Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS) II

[Valaran]

What this law introduced then.

We are way off topic.

It does seem as if things sidetracked somewhat.

[HMS Vanguard]

What this law introduced then.

We are way off topic. Wishing for 1900 to magically come back is not going to fix the Middke East problems. Not is the reintroduction of colonialism a realistic idea.

You're right, we've gone much off-topic, but the basic point is not off-topic.

The US is losing because it is trying to build nations without exerting any force on the society as a whole. This doesn't work.

The US has three options to choose from, all basically 19th century tools:

1. Colonialism - reshape the culture by force.

2. Punitive expedition - explicitly declaim any responsibility for rebuilding the country. Smash whatever you want to smash and then leave, accepting that this will harm a lot of bystanders, and you won't offer them any help.

3. Isolationism - wash your hands of the problem entirely.

Right now what the US is doing is a mix of 2. and 3. Is that the best thing to be doing? Maybe, but it looks a lot like they are doing just enough damage to build up their profile as a target, without doing enough to actually deter anyone.

[Imperializt Russia]

We are way off topic. Wishing for 1900 to magically come back is not going to fix the Middke East problems. Not is the reintroduction of colonialism a realistic idea.

You're right, we've gone much off-topic, but the basic point is not off-topic.

The US is losing because it is trying to build nations without exerting any force on the society as a whole. This doesn't work.

The US has three options to choose from, all basically 19th century tools:

1. Colonialism - reshape the culture by force.

2. Punitive expedition - explicitly declaim any responsibility for rebuilding the country. Smash whatever you want to smash and then leave, accepting that this will harm a lot of bystanders, and you won't offer them any help.

3. Isolationism - wash your hands of the problem entirely.

Right now what the US is doing is a mix of 2. and 3. Is that the best thing to be doing? Maybe, but it looks a lot like they are doing just enough damage to build up their profile as a target, without doing enough to actually deter anyone.

Given that colonialism mashed together a bunch of conflicting ethnic and social groups together that really didn't like each other, I fail to see how a return to colonial practices will solve anything.

If you keep mashing mice with a hammer every time they crawl out the floorboards, it doesn't solve the mouse problem.

[Roski]

Yes. For a variety of reasons.

Despite the Kurdish sucesses, I think a lot fewer Kurds would die if they were directly under the support of the United States Army.

It is clear that Iraq needs the intelligence (and I mean, information, not, "OMG the iraqis are st00pid) provided by the Americans.

If the United States comes and actually fights, some of the people in the area (especially in Iraq) may have more hope in America than they do now.

If the United States deploys ground forces, and competently helps the region after the defeat of ISIS (as in, more than just occupying, like building schools and hospitals, then American influence may begin to return to large portions of the middle east. Bombing them, killing them, and leaving, while ignoring the conditions that make these terrorists cells thrive, is simply going to drag us back in.

[Valaran]

We are way off topic. Wishing for 1900 to magically come back is not going to fix the Middke East problems. Not is the reintroduction of colonialism a realistic idea.

You're right, we've gone much off-topic, but the basic point is not off-topic.

The US is losing because it is trying to build nations without exerting any force on the society as a whole. This doesn't work.

The US has three options to choose from, all basically 19th century tools:

1. Colonialism - reshape the culture by force.

2. Punitive expedition - explicitly declaim any responsibility for rebuilding the country. Smash whatever you want to smash and then leave, accepting that this will harm a lot of bystanders, and you won't offer them any help.

3. Isolationism - wash your hands of the problem entirely.

Right now what the US is doing is a mix of 2. and 3. Is that the best thing to be doing? Maybe, but it looks a lot like they are doing just enough damage to build up their profile as a target, without doing enough to actually deter anyone.

Those aren't the only options it has. For instance, it can rely on proxy forces with limited application of hard power - that is a much closer description of its current policy than a punitive expedition. Alternatively, it could (in theory) actually conduct a bout of intensive nation building and stabilisation, to some degree similar to current Pakistani related policies. Its overly reductive to limit its options to the 3 mentioned above.

[HMS Vanguard]

You're right, we've gone much off-topic, but the basic point is not off-topic.

The US is losing because it is trying to build nations without exerting any force on the society as a whole. This doesn't work.

The US has three options to choose from, all basically 19th century tools:

1. Colonialism - reshape the culture by force.

2. Punitive expedition - explicitly declaim any responsibility for rebuilding the country. Smash whatever you want to smash and then leave, accepting that this will harm a lot of bystanders, and you won't offer them any help.

3. Isolationism - wash your hands of the problem entirely.

Right now what the US is doing is a mix of 2. and 3. Is that the best thing to be doing? Maybe, but it looks a lot like they are doing just enough damage to build up their profile as a target, without doing enough to actually deter anyone.

Given that colonialism mashed together a bunch of conflicting ethnic and social groups together that really didn't like each other, I fail to see how a return to colonial practices will solve anything.

If you keep mashing mice with a hammer every time they crawl out the floorboards, it doesn't solve the mouse problem.

Colonialism works by creating a non-ethic state. You are not "mashing" anyone because they are just people who happen to live under the same ruler; they are in no sense citizens of a common polity.

It is instructive to view Saddam Hussein as a "native imperialist". Saddam was a member of a particular tribe - the Sunni Northerners - but his state was relatively non-sectarian. You could not vote, there was no politics, protesters will be shot, etc. On the one hand this is not nice, on the other it gives order which allows people to live their day to day lives in relative peace.

The US could replace Saddam Hussein, using similar methods, but instituting better policies. Some would still not be happy, particularly committed Islamists. But if the US could deliver South Korea (or Dubai!) levels of economic growth, most people would not greatly complain. Having built enough political capital, the US could start to make reforms in areas of education, women's rights, and secularisation that could kill Islamism in Iraq permanently.

The ethnic problem remains if the country must eventually become a democracy. But at that point a federation may also be possible, or simply dividing it into separate states. Provided they don't all start fighting one another, there's no problem with separate states, and if they have security of their own borders, no obvious reason for them to fight one another.

That however requires a 30+ year commitment, and it requires, in the medium term, illiberal and undemocratic methods. Is the US capable of that?

[The United Holy German Reich]

Given that colonialism mashed together a bunch of conflicting ethnic and social groups together that really didn't like each other, I fail to see how a return to colonial practices will solve anything.

If you keep mashing mice with a hammer every time they crawl out the floorboards, it doesn't solve the mouse problem.

Colonialism works by creating a non-ethic state. You are not "mashing" anyone because they are just people who happen to live under the same ruler; they are in no sense citizens of a common polity.

It is instructive to view Saddam Hussein as a "native imperialist". Saddam was a member of a particular tribe - the Sunni Northerners - but his state was relatively non-sectarian. You could not vote, there was no politics, protesters will be shot, etc. On the one hand this is not nice, on the other it gives order which allows people to live their day to day lives in relative peace.

The US could replace Saddam Hussein, using similar methods, but instituting better policies. Some would still not be happy, particularly committed Islamists. But if the US could deliver South Korea (or Dubai!) levels of economic growth, most people would not greatly complain. Having built enough political capital, the US could start to make reforms in areas of education, women's rights, and secularisation that could kill Islamism in Iraq permanently.

The ethnic problem remains if the country must eventually become a democracy. But at that point a federation may also be possible, or simply dividing it into separate states. Provided they don't all start fighting one another, there's no problem with separate states, and if they have security of their own borders, no obvious reason for them to fight one another.

That however requires a 30+ year commitment, and it requires, in the medium term, illiberal and undemocratic methods. Is the US capable of that?

Yes, they've done that quite often in history.

[Imperializt Russia]

Given that colonialism mashed together a bunch of conflicting ethnic and social groups together that really didn't like each other, I fail to see how a return to colonial practices will solve anything.

If you keep mashing mice with a hammer every time they crawl out the floorboards, it doesn't solve the mouse problem.

Colonialism works by creating a non-ethic state. You are not "mashing" anyone because they are just people who happen to live under the same ruler; they are in no sense citizens of a common polity.

It is instructive to view Saddam Hussein as a "native imperialist". Saddam was a member of a particular tribe - the Sunni Northerners - but his state was relatively non-sectarian. You could not vote, there was no politics, protesters will be shot, etc. On the one hand this is not nice, on the other it gives order which allows people to live their day to day lives in relative peace.

The US could replace Saddam Hussein, using similar methods, but instituting better policies. Some would still not be happy, particularly committed Islamists. But if the US could deliver South Korea (or Dubai!) levels of economic growth, most people would not greatly complain. Having built enough political capital, the US could start to make reforms in areas of education, women's rights, and secularisation that could kill Islamism in Iraq permanently.

The ethnic problem remains if the country must eventually become a democracy. But at that point a federation may also be possible, or simply dividing it into separate states. Provided they don't all start fighting one another, there's no problem with separate states, and if they have security of their own borders, no obvious reason for them to fight one another.

That however requires a 30+ year commitment, and it requires, in the medium term, illiberal and undemocratic methods. Is the US capable of that?

Iraq, like several of the more peacefully-inhibited former colonies in Africa, is an artificial construct, carved up by the former colonial powers. The same occurred in the Levant, before even modern Israel was carved out of it.

These artificial constructs, built to satisfy the imperial owners rather than a rational sense of local identity, tended to place multiple, often hostile ethnic or social groups in the same national borders.
This is why the Middle East and Africa are so plagued with sectarian violence. And why, when disputes in Europe were once settled through conquest, sectarian violence here used to be a lot more common. And, because of historical action, still occurs.

[The United Holy German Reich]

Colonialism works by creating a non-ethic state. You are not "mashing" anyone because they are just people who happen to live under the same ruler; they are in no sense citizens of a common polity.

It is instructive to view Saddam Hussein as a "native imperialist". Saddam was a member of a particular tribe - the Sunni Northerners - but his state was relatively non-sectarian. You could not vote, there was no politics, protesters will be shot, etc. On the one hand this is not nice, on the other it gives order which allows people to live their day to day lives in relative peace.

The US could replace Saddam Hussein, using similar methods, but instituting better policies. Some would still not be happy, particularly committed Islamists. But if the US could deliver South Korea (or Dubai!) levels of economic growth, most people would not greatly complain. Having built enough political capital, the US could start to make reforms in areas of education, women's rights, and secularisation that could kill Islamism in Iraq permanently.

The ethnic problem remains if the country must eventually become a democracy. But at that point a federation may also be possible, or simply dividing it into separate states. Provided they don't all start fighting one another, there's no problem with separate states, and if they have security of their own borders, no obvious reason for them to fight one another.

That however requires a 30+ year commitment, and it requires, in the medium term, illiberal and undemocratic methods. Is the US capable of that?

Iraq, like several of the more peacefully-inhibited former colonies in Africa, is an artificial construct, carved up by the former colonial powers. The same occurred in the Levant, before even modern Israel was carved out of it.

These artificial constructs, built to satisfy the imperial owners rather than a rational sense of local identity, tended to place multiple, often hostile ethnic or social groups in the same national borders.
This is why the Middle East and Africa are so plagued with sectarian violence. And why, when disputes in Europe were once settled through conquest, sectarian violence here used to be a lot more common. And, because of historical action, still occurs.

This ^^^

[Novus America]

Given that colonialism mashed together a bunch of conflicting ethnic and social groups together that really didn't like each other, I fail to see how a return to colonial practices will solve anything.

If you keep mashing mice with a hammer every time they crawl out the floorboards, it doesn't solve the mouse problem.

Colonialism works by creating a non-ethic state. You are not "mashing" anyone because they are just people who happen to live under the same ruler; they are in no sense citizens of a common polity.

It is instructive to view Saddam Hussein as a "native imperialist". Saddam was a member of a particular tribe - the Sunni Northerners - but his state was relatively non-sectarian. You could not vote, there was no politics, protesters will be shot, etc. On the one hand this is not nice, on the other it gives order which allows people to live their day to day lives in relative peace.

The US could replace Saddam Hussein, using similar methods, but instituting better policies. Some would still not be happy, particularly committed Islamists. But if the US could deliver South Korea (or Dubai!) levels of economic growth, most people would not greatly complain. Having built enough political capital, the US could start to make reforms in areas of education, women's rights, and secularisation that could kill Islamism in Iraq permanently.

The ethnic problem remains if the country must eventually become a democracy. But at that point a federation may also be possible, or simply dividing it into separate states. Provided they don't all start fighting one another, there's no problem with separate states, and if they have security of their own borders, no obvious reason for them to fight one another.

That however requires a 30+ year commitment, and it requires, in the medium term, illiberal and undemocratic methods. Is the US capable of that?

Capable? Sure. We did in the Phillipines. But we do not want to spend that much time and money on Iraq.

[Novus America]

Colonialism works by creating a non-ethic state. You are not "mashing" anyone because they are just people who happen to live under the same ruler; they are in no sense citizens of a common polity.

It is instructive to view Saddam Hussein as a "native imperialist". Saddam was a member of a particular tribe - the Sunni Northerners - but his state was relatively non-sectarian. You could not vote, there was no politics, protesters will be shot, etc. On the one hand this is not nice, on the other it gives order which allows people to live their day to day lives in relative peace.

The US could replace Saddam Hussein, using similar methods, but instituting better policies. Some would still not be happy, particularly committed Islamists. But if the US could deliver South Korea (or Dubai!) levels of economic growth, most people would not greatly complain. Having built enough political capital, the US could start to make reforms in areas of education, women's rights, and secularisation that could kill Islamism in Iraq permanently.

The ethnic problem remains if the country must eventually become a democracy. But at that point a federation may also be possible, or simply dividing it into separate states. Provided they don't all start fighting one another, there's no problem with separate states, and if they have security of their own borders, no obvious reason for them to fight one another.

That however requires a 30+ year commitment, and it requires, in the medium term, illiberal and undemocratic methods. Is the US capable of that?

Iraq, like several of the more peacefully-inhibited former colonies in Africa, is an artificial construct, carved up by the former colonial powers. The same occurred in the Levant, before even modern Israel was carved out of it.

These artificial constructs, built to satisfy the imperial owners rather than a rational sense of local identity, tended to place multiple, often hostile ethnic or social groups in the same national borders.
This is why the Middle East and Africa are so plagued with sectarian violence. And why, when disputes in Europe were once settled through conquest, sectarian violence here used to be a lot more common. And, because of historical action, still occurs.

Which is why we should consider new borders. Of course the actually implementing them becomes complicated.

[Imperializt Russia]

Iraq, like several of the more peacefully-inhibited former colonies in Africa, is an artificial construct, carved up by the former colonial powers. The same occurred in the Levant, before even modern Israel was carved out of it.

These artificial constructs, built to satisfy the imperial owners rather than a rational sense of local identity, tended to place multiple, often hostile ethnic or social groups in the same national borders.
This is why the Middle East and Africa are so plagued with sectarian violence. And why, when disputes in Europe were once settled through conquest, sectarian violence here used to be a lot more common. And, because of historical action, still occurs.

Which is why we should consider new borders. Of course the actually implementing them becomes complicated.

Arab and pan-Arab nationalism is a very new thing in the Middle East, but the worrying thing is that it's taking off.
Which will mean opposition to efforts to redraw the borders...

Which will inherently be done by the former colonial powers...
Which will incite its own opposition.

[Leudal (Ancient)]

True true but i think this very much counts for all sides. Even Daesh and the FSA aren't capable of holding all of Syria. Probably a good reason for the government, the FSA and the Kurds to get around a deal. Perhaps that's even the reason why the government forces currently go after the major supplylines. Its a pretty good way to de-motivate rebels and it would give him a good edge in any talks about peace. But i suppose it remains to be seen what everybody there is going to do.

Its true Assad and IS aren't moving against eachother that much, or at least not until recently, more or less starting with the government advances on Aleppo. And as for Deir ez-Zour, it would be pretty interesting to see how that goes. If the Syrian army indeed manages to reclaim it it would be a serious blow to Daesh, cutting a pretty important route from Ar-Raqqah towards Mosul might be just what both the government, rebels and Kurds need. Ofcourse Iraq would benefit from it aswell, something that might also proof vital as i'm wondering what the Popular Mobilization Forces (Mainly the big shia players) are going to do after Daesh faced its defeat in Iraq. If they would continue their fight into Syria it would be a pretty big boost for the government there. I feel we just have to wait and see how these things are going to play out but in the end something needs to happen as neither side seems to be capable of making the big gains they want to make.



Things would indeed still be a mess but i doubt it would be at the point where it is now. In the end the only thing outside of foreign meddling that ruins the region are the internal powerstruggles between Iran, Saudi-Arabia and to some extend Turkey.
I feel that as long as these powerstruggles continue conflicts will continue to escalate and will continue to dominate the Middle-East for the coming decades.
I think it depends on what you call a workable plan. A big problem i noticed is that they are often pressured to push for a western style democracy, a kind of democracy i don't think really works for them, if only for the ethnic, religious and tribal tentions in many of these nations. They should instead be pressured and pushed to set up a form of government that makes sure everybody has a say in matters while still keeping some level of democratic value to it.

Why? Raging civil wars happened without intervention. The Libyan intervention was not great, but it did turn a violent civil war into a more peaceful stand off. The problems are certainly more than just external power struggles. The economy, and education systems for example.

I actually do prefer Jordan's system over trying to force western democracy.

They actually don't. For a civil war to hold any chance of success one needs supplies, supplies that are pretty much always provided by foreign powers. In the case of Libya this was mainly the US and France.
Unless the majority of the military supports the rebels there is no civil war that can be successful without foreign nations meddling in it.
The problems though are indeed far more than just foreign nations chosing sides, i mean, if there isn't a problem a civil war won't happen even if a foreign states wants it. But that's the problem we've got here. The middle-east has many problems, some indeed revolving around economic and educational matters, others related to tribal, ethnic or religious matters. The problem is that each time one rises up against the other, foreign powers meddle in it, chose a side and help them to power who on their turn take revenge on those that ruled over them, making them the opressed, resulting in another struggle and another reason for a future conflict. This is what has to stop and it honestly cannot be stopped by foreign powers or a western democracy. It will take alot of time but in the end they have to do it themselves and foreign nations should only go as far as supporting them in achieving a stable, fair and equal nation. As long as there is no unity amongst the population, a western democracy is one of the worst things that can come to them.

[Novus America]

Which is why we should consider new borders. Of course the actually implementing them becomes complicated.

Arab and pan-Arab nationalism is a very new thing in the Middle East, but the worrying thing is that it's taking off.
Which will mean opposition to efforts to redraw the borders...

Which will inherently be done by the former colonial powers...
Which will incite its own opposition.

Yeah. Pretty much. Problem is people do not want to make the neccesary changes. We have pan Arabism and rising Shia Sunni tension at the same time. Kill all the heretics seems to be rising faster.

But as a bone to the pan Arabists one option would be a United Arab Kingdom of Jordan, Sunni Syria, and Sunni Iraq.

[Imperializt Russia]

Arab and pan-Arab nationalism is a very new thing in the Middle East, but the worrying thing is that it's taking off.
Which will mean opposition to efforts to redraw the borders...

Which will inherently be done by the former colonial powers...
Which will incite its own opposition.

Yeah. Pretty much. Problem is people do not want to make the neccesary changes. We have pan Arabism and rising Shia Sunni tension at the same time. Kill all the heretics seems to be rising faster.

But as a bone to the pan Arabists one option would be a United Arab Kingdom of Jordan, Sunni Syria, and Sunni Iraq.

Do the Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq even line up, let alone match up with Jordan? I honestly don't know.

Ba'athism, what the Assad family and what Saddam preached, and also Gadaffi I think (amongst others), was a pan-Arab socialist movement.

[Novus America]

Why? Raging civil wars happened without intervention. The Libyan intervention was not great, but it did turn a violent civil war into a more peaceful stand off. The problems are certainly more than just external power struggles. The economy, and education systems for example.

I actually do prefer Jordan's system over trying to force western democracy.

They actually don't. For a civil war to hold any chance of success one needs supplies, supplies that are pretty much always provided by foreign powers. In the case of Libya this was mainly the US and France.
Unless the majority of the military supports the rebels there is no civil war that can be successful without foreign nations meddling in it.
The problems though are indeed far more than just foreign nations chosing sides, i mean, if there isn't a problem a civil war won't happen even if a foreign states wants it. But that's the problem we've got here. The middle-east has many problems, some indeed revolving around economic and educational matters, others related to tribal, ethnic or religious matters. The problem is that each time one rises up against the other, foreign powers meddle in it, chose a side and help them to power who on their turn take revenge on those that ruled over them, making them the opressed, resulting in another struggle and another reason for a future conflict. This is what has to stop and it honestly cannot be stopped by foreign powers or a western democracy. It will take alot of time but in the end they have to do it themselves and foreign nations should only go as far as supporting them in achieving a stable, fair and equal nation. As long as there is no unity amongst the population, a western democracy is one of the worst things that can come to them.

In Syrua and Libya the rebels got supplies long before the West got involved. From defecting troops and taking territory. The pro US government in Egypt fell too. Otherwise I mostly agree.

We can provide some support, air support, logistical technical, training, intelligence and legal specialists, etc. But in the end we cannot fix the Arab's problems for them. They need to get it together and start working on it.

[Valaran]

Yeah. Pretty much. Problem is people do not want to make the neccesary changes. We have pan Arabism and rising Shia Sunni tension at the same time. Kill all the heretics seems to be rising faster.

But as a bone to the pan Arabists one option would be a United Arab Kingdom of Jordan, Sunni Syria, and Sunni Iraq.

Do the Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq even line up, let alone match up with Jordan? I honestly don't know.

They do, but that's not the only division - there are also tribal ones, so its still far fetched.

[Leudal (Ancient)]

They actually don't. For a civil war to hold any chance of success one needs supplies, supplies that are pretty much always provided by foreign powers. In the case of Libya this was mainly the US and France.
Unless the majority of the military supports the rebels there is no civil war that can be successful without foreign nations meddling in it.
The problems though are indeed far more than just foreign nations chosing sides, i mean, if there isn't a problem a civil war won't happen even if a foreign states wants it. But that's the problem we've got here. The middle-east has many problems, some indeed revolving around economic and educational matters, others related to tribal, ethnic or religious matters. The problem is that each time one rises up against the other, foreign powers meddle in it, chose a side and help them to power who on their turn take revenge on those that ruled over them, making them the opressed, resulting in another struggle and another reason for a future conflict. This is what has to stop and it honestly cannot be stopped by foreign powers or a western democracy. It will take alot of time but in the end they have to do it themselves and foreign nations should only go as far as supporting them in achieving a stable, fair and equal nation. As long as there is no unity amongst the population, a western democracy is one of the worst things that can come to them.

In Syrua and Libya the rebels got supplies long before the West got involved. From defecting troops and taking territory. The pro US government in Egypt fell too. Otherwise I mostly agree.

We can provide some support, air support, logistical technical, training, intelligence and legal specialists, etc. But in the end we cannot fix the Arab's problems for them. They need to get it together and start working on it.

True, but those supplies were hardly enough to ensure any victory over the governments, which is why foreign support is such a big deal in these kinds of situations.

I fully agree.

[Imperializt Russia]

Do the Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq even line up, let alone match up with Jordan? I honestly don't know.

They do, but that's not the only division - there are also tribal ones, so its still far fetched.

It'd probably be an improvement of sorts.

[Novus America]

Yeah. Pretty much. Problem is people do not want to make the neccesary changes. We have pan Arabism and rising Shia Sunni tension at the same time. Kill all the heretics seems to be rising faster.

But as a bone to the pan Arabists one option would be a United Arab Kingdom of Jordan, Sunni Syria, and Sunni Iraq.

Do the Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq even line up, let alone match up with Jordan? I honestly don't know.

Ba'athism, what the Assad family and what Saddam preached, and also Gadaffi I think (amongst others), was a pan-Arab socialist movement.

Yes, but Baathism is pretty heavily discredited.

Actually the line up perfectly geographically. Otherwise maybe. A UK like sturture with each kingdom being somewhat autonomous could be used too.

No garauntees, but it might work. The King of Jordan and his family have a lot of credibility and family connections amongst the Sunni tribes in the area, and ruled Iraq and Syria at one point.

The Kingdom of Iraq worked okay until the Baathist coup.

[Leudal (Ancient)]

Do the Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq even line up, let alone match up with Jordan? I honestly don't know.

They do, but that's not the only division - there are also tribal ones, so its still far fetched.

They only really do if you desire a country that looks like Swiss cheese though...

[Novus America]

They do, but that's not the only division - there are also tribal ones, so its still far fetched.

They only really do if you desire a country that looks like Swiss cheese though...

South Africa does. It can happen. But some form of Federation is possible to.

[Genivaria]

Which is why we should consider new borders. Of course the actually implementing them becomes complicated.

Arab and pan-Arab nationalism is a very new thing in the Middle East, but the worrying thing is that it's taking off.
Which will mean opposition to efforts to redraw the borders...

Which will inherently be done by the former colonial powers...
Which will incite its own opposition.

The reality that noone wants to talk about is that Europe's own borders were established over hundreds of years of violence and bloodshed between Europeans.

As horrible as it would be to be true it's entirely possible that violence and bloodshed is a prerequisite for the foundation of a stable nation-state.
Name one modern nation that didn't have war and violence in order to unite the citizenry against the 'other'.

[Valaran]

tbh, whenever a partition is suggested, I think these maps demonstrate why it might be impractical:
(unless people feel like ethnic cleansing, that is)

It seems like the best plan, but I'd argue that its too messy to achieve. Here an ethnic map, compared with a religious one. I'd note that these are actually simplified versions - here's a more detailed one of Syria, for instance, and one of Iraq. Several places, including very important areas (I didn't give a map of oil reserves) have mixed populations espcially urban centres (the Iraq one didn't even bother to show how Baghdad was divided). Even if we had complete authority, to partition things fairly would be practically impossible, and any such division would likely lead to all sides trying to claim as much territory as possible, leading to renewed fighting if not outright genocide (what happened in Israel, Yugoslavia and India-Pakistan sets some chilling precedents).

Taking a leaf out of the Arab Nationalists book, their idea was to transcend religious and ethnic boundaries by supplanting it with national identities. In many cases, they did it wrong, incorrectly thinking that military industrial complexes, bureaucracy and cronyism, a hatred of Israel and populism were sustainable methods of creating these national identities (in reality ones needs careful development of governmental institutions and the like), but perhaps this idea is the one we should be advising?

[Imperializt Russia]

Arab and pan-Arab nationalism is a very new thing in the Middle East, but the worrying thing is that it's taking off.
Which will mean opposition to efforts to redraw the borders...

Which will inherently be done by the former colonial powers...
Which will incite its own opposition.

The reality that noone wants to talk about is that Europe's own borders were established over hundreds of years of violence and bloodshed between Europeans.

As horrible as it would be to be true it's entirely possible that violence and bloodshed is a prerequisite for the foundation of a stable nation-state.
Name one modern nation that didn't have war and violence in order to unite the citizenry against the 'other'.

Only in the sense that we have since outgrown that and have thrown up a bunch of international institutions specifically to discourage that violence from occurring because we were so fucking horrified of what we fucking did to ourselves last time.

And then repeated it a few times because as a species we're fucking awful at learning lessons.