst they make things even more unstable and actually cause more wars.

Immediately after Mohammed died sometime in the late AD500s, his followers split up into two groups. They’ve been fighting ever since. I think they were fighting long before that—because Mohammed believed his religion would finally make the region he lived in peaceful. Little did he know…

It’s been over 1500 years. I think it’s time to admit defeat. Negotiations can’t fix things. If they did, things would have changed by now.

filmfann's avatar

We absolutely need the locals to rise up and oppose al queda, isis, et al. The more we fight, the more enemies we create. It’s like Hercules fighting the Hydra.

keobooks's avatar

By the way, I think that he fighting long predates Islam and possibly even predates Judaism. I blame geography. It’s a harsh environment where resources are scarce. I believe that traditionally, people in that region lived mostly nomadic lives, where bands or tribes would move around as resources became scarce and would go where the resources were replenished. There were historically many small bands or tribes of nomads living under the protection of warlords and these bands or tribes would fight each other for access to the scarce resources.

I’ve heard many historians blame colonialism for escalating the violence in the area. Before the area was colonized, the borders weren’t quite so formal. Now the borders are permanently set. So if resources become scarce in one region, instead of two small groups of people fighting it out, two entire nations are fighting over stuff.

Oil has just made things worse. It’s plentiful overall, but it’s only found in a few areas. It can be used to buy so much more than food and water. It creates vast wealth. So now countries not even geographical near the region want access to the oil. So now the whole world is getting involved. Specific example: British colonists, and later the original Indian government mistakenly thought that Hindus and Muslims were only fighting due to religion. They thought that separating the people would end all the fighting. Do they created Pakistan and sent all the Muslims there, what they failed to understand is that now there are Indians who want their land they had and lost when Pakistan was formed. There are Pakistanis who want their lost property that is still in India. They each want regions to belong to them and now they are fighting worse than they ever did before they were separated.

It’s almost entirely due to geography, IMO. Religion just makes people who normally wouldn’t fight so hard feel justified or even obligated to fight to the death. I mentioned in a thread about religion that it was used as a tool by governments to unite and inspire people to defend their territory. Anyway, I think the mess is too deeply rooted in geography and history to be solved any time soon.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I could give you an extremely long answer, but @keobooks has said much of what I would have.

My short answer, however, is YES. Unless (until) the middle eastern tribes – and that’s what they are – either kill each other or decide to make peace themselves nothing will happen.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther