The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[Tamas]

I don't recall the details, but I think Europeans had a disagreement or two about national identities themselves before stable liberal governments came about.

Yeah...did any violence result?  I don't recall.

That's the thing though, isn't it? We (as in the first world) throw our weight around in Africa and the Middle East spending aid, money, even military actions, to maintain a list of status quos that are not liked by anyone involved in them (apart from the ruling class maybe).
We declare that violence is not the answer and such. Yet, we kept massacring each other until either all of our similar issues have been resolved, or that the losses became so high that nobody thought that any more violence over it was worth it.

And it is not like our stabilisation efforts have been paying off. Sometimes, cruel as it is, I am thinking we should let the natural course in these hotspots take their way. Too bad it would mean huge sufferings to an unbelievable number of people

[PJL]

And it is not like our stabilisation efforts have been paying off. Sometimes, cruel as it is, I am thinking we should let the natural course in these hotspots take their way. Too bad it would mean huge sufferings to an unbelievable number of people

Quite, however I suspect that the suffering could not have been stopped no matter what we did. In fact it may even be beneficial in the long run if we stay out, as it may force outside powers like Saudi Arabia & Iran to realise that it's not all the US / West's fault, that supporting rogue groups tends to bring an opposite reaction, and perhaps NOT supporting them or persuading them to not use violence could be better.

[Viking]

Maybe.  Better government may have created a sense of 'nationhood' in those states.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the West has this idea that "better government" can precede rational and meaningful national boundaries. I think perhaps that we look at out own societies and governments, our own perceptions on things like the rule of law and importance (or lack therof) to us of things like tribal identities and sectarian distinctions, and think that given "good enough" government, where the lines are drawn on the map really should not matter.

But I suspect that the reality is that it is the other way around - in most places like this, you cannot have "good government" when in fact that government is trying to control groups that simply are not willing to actually work together. You cannot create a national identity because it is not possible (or at least incredibly difficult) to have "good government" when you have national borders that in some cases do not take into account the actual demographic or political realities on the ground.

You end up with one of a couple things, it would seem:

1. Stable, but relatively brutal governments who rule by violence, or
2. Unstable attempts at "coalition" governments that cannot entice or demand the loyalty of those who they must rely on to maintain sovereignity.

In the case of the Middle East, many of the borders are often not just poorly though out from the standpoint of creating states with cohesive identities, in some cases they are very carefully constructed to create intentionally unstable states, like Iraq. Where the goal of the powers setting it up was to make sure that the state could not be stable, and therefore whoever was in power (often a minority) would be reliant on the foreign power to maintain their position.

So I see what you are saying, but I think history has shown that the idea that "good government" can come BEFORE rational boundaries has never really worked. We want it to work because the alternative is either

A) Incredibly hard politically (creating rational states via a political process). Can anyone imagine the country of Kurdistan coming into existence via a nice committee meeting between Iraq, Turkey, and the Kurds? No way.
B) Extreme violence. Which is what we are getting now.

This is a WEIRD thing. The west is an outlier here. Western government are fully centralized with absolute power at virtually all levels of government. The US is possibly the only actual exception to this, but US constitutional history has very much been one of increasing Federal control. In the west the central government has absolute power and exercises it. Any tier below the national government has it's authority usually by permission from the central government. Western states are the result of centralized absolute states which democratized at the top first. Again the US is the exception here but fits into the general trend.

We became democratic by replacing the king as sovereign by the people. Our state apparatus and adminstration is one of an absolute monarchy. Laws and Orders come from Parliament or Executive at the top and percolate down the system to the administrators, government employees and officials at the bottom which implement that rule. The modern western states are build by the absolute foundations laid by Cromwell and Richelieu and Bismarck and Cadorna. In our countries the tribes have been broken. The same applies to Japan and Korea which is why they succeed but not to africa or the middle east.

[Barrister]

This is a WEIRD thing. The west is an outlier here. Western government are fully centralized with absolute power at virtually all levels of government. The US is possibly the only actual exception to this, but US constitutional history has very much been one of increasing Federal control. In the west the central government has absolute power and exercises it. Any tier below the national government has it's authority usually by permission from the central government. Western states are the result of centralized absolute states which democratized at the top first. Again the US is the exception here but fits into the general trend.

We became democratic by replacing the king as sovereign by the people. Our state apparatus and adminstration is one of an absolute monarchy. Laws and Orders come from Parliament or Executive at the top and percolate down the system to the administrators, government employees and officials at the bottom which implement that rule. The modern western states are build by the absolute foundations laid by Cromwell and Richelieu and Bismarck and Cadorna. In our countries the tribes have been broken. The same applies to Japan and Korea which is why they succeed but not to africa or the middle east.

Don't confuse "the west" with "europe".

Not only the US, but Canada and Australia have significantly decentralized federations.

[Viking]

This is a WEIRD thing. The west is an outlier here. Western government are fully centralized with absolute power at virtually all levels of government. The US is possibly the only actual exception to this, but US constitutional history has very much been one of increasing Federal control. In the west the central government has absolute power and exercises it. Any tier below the national government has it's authority usually by permission from the central government. Western states are the result of centralized absolute states which democratized at the top first. Again the US is the exception here but fits into the general trend.

We became democratic by replacing the king as sovereign by the people. Our state apparatus and adminstration is one of an absolute monarchy. Laws and Orders come from Parliament or Executive at the top and percolate down the system to the administrators, government employees and officials at the bottom which implement that rule. The modern western states are build by the absolute foundations laid by Cromwell and Richelieu and Bismarck and Cadorna. In our countries the tribes have been broken. The same applies to Japan and Korea which is why they succeed but not to africa or the middle east.

Don't confuse "the west" with "europe".

Not only the US, but Canada and Australia have significantly decentralized federations.

and you are missing the point if you think western federalism is decentralization when compared to non-western countries. Kurdistan is not Manitoba. It has it's own army it's own government, it ignores federal laws when it chooses and has been preparing for war with the government for the last decade. None of this applies to Manitoba. Manitoba is a part of Canada and considers itself such. Kurdistan does not consider itself part of Iraq and is only so due to force of arms/bribes/threats.

The decetralization in the ROTW is more akin to feudal europe than it is to the modern west. You only rule the local bosses you can bribe/cajole/threaten. The fealty of the kurds to iraq is approximately as sincere as the plantagenet fealty to the crown of france was.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't recall the details, but I think Europeans had a disagreement or two about national identities themselves before stable liberal governments came about.

Yes, glad they're ironed it out of their system.  1992 was so long ago.

[derspiess]

 

[Queequeg]

Sicily is the the big island just southwest of the Italian peninsula.  It's grey on the map.

Sicily was Muslim and Arab for 300 years.  Dar el Islam is not allowed to be rolled back.   

[Barrister]

Sicily is the the big island just southwest of the Italian peninsula.  It's grey on the map.

Sicily was Muslim and Arab for 300 years.  Dar el Islam is not allowed to be rolled back.

Tell that to the Islamic Caliphate then, because Sicily is not colored black on their map.

[Valmy]

Tell that to the Islamic Caliphate then, because Sicily is not colored black on their map.

Tyrolia and Ethiopia though are part of the glorious Islamic Empire.

[Queequeg]

That's what I am saying.  It's bizarre.  They also forgot the entirety of old Tatarstan apart from the Crimea, and Indonesia.  It is really reflective of Arab racism against non-Arab Muslims, weirdly.   They aren't even worthy of being subjected by by the Caliphate. 

[Siege]

Yeah, but the tribes were broken in the West long before democratization.
Feudal society had very little to do with tribes. If anything is the break down from tribes into clans, and the industrial revolution broke down the clans into families with its new market economy and potential for individual freedom and success. Then the information revolution broke down the family unit completely into todays individualism, with gangs appearing as a family substitute in dispossessed income groups without enough wealth/job opportunities to succeed in the era of information individualism.

[jimmy olsen]

Yeah, but the tribes were broken in the West long before democratization.
Feudal society had very little to do with tribes. If anything is the break down from tribes into clans, and the industrial revolution broke down the clans into families with its new market economy and potential for individual freedom and success. Then the information revolution broke down the family unit completely into todays individualism, with gangs appearing as a family substitute in dispossessed income groups without enough wealth/job opportunities to succeed in the era of information individualism.

An insightful post?

Who the hell are you and what have you done with Siegebreaker!

[Legbiter]

An insightful post?

Who the hell are you and what have you done with Siegebreaker!

It came to light in the MENSA thread that Siegy may be the Smartest Man On Languish, his IQ is at least a couple standard deviations higher than the average. Which according to some theories of cognition would make it very difficult for Siegy to relate to the average Languishite if met in person because we'll basically come across at best as semi-retarded to him.

[Razgovory]

Sicily is the the big island just southwest of the Italian peninsula.  It's grey on the map.

Sicily was Muslim and Arab for 300 years.  Dar el Islam is not allowed to be rolled back.

I only answered you question, "Where is Sicily".