Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
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.