@Conflict Said 
Since 2011, we've started a new trend, one that we've never even thought of. In the past, nations used to clash with on another. Until said year, that was the way conflict worked. Now, some idiot came up with the idea that if we let a nation fight itself and render enough aid to help, but not to prevent a war within the country, we can prevent wars between nations.
Syria is the place where this freak experiment was carried out and today we're living the consequences. Instead of removing the man who started the civil war before the worst destruction was wrought on the nation, we let him stay in power and massacre countless people, destroy entire parts of cities and drive over a million people away their own homes.
Now, could we please discuss the rationale of this new philosophy?
This sort of thing didn't start in 2011 and it didn't start in Syria. In fact, Syria is a poor example.
In the Middle East in more
recent times Iraq (2003) would actually seem to be the
starting point, for this sort of "freak experiment". Of course with Iraq the goal was to draw terrorists to Iraq so there could be one single battle ground...a poorly thought out and poorly executed "experiment".
Anyway, one could easily point to Lebanon (early 1980's) as the
starting point for the use of "internal conflict", though the dynamics there were very complicated.
One could also point to sub-Sahara Africa where his sort of thing has been going on for decades.
It has actually been going on around the world in varying degrees for centuries;
divide and conquer.
As to the Middle East:
The entire ME country layout is a Western European-America construct which
started in the early 1900's. What we are seeing
now in terms of violence has been brewing for at least 70 years if not longer.
The Kurds are prime example. What probably should be
Kurdistan (the land of the Kurds) was divided up between four countries (Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran). Granted the
divide and conquer tool didn't use civil war that time. None the less it was an artificial construct which has led to violence in the form of
terrorism internal to each of the four countries
owing Kurdistan. This
internal conflict has kept the four countries partially occupied for decades...which was probably part of the goal...along with oil...but that is a different topic.
Regional conflicts have always been a tool in the ME. The Iraq and Iran war was an example...keeping the two countries busy in a protracted war (20 years I think).
Still a status of
mostly peaceful has always been the goal.
The Syria conflict is problematic for the West, and was not a desired goal.
When Syria falls who is next? Jordan most likely.
Then...? Saudi Arabia...eventually that is inevitable.
We easily have a few decades of ME conflict ahead.
It is all very problematic for the West.
IF "we" had alternate energy sources that made oil impractical, then maybe these conflicts would do "us" service. As it stands, we are addicted and the ME conflicts risk the inflation of the cost of our "drug"; oil.
etc
(Sorry...I might have been rambling a bit there...)
Oct 26, 2016 @ 09:12:00
Moderator
