There's a problem with this view as history repeating itself: The situation has changed from the colonialism of the pre-World War II era(s) to a more modern economic interdependence.
Yes, we are still very dependent on Middle Eastern oil, if not directly, indirectly through our trading partners around the world. Just this (and the desire to maintain our current economic advantages) pretty well forces American involvement in the region, regardless of the philosophical morality of the war. Losing access to those resources makes for the possibility of an economic collapse of many western economies.
Developing alternative energy resources is the best idea, but the economic impact of such a transition to other sources may cause an economic collapse itself. The efficiency and portability of oil-fueled energy is it's prime advantage over other types, especially the more flexible infrastructure requirements versus, for example, electrically powered replacement systems (Especially considering the state of the US's power grid at this time).
So, back to Iraq...
Another prime difference between now and then is transparency of government actions. What the British did and what the former Iraqi governments did would be rather difficult to pull off with the current proliferation of non-governmental communications and reporting sources.
Still, it is an uphill battle when dealing with a culture with inflexibility and lack of willingness to accept others as major religious tenets.
It's just like Israel and the Palestinians.
The Palestinians blinked in 1947 and the situation changed while their eyes were closed. They were and are faced with having to deal with another group of people who refuse to give up and are willing to fight for their survival. The Arab intolerance to try and work out a mutually beneficial while demanding the Israelis sacrifice their own survival leads to a seemingly endless cycle of self-destruction on their part. Even the Israelis are idiots in this case for trying to negotiate with people who won't give up on their requirement for the destruction of Israel.
Iraq will probably be similar because of the seemingly wanton desire by many Muslims for death over beneficial compromise and their belief in a zero-sum system of us vs. them.
In the end, and this is going to sound bad, I think we should force the issue of a peaceful representative government in Iraq by bleeding dry violent uprisings until, in Darwinistic fashion, the only Iraqis left are the peaceful ones that work together like the social creatures humans are to the benefit of themselves and the world around them.
Of course, the population density will be quite a lot thinner by then, but a peacable democratic Iraq, perhaps based on the Sunni branch of morality, would probably be a MAJOR stepping stone to a peaceful Middle East.
no subject
Yes, we are still very dependent on Middle Eastern oil, if not directly, indirectly through our trading partners around the world. Just this (and the desire to maintain our current economic advantages) pretty well forces American involvement in the region, regardless of the philosophical morality of the war. Losing access to those resources makes for the possibility of an economic collapse of many western economies.
Developing alternative energy resources is the best idea, but the economic impact of such a transition to other sources may cause an economic collapse itself. The efficiency and portability of oil-fueled energy is it's prime advantage over other types, especially the more flexible infrastructure requirements versus, for example, electrically powered replacement systems (Especially considering the state of the US's power grid at this time).
So, back to Iraq...
Another prime difference between now and then is transparency of government actions. What the British did and what the former Iraqi governments did would be rather difficult to pull off with the current proliferation of non-governmental communications and reporting sources.
Still, it is an uphill battle when dealing with a culture with inflexibility and lack of willingness to accept others as major religious tenets.
It's just like Israel and the Palestinians.
The Palestinians blinked in 1947 and the situation changed while their eyes were closed. They were and are faced with having to deal with another group of people who refuse to give up and are willing to fight for their survival. The Arab intolerance to try and work out a mutually beneficial while demanding the Israelis sacrifice their own survival leads to a seemingly endless cycle of self-destruction on their part. Even the Israelis are idiots in this case for trying to negotiate with people who won't give up on their requirement for the destruction of Israel.
Iraq will probably be similar because of the seemingly wanton desire by many Muslims for death over beneficial compromise and their belief in a zero-sum system of us vs. them.
In the end, and this is going to sound bad, I think we should force the issue of a peaceful representative government in Iraq by bleeding dry violent uprisings until, in Darwinistic fashion, the only Iraqis left are the peaceful ones that work together like the social creatures humans are to the benefit of themselves and the world around them.
Of course, the population density will be quite a lot thinner by then, but a peacable democratic Iraq, perhaps based on the Sunni branch of morality, would probably be a MAJOR stepping stone to a peaceful Middle East.