ISIS: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!

[Pannonian]

Perhaps it just doesn't exist in a vacuum? There'd be no racism in Britain if only Britain existed. Although, perhaps the Northumbrians would then think the Wessexians (?) were subhuman or so...Why is Estonia suddenly afraid of Russian invasion? Did it accidentally radicalize regardless of the happenings in Ukraine?

Islam as a religion goes beyond borders. There are Christians in Germany who are more afraid of persecution because persecution of Christians happens in Asia and Africa every day. They don't just live in a vacuum and ignore what happens to people they associate with elsewhere.
The same applies to terrorism. The attacks in the UK, France and Germany tend to put all of Europe on altert to some extent and not just the affected country. So if you invade every other muslim country, you think the others will just shrug and ignore it?

The real problem of course, is how to fix it now. I agree with you to some extent that in some situations it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't thing. In some of those it might just be about what we do or how we do it though. Supporting thugs and dictators with weapons to "help" because it's cheaper/easier may not be the kind of help people were asking for for example.

Or you could read explanations by Pakistanis looking at Pakistani history. They trace it back to when the Pakistani government started to admit religion into the state, and from there it perpetuated itself, with each generation deepening the hold of religion. And extrapolating from that, you can see practically the same situation beginning in Turkey. And in the conditions which advocates of liberal democracy in the middle east have created, Islamists have had the chance to exploit the link between Islamic religion and Islamic state.

I'm not arguing that we should support thugs with weapons and such. Note that I said, "If there is an existing dictatorship, count ourselves lucky and leave alone. Never push for more democracy in Muslim countries." Iraq should have been the lesson (that I opposed, so don't point that at me). Libya and Syria already had dictators keeping down the Muslim population. We shouldn't have been doing anything to destabilise them. But we encouraged freedom and democracy. And predictably, the Muslim population used their freedom to turn to Islamism. If these oppressed populations want to overturn their dictators to gain freedom and democracy, that's their right. But we shouldn't be doing anything to help them. There are far better prospects elsewhere in the world, if we want to play liberator.

[Husar]

Or you could read explanations by Pakistanis looking at Pakistani history. They trace it back to when the Pakistani government started to admit religion into the state, and from there it perpetuated itself, with each generation deepening the hold of religion.

Well, those Pakistani sources seem rather hard to find. Not knowing a lot about the country's history, I did some searching and came up with some sources they seem to disagree with you:
http://www.trtworld.com/opinion/paki...alf-full--9252

The latest, and now struggling, transition to democracy in Pakistan began in 2007, when momentum grew for the ouster of then president and military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf.
[...]
The two decades of civilian rule that have sandwiched the Musharraf era have failed to provide a single instance of genuine civilian-led accountability of public officials. Meanwhile, the material disparity between the poor masses and the political elite has grown.

So, not only does the source as a whole talk about the state of Pakistan's democracy as being rather ambiguous, it also mentions a dictatorship that lasted until 2007, whereas you state it had uninterrupted democracy since the partition and then mention something about the 1970s. Given that Musharraf came to power in 2001, that would mean the author does not see any democracy before or until the 1990s either. At the very least I take from this that your view of uninterrupted democracy is one of many interpretations.

And then there is this source: http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/...opr/t236/e0616

Pakistan is unique among Muslim countries in its relationship with Islam: it is the only country to have been established in the name of Islam. Hence, Pakistan's political experience is integrally related to the struggle of Indian Muslims to find an autonomous political center after their loss of power to the British in the early nineteenth century. Muslims, who had ruled large parts of India for several centuries before the consolidation of British power in the early 1800s, perceived a challenge to their civilization in a political space increasingly dominated by European and Hindu ideas and values.

Which brings us right back to colonial disturbances, but even worse, it says it was founded in the name of Islam. So when exactly did the government bring Islam into the mix and was it really a democratic government? Your version of events seems disputable at least.

And extrapolating from that, you can see practically the same situation beginning in Turkey.

Well, if you can see it already, there is no need to extrapolate in the first place. That said, I don't think you can just extrapolate from Pakistan to any country and I'm not entirely sure what you see in Turkey. Yes, Erdogan has brought back some religious rules, but it mostly looks like measures to solidify his own power, whereas a lot of his supporters cite economic development as a key factor for their support. We can't even say for sure that the referendum that mgave him more power was actually democratically decided in his favor, given all the irrelegularities and downright undemocratic things that happened during it (counting of votes on unofficial ballots, threat of violence in polling stations, etc.).

And in the conditions which advocates of liberal democracy in the middle east have created, Islamists have had the chance to exploit the link between Islamic religion and Islamic state.

What exactly are you referring to? I might just as well say the conditions that Monarchist imperials have created, led directly to the current state of violence and instability in much of Africa and the Middle East. During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance these places were quite like the rest of the world. Seemingly it was only in the past few decades since colonialism that Islam turned into this oppressive thing with terrorism and hatred. Why should that be more representative than the 800 years or so of more enlightened, "normal" Islam that preceeded it? And why did it become this way in the first place? If you're going to say it traces back to how Muhammad behaved, please explain why they seemingly forgot about that for hundreds of years.

Why did Christianity "settle in" and become "domesticated" and peaceful while parts of Islam turned more aggressive and angry? I would think it may have something to do with a more balanced distribution of power in the Middle Ages, that was overturned when Europeans, and by extension or continuation the USA, conquered large parts of the world and then continued to play world police there. No, you're not meant to be ashamed now, but it might mean that relations and moods may normalize again once we stop doing that. Which also leads me to the next part of your post.

I'm not arguing that we should support thugs with weapons and such. Note that I said, "If there is an existing dictatorship, count ourselves lucky and leave alone. Never push for more democracy in Muslim countries." Iraq should have been the lesson (that I opposed, so don't point that at me). Libya and Syria already had dictators keeping down the Muslim population. We shouldn't have been doing anything to destabilise them. But we encouraged freedom and democracy. And predictably, the Muslim population used their freedom to turn to Islamism. If these oppressed populations want to overturn their dictators to gain freedom and democracy, that's their right. But we shouldn't be doing anything to help them. There are far better prospects elsewhere in the world, if we want to play liberator.

Well, yeah, except that with quite a few of those "existing dictatorships", we were the ones who brought them to power or at the very least gave them weapons in the first place. As I said above, I agree somewhat though, that we should perhaps just stay out of the mess in some cases. Sometimes it may really be a damned if you do and damned if you don't thing. The biggest problem is most likely when these countries have ~50% educated, modern youths yearning for liberal democracy, and ~50% older, rural folks wanting tradition etc., who also support the current hardline government. The shift over time might be towards democracy, but until then the young educated people live in a terrible place and just want out. When I see that my country's politics are dictated by old folks who want no change, accept no argument, and are afraid of the boogeyman, some part of me also just wants out of here...
Either way, the first step would probably have to be fighting the perception that we only want to dictate them our terms behind the curtains. It's not that far-fetched when Saudi Arabia destroys any dissent with Western weapons or Saddam Hussein gasses Kurdish people with German chemicals.

And I'm really not sure whether playing liberator in other parts of the world is a better idea. Ask some Chileans about how thankful they are to the US for giving them the Chicago Boys to "liberate" them from socialism...

[Pannonian]

Well, those Pakistani sources seem rather hard to find. Not knowing a lot about the country's history, I did some searching and came up with some sources they seem to disagree with you:
http://www.trtworld.com/opinion/paki...alf-full--9252


So, not only does the source as a whole talk about the state of Pakistan's democracy as being rather ambiguous, it also mentions a dictatorship that lasted until 2007, whereas you state it had uninterrupted democracy since the partition and then mention something about the 1970s. Given that Musharraf came to power in 2001, that would mean the author does not see any democracy before or until the 1990s either. At the very least I take from this that your view of uninterrupted democracy is one of many interpretations.

And then there is this source: http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/...opr/t236/e0616

Which brings us right back to colonial disturbances, but even worse, it says it was founded in the name of Islam. So when exactly did the government bring Islam into the mix and was it really a democratic government? Your version of events seems disputable at least.

According to the accounts I've read, from people living in Pakistan, the junta (if democracy had been interrupted, it wasn't of the west's doing) legitimated their power in the 1980s by allying themselves with Islamists and promoting their primacy in education. It's possible to make a case for this extending into foreign policy as well, but the people I've read focus on domestic concerns.

Well, if you can see it already, there is no need to extrapolate in the first place. That said, I don't think you can just extrapolate from Pakistan to any country and I'm not entirely sure what you see in Turkey. Yes, Erdogan has brought back some religious rules, but it mostly looks like measures to solidify his own power, whereas a lot of his supporters cite economic development as a key factor for their support. We can't even say for sure that the referendum that mgave him more power was actually democratically decided in his favor, given all the irrelegularities and downright undemocratic things that happened during it (counting of votes on unofficial ballots, threat of violence in polling stations, etc.).

What exactly are you referring to? I might just as well say the conditions that Monarchist imperials have created, led directly to the current state of violence and instability in much of Africa and the Middle East. During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance these places were quite like the rest of the world. Seemingly it was only in the past few decades since colonialism that Islam turned into this oppressive thing with terrorism and hatred. Why should that be more representative than the 800 years or so of more enlightened, "normal" Islam that preceeded it? And why did it become this way in the first place? If you're going to say it traces back to how Muhammad behaved, please explain why they seemingly forgot about that for hundreds of years.

Why did Christianity "settle in" and become "domesticated" and peaceful while parts of Islam turned more aggressive and angry? I would think it may have something to do with a more balanced distribution of power in the Middle Ages, that was overturned when Europeans, and by extension or continuation the USA, conquered large parts of the world and then continued to play world police there. No, you're not meant to be ashamed now, but it might mean that relations and moods may normalize again once we stop doing that. Which also leads me to the next part of your post.

Well, yeah, except that with quite a few of those "existing dictatorships", we were the ones who brought them to power or at the very least gave them weapons in the first place. As I said above, I agree somewhat though, that we should perhaps just stay out of the mess in some cases. Sometimes it may really be a damned if you do and damned if you don't thing. The biggest problem is most likely when these countries have ~50% educated, modern youths yearning for liberal democracy, and ~50% older, rural folks wanting tradition etc., who also support the current hardline government. The shift over time might be towards democracy, but until then the young educated people live in a terrible place and just want out. When I see that my country's politics are dictated by old folks who want no change, accept no argument, and are afraid of the boogeyman, some part of me also just wants out of here...
Either way, the first step would probably have to be fighting the perception that we only want to dictate them our terms behind the curtains. It's not that far-fetched when Saudi Arabia destroys any dissent with Western weapons or Saddam Hussein gasses Kurdish people with German chemicals.

And I'm really not sure whether playing liberator in other parts of the world is a better idea. Ask some Chileans about how thankful they are to the US for giving them the Chicago Boys to "liberate" them from socialism...

You talk a load of baloney about stuff that happened outside my lifetime. Well within my lifetime my country has largely withdrawn from setting up right wing dictatorships, while I have seen the growth of Islamism and bleeding heart liberal apologists (who come from the same page as the Communist apologists whom Orwell despised). I can't do owt about stuff that happened before I was born. But I can do whatever I can about stuff that happens in my lifetime. And unlike you, at least I follow through with my arguments to arrive at whatever conclusion the argument directs me to. In your case of course, you start with the conclusion and find the argument to support your conclusion.

And as for youths yearning for liberal democracy: read about the killings of atheists and "blasphemers" in south Asia. It's the youths who are the most militant in that region. Even ones attending university (cf. the student who was lynched at uni for blasphemy).

[spmetla]

You talk a load of baloney about stuff that happened outside my lifetime. Well within my lifetime my country has largely withdrawn from setting up right wing dictatorships, while I have seen the growth of Islamism and bleeding heart liberal apologists (who come from the same page as the Communist apologists whom Orwell despised). I can't do owt about stuff that happened before I was born. But I can do whatever I can about stuff that happens in my lifetime. And unlike you, at least I follow through with my arguments to arrive at whatever conclusion the argument directs me to. In your case of course, you start with the conclusion and find the argument to support your conclusion.

And as for youths yearning for liberal democracy: read about the killings of atheists and "blasphemers" in south Asia. It's the youths who are the most militant in that region. Even ones attending university (cf. the student who was lynched at uni for blasphemy).

He's perfectly correct in referencing things that happened outside your lifetime. We are the product of the past and as such must deal with the complications that come from our forefathers thinking for better or worse.

I don't have any cause with those bleeding hearts types but the rise of Islamism is a reaction to the socialist-nationalism that arose in the '50s and '60s. That nationalism was in turn a reaction to the collapse of the Ottoman order together with colonialism. That colonialism in turn is a result of mercantilism and security policies (Barbary Coast pirates).

While I believe that Husar is always too quick to blame Europe/USAs intervention in the middle east as the primary cause of it's problems his arguments are logical.
However, Europe's sphere has always extended to the whole Mediterranean basin, even the Roman's and Greeks saw it and it will always continue to be so. The European powers will meddle in the middle east when stronger just as those same countries have always strove to push their sphere into Europe when the situation allowed as well.

Liberal democracies reflect their societies, setting them up in countries who's societies are opposed to us will naturally result in a government reflecting that. I don't excuse the out reach of these democracies in the slightest, I think it's a shame the governments there must make such a concession to their ultra conservative wings to placate the religious extremists but that's always going to happen when poverty and insecurity reign.
I'm quite happy that the military is in charge of Egypt again even though that's extremely undemocratic of them. At the same time I'm happy that Tunisia is a democracy and is succeeding even if only precariously.

Youths will always be the most militant, they are the easiest to sway, they have the least world experience and have a desire for a cause to fight for. All those bleeding heart liberals are of the same cut, they want something to fight for and fighting the ruling class, the government or nations is always more appealing than 'conforming' to accept a less exciting narrative. Why else are conspiracy theories so popular, the allure of hidden knowledge and being part of the underdog is very appealing to most youths.

As for apologists, well a lot of them do have a point. I'm a patriot through and through but I can and do admit the wrongs of the present and past. It's not betrayal to admit wrong, it's not condemnation of your ancestors. I have family that fought for the Wehrmacht, am I ashamed? No, but I'm certainly not going to advocate that they should be especially proud either or white wash the crimes committed by the Wehrmacht. Same fore my US family, should I condemn my forefathers that fought the Indians/Native Americans in New England, no of course not. I'm not going to pretend however that they weren't the invaders either nor pardon their participating in the slave trade (they had a plantation in Jamaica too).

Point being that there are two sides to each issue, to dismiss the one you don't like just because is just as reckless as those that dismiss your opinion. The world is very very complicated, trying to oversimplify and blame/vilify just the Europeans/Americans or the Islamists is the same attitude the led the current situation.
Accepting cruel dictators will lead to backlash just as stoking religious/nationalism in a democracy does.

[Pannonian]

He's perfectly correct in referencing things that happened outside your lifetime. We are the product of the past and as such must deal with the complications that come from our forefathers thinking for better or worse.

I don't have any cause with those bleeding hearts types but the rise of Islamism is a reaction to the socialist-nationalism that arose in the '50s and '60s. That nationalism was in turn a reaction to the collapse of the Ottoman order together with colonialism. That colonialism in turn is a result of mercantilism and security policies (Barbary Coast pirates).

While I believe that Husar is always too quick to blame Europe/USAs intervention in the middle east as the primary cause of it's problems his arguments are logical.
However, Europe's sphere has always extended to the whole Mediterranean basin, even the Roman's and Greeks saw it and it will always continue to be so. The European powers will meddle in the middle east when stronger just as those same countries have always strove to push their sphere into Europe when the situation allowed as well.

Liberal democracies reflect their societies, setting them up in countries who's societies are opposed to us will naturally result in a government reflecting that. I don't excuse the out reach of these democracies in the slightest, I think it's a shame the governments there must make such a concession to their ultra conservative wings to placate the religious extremists but that's always going to happen when poverty and insecurity reign.
I'm quite happy that the military is in charge of Egypt again even though that's extremely undemocratic of them. At the same time I'm happy that Tunisia is a democracy and is succeeding even if only precariously.

Youths will always be the most militant, they are the easiest to sway, they have the least world experience and have a desire for a cause to fight for. All those bleeding heart liberals are of the same cut, they want something to fight for and fighting the ruling class, the government or nations is always more appealing than 'conforming' to accept a less exciting narrative. Why else are conspiracy theories so popular, the allure of hidden knowledge and being part of the underdog is very appealing to most youths.

As for apologists, well a lot of them do have a point. I'm a patriot through and through but I can and do admit the wrongs of the present and past. It's not betrayal to admit wrong, it's not condemnation of your ancestors. I have family that fought for the Wehrmacht, am I ashamed? No, but I'm certainly not going to advocate that they should be especially proud either or white wash the crimes committed by the Wehrmacht. Same fore my US family, should I condemn my forefathers that fought the Indians/Native Americans in New England, no of course not. I'm not going to pretend however that they weren't the invaders either nor pardon their participating in the slave trade (they had a plantation in Jamaica too).

Point being that there are two sides to each issue, to dismiss the one you don't like just because is just as reckless as those that dismiss your opinion. The world is very very complicated, trying to oversimplify and blame/vilify just the Europeans/Americans or the Islamists is the same attitude the led the current situation.
Accepting cruel dictators will lead to backlash just as stoking religious/nationalism in a democracy does.

Husar once castigated Britain for what it was doing wrong in Syria. I then presented him with two models of foreign policy, both incidentally founded on liberalism, and asked him which he favours. He then ummed and aahed over how circumstances dictate what to do, sit on the fence, etc. Even after I explained to him that, post-WWI, one model was the default, to be assumed in the absence of any other bilateral/multilateral agreements. To accept one or the other model would, you see, deprive him of an avenue by which to criticise Britain for doing things wrong, as he's consistently done so using both models (intervention/non-intervention). Kage, unlike Husar, grasped the historical argument that is still the basis of international affairs today, and correspondingly accepted the logic of that argument.

The two models were as follows.

1. Self determination is the basis of all nations. A nation should choose its own government and form of government by itself, without outside interference. This has been the default since Woodrow Wilson in WWI.
2. Liberal democracy is the form to which all societies aspire to. Where dictatorships reign, this is against the natural order, and action should be taken to remove the dictatorship and transition into liberal democracy. This is the basis of neoconservatism, and has been discredited since Iraq.

So when a dictatorship is currently in power, what should Britain do? Should Britain take action against the dictatorship that it had some part in setting up generations before? Or should it leave alone?

Kage accepted that self-determination is indeed the basis of international affairs, and that deviations from such would be wrong. Husar recognised that accepting either model would deprive him of his correct conclusion, which is that Britain is in the wrong.

As for apologism: see Orwell's observation that they will frequently indulge in all kinds of double thinking in order to show that Anglo-America are in the wrong, and that their chosen movement is in the right. The very source of the term doublethink satirises this.

[Husar]

Kage, unlike Husar, grasped the historical argument that is still the basis of international affairs today, and correspondingly accepted the logic of that argument.
[...]
Kage accepted that self-determination is indeed the basis of international affairs, and that deviations from such would be wrong. Husar recognised that accepting either model would deprive him of his correct conclusion, which is that Britain is in the wrong.

Go on, this is fun to read. I really like Kage, too.

[Kagemusha]

Go on, this is fun to read. I really like Kage, too.

"Raises up from a dusty corner of backroom". You summoned me and here i am. Uhm, self- determination. Yesshh..

In my opinion the events around the Kurdish referendum has been a travesty. We should look at the whole area in this context as just looking at Iraq does not give us any clear picture at this point, while lumping this affair as internal affair of Iraq has been an easy way to look at the issue. The factors at Iraq are the Iraq Shia government, which is backed by Iran, The past Isis disgruntled Sunni at central and Northern Iraq and the Kurds at Eastern and Northern Iraq.

To me it is rather lazy for the World to use rhetorics like the protection of integrity of state of Iraq, as there is no such thing anymore. The Shia government and Iran of course will do their utmost to hang into power in all Iraq, but if we look into the facts, such is not possible anymore. The Shia power is clear and solid in the South, but to control the central and the Northern Sunnis, without any radical change will only mean endless war. Iran is also worried about the aspirations of their Western Kurdish minority.
Turkey, another power in the area is worried about Iraqi Kurdistan, since creation of Iraqi Kurdistan might launch creation of Syrian Kurdistan and even Turkish Kurdistan.

The constant ethos of West has been that everything should be done in order to bring stability and peace to the area and create circumstances prolific for democracy. The closest thing for such can be found in Iraqi Kurdistan, where Kurdish have been harboring Assyrian, Turkmen and Jesidi minorities from Isis, while being the main antagonist of Isis from the total collapse of Iraq armed forces at Northern parts of the country back at 2014 until the start of the counter offensive of Government forces during 2016. The Kurdish region is also secular and the standing of women in their society is light years ahead of the rest of Iraq.

With these points. It should be a no brainer, which side the West should be supporting in Iraq, but it is not so. The rhetoric range from "stability" to "avoiding further fragmentation" to "defusing the situation". Aka simply rhetorics for rhetorics. Only clear cut supporter of Iraqi Kurdistan referendum was Israel, but while Iran, Turkey and Iraq goverment are having military manouvers at the borders of Kurdistan. One thing these countries and also the international community might be forgetting is that with the 93% support for the independency, battle tested armed forces and stabile internal situation, added the geography of the area. Pressing the Iraqi Kurdistan back to fold might be something more the other factions might be able to chew. And yes that is self- determination.

[spmetla]

The two models were as follows.

1. Self determination is the basis of all nations. A nation should choose its own government and form of government by itself, without outside interference. This has been the default since Woodrow Wilson in WWI.
2. Liberal democracy is the form to which all societies aspire to. Where dictatorships reign, this is against the natural order, and action should be taken to remove the dictatorship and transition into liberal democracy. This is the basis of neoconservatism, and has been discredited since Iraq.

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.

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

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