I was visiting a relative a few weeks ago and while watching the news, another story of a bombing in Iraq came up. That is when the debate of what could be done in Iraq ensued.
A very interesting point that came up during our conversation is the fact that the Middle Eastern countries, since time immemorial, have been under the rule of an autocratic leader/military type regime. I mean it is ironically obvoius across the entire region that a dictatorial regiment has been keeping/kept the things under control (more-or-less).
Going there to liberalize a country (that has been "under control" by a single dictator and potentially similar individuals/organizations over time) on the pretext of providing a sense of democracy seems as crazy as enstating Communism in the US of A.
Which is potentially why we see/have seen groups like Hezbollah/Hamas/Al Qaeda/Taliban and whatever you have, come in and out of power.
If tyranny/absolute control is the way to rule, it seems downright impossible that we will see a sense of stability in this region.
A very interesting point that came up during our conversation is the fact that the Middle Eastern countries, since time immemorial, have been under the rule of an autocratic leader/military type regime. I mean it is ironically obvoius across the entire region that a dictatorial regiment has been keeping/kept the things under control (more-or-less).
Going there to liberalize a country (that has been "under control" by a single dictator and potentially similar individuals/organizations over time) on the pretext of providing a sense of democracy seems as crazy as enstating Communism in the US of A.
Which is potentially why we see/have seen groups like Hezbollah/Hamas/Al Qaeda/Taliban and whatever you have, come in and out of power.
If tyranny/absolute control is the way to rule, it seems downright impossible that we will see a sense of stability in this region.
Comment