`
I do not believe the “Three-State Solution” is a path that the United Sates should pursue as recommend by Leslie Gelb in the New York Time’s November 24th, 2003 piece. The Economist October 12th, 2006 asserts that Iraq is already highly fragmented and this solution could result in ethnic cleansing and civil war between militia factions. I concur, but I do not agree with their support of a unified state either.
The United States does not have the right to recommend any sort of state for this region based on our historical involvement. Granted, devolutionary forces at work have given rise to the suggestion of a three-state solution. These forces include the fundamental Shi’ite Islamic forces of Iran, the more moderate Sunni forces of Iraq, and the Kurdish nationalists to the north (deBlij and Muller 2007). The United States has flamed these centrifugal forces in order to weaken all sides, allowing for continued control over the region’s oil. The U.S. government has a 65 year history of providing military aid/weapons to all sides, installing brutal dictators, drawing conflicting states boundaries, and overthrowing the people’s nationalized oil industry (Everest 2004; Johnson …show more content…
In an NPR Weekend Edition episode called “Understanding the Democracy Problem” he advocates democracy for the Middle East but describes Arabs as having a “tribal mentality” and that the people living there have “no real notion of an Iraq nation”. This completely ignores history. Granted, he claims that democracy and counting heads is relatively recent in history, “we [the United States] had to do it” (NPR 2007). But, didn’t the birth of civilization and democracy come from this Fertile Crescent region (deBlij and Muller 2007)? Further, the United States is far from correctly “counting heads” or establishing any sort of real democracy as evidenced by recent
I do not believe the “Three-State Solution” is a path that the United Sates should pursue as recommend by Leslie Gelb in the New York Time’s November 24th, 2003 piece. The Economist October 12th, 2006 asserts that Iraq is already highly fragmented and this solution could result in ethnic cleansing and civil war between militia factions. I concur, but I do not agree with their support of a unified state either.
The United States does not have the right to recommend any sort of state for this region based on our historical involvement. Granted, devolutionary forces at work have given rise to the suggestion of a three-state solution. These forces include the fundamental Shi’ite Islamic forces of Iran, the more moderate Sunni forces of Iraq, and the Kurdish nationalists to the north (deBlij and Muller 2007). The United States has flamed these centrifugal forces in order to weaken all sides, allowing for continued control over the region’s oil. The U.S. government has a 65 year history of providing military aid/weapons to all sides, installing brutal dictators, drawing conflicting states boundaries, and overthrowing the people’s nationalized oil industry (Everest 2004; Johnson …show more content…
In an NPR Weekend Edition episode called “Understanding the Democracy Problem” he advocates democracy for the Middle East but describes Arabs as having a “tribal mentality” and that the people living there have “no real notion of an Iraq nation”. This completely ignores history. Granted, he claims that democracy and counting heads is relatively recent in history, “we [the United States] had to do it” (NPR 2007). But, didn’t the birth of civilization and democracy come from this Fertile Crescent region (deBlij and Muller 2007)? Further, the United States is far from correctly “counting heads” or establishing any sort of real democracy as evidenced by recent