Thursday, March 15, 2007
Inchoate Imperialism Part II: Policy Prescriptions
A week-or-so ago I posted an essay arguing that if we want to devise reasonable policies for dealing with the Middle East, we must first understand the region. That assertion is uncontroversial. The rest of my argument was likely more so: I explained that the fundamental idea that has shaped the modern Middle East is an inchoate sense of imperialism among the region’s Sunni Arabs. A second toxic philosophy entered the mix with Khomeinism, an expansionist revolutionary movement in the spirit of nineteenth century European socialism and anarchism, though cloaked in the language of Shiism. The region’s other philosophies, including both Zionism (which has long played a significant role) and Kurdish nationalism (which is growing in importance rapidly) are expressions of self-determination among the region’s ethnic minorities—and thus inherently antithetical to both inchoate imperialism and revolutionary Khomeinism.
This essay picks up where that one left off. It addresses the questions that really interest people: So what? Assuming that my explanation is correct, what should the U.S. (and the broader West) do about it? What, if any, policy prescriptions flow from this understanding? And how do they differ from what we are doing now?
Comments (0) • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend