We look today at how the Middle East has shaped American foreign policy changes over the last 50 years or so, and we see that the subtle breaking down of subtlety itself is taking place right in front of our eyes. It seems very apparent that this now waning administration wanted nothing more than an excuse to go into Iraq. It took the sacrifice of 3000 innocents here in America to give them an excuse to inject fear into our hearts and turn American society into what Plato called "mob rule." The mob mentality allowed them to do as they pleased, for they had the "support" of the people. 90,000 Iraqi civilians later, the veil has dropped from our eyes and we see that, as usual, history repeats itself. Let's go back to WWI.
The “Old Man of Europe” was dying. The Ottoman Empire had once spanned Spain and North Africa to the eastern edge of Persia, but now it only encompassed Mesopotamia, Persia, Turkey, and parts of the Arabian Peninsula. In an effort to gain territory and get back on its feet, it entered WWI on the side of the central powers. Two years before the war ended, in 1916, the French and British entered into the Sykes-Picot agreement, effectively carving up the Middle East for themselves without most of the world knowing. They wanted to be ensured their share of the crumbling Ottoman Empire as soon as the war ended. After it ended, they got what they wanted: New borders were invented without a thought for ethnic and cultural identities. For example, Iraq encompassed three cultures: Kurd, Sunni, and Shi’a. This naturally creates tensions, not just in Iraq, but other countries affected by Sykes-Picot. These tensions sparked most modern Middle Eastern conflict, which we have been so happy to turn into a conflagration. European Citizens didn't know what England and France were doing, just as we didn't know what our own administration was doing. What used to be a conflict for land modernized into a conflict of oil, but the agenda clearly remained the same. Get in, Get the goods, Get out.
And for those who say we are "Establishing Democracy," I kindly invite you to open your eyes. If we wanted to establish a stable democracy first and foremost we wouldn't have:
1. Gotten rid of a standing army that was willing to turn on Saddam at a moments notice and instead hire an inexperienced police force of people who hate each other.
2. Bombed civilian water supplies.
3. Brought oil contractors into the picture.
4. Appointed a president who everybody hated. And yes, Appointed. The Council of Representatives were "persuaded" to elect a Kurdish president.
- K
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
It's called Imperialism. And yes, it usually leads to moronic policies. The colonizing powers of Britain, France, Belgium, the US, and whoever else, have in the past sought to establish spheres of influence in other lands, not just in the Middle East, but in Africa and Asia as well. In the case of Africa, imperialism has played a significant role in several crises, including the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 that left a million dead- all over ethnic rivalries caused by the colonizing power there, Belgium.
However, I don't think there's anything that can be done about it anymore. It would be impossible to readjust borders now in order to accommodate ethnic and geographical boundaries- that would cause WW III (especially in Israel, which was established by imperialistic Great Britain after it seized Palestine from the Ottomans.) People need to learn work and live together, and it will not, of course, be easy. Just take the US as an example: it took Americans over 100 years to fully integrate blacks into society after the Emancipation Proclamation.
As for the war in Iraq, there's again nothing really that can be done but to see it through. I opposed the war in the beginning, but if US soldiers left now, the region would be worse off than before. The death toll is a tragedy (unfortunately, I think it's over 4000 American soldiers now, not 3000) but things would be far worse for the US and the Middle East if we decided to "cut and run" now.