Where does Iraq and the Middle East go from here?

[Mr Khan]

SamuelRSmith said:

Mr Khan said

@ Samuel

As there is primarily a state of anarchy between states, the people of states will often look to dealing with other states to solve their problems (e.g., famine? Go take Kurdistan's harvest!), making war invetiable so long as there are states and no binding framework between states. Now the nature of this gets vastly warped and distorted by the endless machinations of modern politics.

Really you're arguing a utopian-anarchist perspective. The People do not function without state leadership, and as states have their interests in their necessary existence, so they play games with one another. The idea that peace would be universal if government got out of the way is hard to grasp, because if we dismantle "government" as we know it, then you end up with something like Somalia or Mexico in the 1910s, or China in the 10s and 20s: warlordism.

Government is a state of nature, therefore war is a state of nature. It is only through the refinement of government and the installation of international systems that we can avert war. Globalization is good for stopping war (though left unchecked as it has been, bad for a hell of a lot else).

Does that actually happen in democratic nations? It seems to me that resource-grab wars seem to only occur when the Government has more control than the people.

Also, I don't argue for state-anarchism. Although I don't agree with everything about the BWI, UN, etc., I do like some of the roles of the institutions.

Personally, I don't think the policy of the US should be one of non-intervention, just not one of war. For example, with Iran, the policy I'd take would be pretty simple:

Build a defence system to prevent Iran from being able to launch a missile at Israel, remove all the sanctions on Iran, encourage as much charity as possible into Iran, try to negotiate a peace deal with Iran (which may mean, *gasp*, closing some military bases on Iran's borders). Failing all that, outwardly and effectively support the pro-democracy movement in Iran, leaflet the cities, set up radio broadcasts, promise to help build the democratic institutions in Iran afterwards (the US have proven to be quite effective at this - South Korea, Japan, Germany), and, finally, stick a bounty on the heads of those most responsible for the tyranny in Iran (I don't know much about the system in Iran, but I'm guessing  Ahmajwhatever is just a puppet, and easily replaceable for whoever's really in charge).

Those steps would probably do much more for the US's image in the Middle-East, cost far less, result in far less blood shed, and would probably be more effective (rather than another war that lasts over a decade, it could be sorted within 5 or so years).

No disagreements on the latter point (that engagement works better than war for getting rid of enemies), and that the progress of humanity will eliminate the need for war, however i do feel that past wars have not been anything as simple as "a mechanism of big government."