ISIS: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!

[Crandar]

i'll just gracefully admit that I don't understand anything about that piece of the world and probably never will

It's not that complicated. The problem is that many amateurish and lazy journalists assume that the Middle Eastern politics are shaped, unlike any other geopolitical conflict, mainly by ideology, when in reality they don't.

I know an Iranian émigré living in Canada, who gains his living by writing propaganda pieces for both Saudi Arabia, praising Islam and Saudi Arabian cultural influence, and Israel, by managing an Islamophobic NGO, who whines about white genocide and Eurabia.
Then the public gets confused, when the dumb, simplistic and lazy narrative of many media is contradicted by facts.

[Pannonian]

It's not that complicated. The problem is that many amateurish and lazy journalists assume that the Middle Eastern politics are shaped, unlike any other geopolitical conflict, mainly by ideology, when in reality they don't.

I know an Iranian émigré living in Canada, who gains his living by writing propaganda pieces for both Saudi Arabia, praising Islam and Saudi Arabian cultural influence, and Israel, by managing an Islamophobic NGO, who whines about white genocide and Eurabia.
Then the public gets confused, when the dumb, simplistic and lazy narrative of many media is contradicted by facts.

What's up with nuances? We get blamed all the time for intervening, and we get blamed for not intervening too. At least the latter is cheaper, and doesn't directly lead to people wanting to bomb us. So if the middle east and by extension Muslim world want to, of their own accord, make their countries into shitholes, we shouldn't bash ourselves over it over how humanity is cruel to itself. Self determination is also a liberal argument, and it applies to us just as much to us as it applies to places like Iraq that we're blamed for for putting our hands to.

[HopAlongBunny]

Then the public gets confused, when the dumb, simplistic and lazy narrative of many media is contradicted by facts.

I agree.
But what of the peace?
The Kurds I suppose could be dealt nada; like the Arabs after WW1; after that it looks complicated.
What political settlement would mollify the participants and possibly bring peace to the region?
How is rebuilding handled? Who pays? Who builds?

[Pannonian]

I agree.
But what of the peace?
The Kurds I suppose could be dealt nada; like the Arabs after WW1; after that it looks complicated.
What political settlement would mollify the participants and possibly bring peace to the region?
How is rebuilding handled? Who pays? Who builds?

It's none of our business. The regional powers will be playing their regional game and killing pawns, but it's not our place to impose a peace they can't reach themselves.

[reinoe]

It's none of our business. The regional powers will be playing their regional game and killing pawns, but it's not our place to impose a peace they can't reach themselves.

True, but there are millions of dollars at stake when it comes to military contractors. They can't get paid if there aren't enough wars.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

True, but there are millions of dollars at stake when it comes to military contractors. They can't get paid if there aren't enough wars.

A credible threat of war is often enough, especially when combined with an almost definitionally endless 'War on Terror' or a nice chilly 'cold' war.

[Crandar]

What's up with nuances? We get blamed all the time for intervening, and we get blamed for not intervening too. At least the latter is cheaper, and doesn't directly lead to people wanting to bomb us. So if the middle east and by extension Muslim world want to, of their own accord, make their countries into shitholes, we shouldn't bash ourselves over it over how humanity is cruel to itself. Self determination is also a liberal argument, and it applies to us just as much to us as it applies to places like Iraq that we're blamed for for putting our hands to.

I agree.
But what of the peace?
The Kurds I suppose could be dealt nada; like the Arabs after WW1; after that it looks complicated.
What political settlement would mollify the participants and possibly bring peace to the region?
How is rebuilding handled? Who pays? Who builds?

I agree with pann that the moral and least bloody option is simply non-intervention, but expecting that the governments of major powers will stop meddling in the affairs of the Middle East is utopian.

They intervene, because they want to promote their interests or undermine those of their opponents, not for humanitarian and democratic concerns (establishing a stable democracy could be the mean for a grater purpose, e.g. creation of a prosperous allied state or a huge consumer base).

These interests may involve the opening of new markets, the exploitation of local resources by international companies, the destabilization of an enemy, rearranging the energy market and the formation of an environment friendly to investment.
If the benefits outweigh the advantages of casualties, refugee waves, diplomatic repercussions, domestic discontent and etc. then interventionism will be preferred over isolationism.