The Middle East and democracy

I was a lazy blogger this month so far, but for today I found a lazy method of blogging: I pull an excerpt from an e-mail conversation and simply publish it, mostly unmodified:

The Vietnam War was a tricky issue. On the one hand it may have been necessary to make a great stand against export of Bolshevism somewhere even after it was done in Korea, but on the other hand one confused a war of national unification with a step towards Bolshevist world revolution. The errors made in Africa and Latin America were similar; all-too often the real motives were ignored in favour of the simple "they're communists!" explanation (though this ultimately failed to defend apartheid in Rhodesia and South Africa).
We're doing this again. All this attention on radical Islam in regard to daesh is bollocks.
The real conflict in Syria and Iraq is a different one. They have group loyalties that are more powerful than ideologies. Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds vote for their groups' parties, not for left-right parties. This leads to predictable subjugation / foreign rule of majority factions over minority factions. The Sunni Arabs may get a perfect Western style democracy and they will still feel foreign-ruled because Shiites and Kurds rule over them. There's again and again a rallying of Sunni Arabs in Iraq towards Sunni paramilitary efforts - which end up trending towards radical Islamic policies because radicals tend to dominate over moderates in civil wars.
The old answer was to have tyrannies that oppress one major faction, but these regimes crumbled.
The new answer should be proportional governance as it worked in Lebanon until war was imported to Lebanon after the PLO was kicked out of Jordan. Proportional rule like head of state is always a Shiite, head of government is always a Sunni, head of parliament is always a Kurd et cetera - and then promote programmatic ideological parties that transcend ethnic/religious factions.
They need no Western style democracy; they need old school Levant republicanism. The conflicts will cook up again and again (or be suppressed by tyrannic regimes) until they get proportional republicanism.
Now what do Europeans stare at instead? They freak out about some group of asswipes who pretend to follow the word of their imaginary friend and are world record aspirants in regard to making enemies.
"Islamofascism", the new "Communism".



  1. Right. But nobody in the world is forcing Western-style democracy to Middle East; not any longer. U.S. policy is mostly limited to war against IS and (in post-Obama era) balancing Iran. - Moreover, Iran-sponsored Shiite militias or U.S.-sponsored Kurdish militias (in particular Syrian YPG; KRG in Iraq is little more pluralistic and tolerant) don`t want any really multiconfessional/multiethnic political solutions in Iraq and Syria. They have their absolutist ideological programmes like Shiite Crescent or Great Kurdistan in mind - and everything else they see as simply unacceptable. Without military draw they will opress, expel or exterminate all Sunni Arabs living in aforementioned countries.

  2. The Soviet Union consciously chose to align itself with national liberation movements and facilitate those, because it increased their standing and allowed them to co-opt a lot of local energies without having to get things sparked off themselves. Plus, with bullheaded Americanism it created a circumstance where (Vietnam, Central and South America, Africa) the Americans would wave their dicks around quashing a national liberation movement that happened to have finanical and materiel backing from behind the Iron Curtain and make themselves no friends. I do wonder if Islamofascism is the same - perhaps the same thing happened in Sudan and Mali.