Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
Is it an 'identity crisis' that's plaguing the ME? I ask because multi-ethnic states aren't new in the Middle East - that they are so weak (for many of the reasons Crowbat) cited and that political power, as a consequence of foreign intervention, is often distributed on a sectarian basis, creates ideal conditions for sectarian conflict and extremism.
Multi-ethnic states in the Middle East are nothing new, that's right.

And on the contrary: there is absolutely no 'identity crisis'.

From my POV, this way of thinking is either a) intentional picking of the story from its middle by those who prefer to ignore (usually for opportunistic reasons) or b) nave attempt at doing so by those who simply have no clue

- about the history of the Middle East.

Such characters do so instead of starting the story at the start, which is actually the only way out of the problem there.

Namely, it's not so as if these states came into being by the wish of local population or by some sort of 'pure accident', and that it then so happened that they couldn't enjoy political stability. The will of local people is insistently ignored by Western powers (especially the USA) ever since the King-Crane Commission.

We're talking here about artificial states created by foreign powers, with borders where there were never any before. These borders are cutting right through centres of populations of various ethnic and religious groups. In combination with intentional policy of imposing and then supporting de-facto foreigners as oppressive rulers of states in question, plus emergence of the 'oil/gas factor', plus intentional policy of isolation of traditional (mileniums-old, not only 'centuries old') economic, cultural and political centres from the 'province'... etc., etc., etc... Well, that's how one is creating excellent conditions for emergence of such creations like al-Qaida.

And when one is only curing the effects of al-Qaida (i.e. only goes fighting them in Afghanistan and in Iraq, instead of destroying their very centres of emergence, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar etc.)... well, provided enough time is left, then one has got an area that's not only 'ill', but becomes the best possible breeding ground for an imported mental illness called 'Islamic State' too.

If some might wonder why am I explaining all of this: extremist Islam is nothing new. It came into being in reaction to Crusades and Mongol invasions that successively smashed the original caliphate, back in the 12th and 13th Centuries. NEVERTHELESS, and contrary to 'Christian and civilized Europe' (ho-hum!) the Middle East never had a serious problem with extremists: these were banned and forced into exile well away from the cultural and political centre (nowadays 'Syria'), via Baghdad and then into the deserts of the Nejd (nowadays 'Eastern Province' of Saudi Arabia), where they were vegetating in their holes for centuries, without trace of ability to harm anybody (except few shepherds unlucky enough to find themselves in the way of one of many of Wahhabist gangs that periodically raided southern parts of what are nowadays Iraq, Jordan and Syria).

What changed this: firstly the British uprooted the most authoritative political and religious authority - Sheriff of Mecca - and sent him to Damascus; then they've dropped him like a hot rock so he can be forced into exile by the French; then they imposed his sons as kings of two artificial states (Iraq and Transjordan) created irrespectively of ages-old ways of living by the locals while letting his most bitter enemies (al-Sauds and their idiotic Wahhabists) conquer their place of origin (Hejab). And when this was not enough, the USA came to the scene, saved the Sauds (and Wahhabists) from starvation by feeding them (that was in 1942-1943), and then helped them establish what is nowadays Saudi Arabia and turn that (intellectual and political) 'more retarded than the rearmost province' into the powerhouse of the entire area - while isolating places like Cairo and (especially) Damascus, San'a etc., while the French meanwhile did their best to impose the rule of minorities (Christians in Lebanon and Alawites in Syria) and teach the locals about 'advantages' of such 'democratic traditions' like corruption, nepotism, mass murder, terrorism etc. And then, and all because they bitterly opposed Israel, Cairo, Damascus and then San'a were successively cut off from their traditional spheres of influence.

So now: what kind of results can one expect from such 'glorious' policy? 'Civilisation, peace, national identity, tranquillity and prosperity' - or exactly what happened in the Middle East?

And regarding 'identity crisis': what kind of 'identity' with, say, 'Jordan' or 'Syria' should members from clans living in, say, Mafraq-Suwaida or Rutba-Amman area since something like 10.000 years have? What is 'Jordan' and what is 'Syria' for them? What is 'Jordan' for millions of Palestinian refugees - most of whom have extremely strong and millennium-old ties to areas nowadays within 'Israel', 'Palestinian Authority', and 'Syria'?

Hand at heart: nothing. Is it then 'surprising' if 'Jordanians refuse to consider themselves Jordanians'...?

Or the other way around: majority of Egyptians are not sure if they are really 'Arabs'. Considering the history of that country, no surprise here. Nevertheless, they are all 'traditionally' sorted as '(stupid) Arabs' by the West.

And finally, what should Zeidis, a traditional state-founding group of what is nowadays Yemen (and that since several mileniums), think about foreigners that came in and impressed the Wahhabist rule upon them, in turn driving them into the hands of Arab arch-enemies (i.e. the Iranian Shi'a)?

'Inherent conflict'? Perhaps. But then, obviously and clearly created by foreigners, exclusively those from the West.