In response to:

The Natural Map of the Middle East

ISC-AH Wrote: Aug 07, 2012 10:43 PM
The elephant in the room. The ugly truth is that most countries in the middle east and africa really don't exist, except in the mind of the despotic ruling class. However, rather than fear the disintegration we need to welcome it. These countries are inherently instable as long as the are held together. Is Libya ungovernable. but would Tripolitania, Cyrenaica (Barca) and Fezzan be more stable in the long run? Would Iraq be more stable if it separated into its Sunni, Shia and Kurdish Nations? In the long run, the break up of these countries is not a threat to either Israel or the United States, since the hatred of both in nutured in a effort to unit disparate peoples. However, in the short run it will be a rough ride.
ISC-AH Wrote: Aug 07, 2012 11:01 PM
Consider the example of Yugoslavia, a country held together by the oppresive Tito regime. Once it broke up in a series on vicious wars, it organized itself into a series of nations along its natural boundries. Some became cruise ship destinations within a few years of the fighting dying down. Only Bosnia, held together by a NATO presence, is inherently unstable. Al Qaeda's dream of a multinational caliphate is suceptable to the same pressures. The Suni Arabs are no more capable of uniting as one nation than the Protestant Europeans three centuries ago.
ksatifka Wrote: Aug 08, 2012 1:37 PM
While speaking of the breakup of much smaller nations, is it politically incorrect to muse that the US might be better off today if the tyrant Lincoln had allowed the South to peacefully secede as they wanted to? It was also their constitutional right. Slavery would have fallen without 600,000 American deaths, as it was abolished in most countries without war.
ISC-AH Wrote: Aug 08, 2012 8:23 PM
Actually it was the south the began hostilities by firing on Ft Sumpter. Had they shown some restraint, they could have given themselves time to organize a government and an army that would have preserved their independence. Counterfactuals aside, the issue was slavery not national identity. Southerners consider themselves Americans, not Confederates. This is not the case in many countries where citizens of country idenify with the ethnicity (a nation), not their country. Despite being under British rule for centuries, the Catholics in Ireland saw themselves as Irish, not British. That is the difference between a natual boundary and a political boundary. Actually, Mr Outsider, you proved my point.
"Apart from political maps of mankind, there are natural maps of mankind. ... One of the first laws of political stability is to draw your political boundaries along the lines of the natural map of mankind."

So wrote H.G. Wells in "What Is Coming: A Forecast of Things to Come After the War" in the year of Verdun and the Somme Offensive.

In redrawing the map of Europe, however, the statesmen of Versailles ignored Wells and parceled out Austrians, Hungarians, Germans and other nationalities to alien lands to divide, punish and weaken the defeated peoples.

So doing...