ISIS: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!

[Pannonian]

The problem with both your models is what is a nation? Should it be defined by ethicitity, language, race, borders (natural or historical)? Even Wilson's model was flawed, the Hungarians wanted independence from Austro-Hungary but they wanted to keep all of historical Hungary not just ethnic Hungary and even by that division there were plenty of Hungarians left out by this new nation of Hungary.
Additionally, they are not exclusive and as such aren't really opposing models.
At what level should self determination be limited? Should the world be filled with City-States again? I know Venice probably would be happy not paying for southern Italy's problems. Balkanization is the natural outcome if self determination is the rule.
Is it the right of the Catalans to opt out of Spain just because they want to? Is it right of the Spanish to forcibly maintain the integrity of their country?
Was it right for the US to fight the Confederacy to preserve the Union if the Southern States wanted to leave?

As for liberal democracy being what all societies aspire to, I disagree. Some societies truly want theocracy, some want traditional monarchies. Liberal democracy is really only the goal for literate affluent societies. Once you have enough folks educated enough and affluent enough they want control of their own affairs. It starts out with just the elite getting power, then the lower classes. Going from no liberty to full democracy is always a dangerous jump. The liberal part also requires a society that wants to protect minorities within (political, ethnic, linguist etc..), otherwise it's just a tyranny of the masses.

As for Husar, he does have a very anti British bias. From what I've read he sees the the British Empire as the cause of all the problems today. Blaming the British method of creating nations post WWI is perfectly fine, it did lead to the current situation in in the greater scheme, as for what it should do I'd almost say there is nothing they could really do. Overthrowing Assad adds to problems, keeping him is also a problem, breaking up Syria into a Sunni republic and a City-State of Greater Damascus is also not doable.

The question of intervention and non-intervention is never easy. If the US were in a position to militarily intervene in Burma to stop the genocide there would that be the right thing to do? Is it acceptable to allow someone to kill their own citizens and only intervene if they start killing other peoples citizens?

As for the original scope of the thread, the situation is so damn complicated there really is no right answer. I'd suggest supporting the current governments in Iraq and Syria while negotiating for observation of conditions, a Marshal Plan style reconstruction plan, as well as forcing/negotiating concessions to secure the rights of minorities. As for the Kurdish question, it'd be good to push the current Syrian and Iraqi governments toward allowing for eventual Kurdish independence in a decade or so. There needs to be some stability in the region before creating 'new' nations as well as making sure to iron out borders and trade beforehand otherwise it leads to another war.
Whatever we do we can't just ignore the problem there, limited intervention has it's place. The Yugoslav example is a good example of exactly the type of ethnic, religious, and historical problems at hand. While the situation in that region is stable now (even with the odd state of Kosovo existing) it is still precarious.

So let's put these arguments to the test. If it is reasonable to look back generations to blame the people of today and thus argue that they should take responsibility, was Tony Blair right to attempt to redress the wrongs of the past by encouraging liberal democracy in Iraq? Don't bother with arguments over the aftermath and whether enough was done, as Blair's destroyed reputation is entirely to do with the initial invasion. I'd like Husar to answer that question too.

[Husar]

So let's put these arguments to the test. If it is reasonable to look back generations to blame the people of today and thus argue that they should take responsibility, was Tony Blair right to attempt to redress the wrongs of the past by encouraging liberal democracy in Iraq? Don't bother with arguments over the aftermath and whether enough was done, as Blair's destroyed reputation is entirely to do with the initial invasion. I'd like Husar to answer that question too.

Blair is British, so he was obviously wrong.

[spmetla]

So let's put these arguments to the test. If it is reasonable to look back generations to blame the people of today and thus argue that they should take responsibility, was Tony Blair right to attempt to redress the wrongs of the past by encouraging liberal democracy in Iraq? Don't bother with arguments over the aftermath and whether enough was done, as Blair's destroyed reputation is entirely to do with the initial invasion. I'd like Husar to answer that question too.

Where did I ever say to blame the people of today? Take responsibility if it is reasonable but at least admit the wrong doing. Case for that: annexation of Hawaii. US was wrong to support the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and then annex it a few years latter. I don't advocate blaming the current US government or generations of americans for the woes in Hawaii nor redressing it somehow by some sort of restoration of the monarchy there.

You need to stop assuming that acknowledgement of past errors is equal with blaming the present. You can't address the present day problems without knowledge of past rights and wrongs.
The 1953 Iranian overthrow example you and Husar used for example. The US was wrong to do it, of course. That doesn't mean I blame the US for all the reactionary wrongs that Iran has done in retribution against the "Great Satan." You cannot negotiate with today's Iranian government without acknowledging the past.
Unlike the apologists and revisionists though I don't imagine that an Iranian democracy would have been sunshine and roses either, it would probably have devolved toward dictatorship, communism, or the current theocracy anyhow. That doesn't justify the actions taken by the Eisenhower administration however given the Cold War situation and what had just happened in China, Korea, Indo-China, Malaysia, and so on I can understand to seek pro-US stability even at the cost of a harsh police state instead of allowing the nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil and allowing the Pandora's box of possibilities to occur in such a vital country.

As for your specific question, I don't think Tony Blair was wrong by encouraging liberal democracy in Iraq. The method of achieving that goal through invasion and imposition of a system on a former dictatorship was in hindsight a terrible idea. Hell, it might even have worked if the Coalition Provisional Government under Paul Bremer hadn't so massively botched the job right from the start. Perhaps if Paul Bremer tried to understand the present day difficulties of Iraq and its complicated past he might have been successful instead of alienating the Sunni minority which now feared their disenfranchisement.

Syria, even Syria, is missing the preliminary step to the Marshall Plan.

Well of course it is, doesn't mean we shouldn't start rebuilding in Iraq and Kurdistan...again. For Syria we're in a post WWII Greece situation, support the nazi fighting communists or the nazi collaborating 'democrats?'
When you apply principles and standards it's difficult. I'd prefer we support the Chiang Kai-sheks of the world and push for reform with carrot stick approaches than allow the Mao Zedongs and their radical Islamic equivalents to take over.

[Idaho]

So let's put these arguments to the test. If it is reasonable to look back generations to blame the people of today and thus argue that they should take responsibility, was Tony Blair right to attempt to redress the wrongs of the past by encouraging liberal democracy in Iraq? Don't bother with arguments over the aftermath and whether enough was done, as Blair's destroyed reputation is entirely to do with the initial invasion. I'd like Husar to answer that question too.

Such an arse-about-face way of looking at it. I know Blair himself saw /sees his middle east interventions as divine acts rejected by heathens, but he's mad. We don't have to go along with it.

The region has been politically and economically controlled and manipulated for centuries. There has never been any consideration of what the people want... With perhaps the exception of saddam in some circumstances.

[Pannonian]

Such an arse-about-face way of looking at it. I know Blair himself saw /sees his middle east interventions as divine acts rejected by heathens, but he's mad. We don't have to go along with it.

The region has been politically and economically controlled and manipulated for centuries. There has never been any consideration of what the people want... With perhaps the exception of saddam in some circumstances.

So how does that hand wringing translate into a plan? What should be done? What shouldn't be done? How should this plan be decided?

[HopAlongBunny]

Here are some musing from the BBC
It has some dubious assumptions, but at least looks at some of the issues:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/o...-strategy.html