Professional Soldiers ® - Two sides of the same dog turd..

Here are two articles from AFM written in 2006. .

Given today's turmoil in Iraq, they make an Interesting read.

I also included the map that were in the original Peters post..

Quote:

Blood borders, How a better Middle East would look
Ralph Peters,June 1, 2006

International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa’s borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.

continued:

Quote:

The fallacy behind Ralph Peters’ new Middle East map
Sukan Gurkaynak, September 1, 2006

The fallacy behind Ralph Peters’ new Middle East map is the presumption that there is something the U.S. can do to make the Middle East accept U.S. domination [“Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look,” June].

Taking away land from existing states would certainly weaken the people who annoy the U.S. today, but why should an oil-rich Shiite Arab state not try to take over leadership of the Muslim world? Why should Kurdistan stay pro-American after the first euphoria has worn off? The Kurds have spent their history fighting each other and everybody else; why presume that that will end? Turkey has been a key U.S. ally for 60 years, and Peters is proposing that that be rewarded by dismantling her. Why should anybody want to be a U.S. ally if you do that?

Peace in the Middle East ended in 1918 when Britain took over Turkey’s Arabic-speaking territories with the intention of stealing their oil. It will not return until the oil revenue is used to finance the economic development of the Middle East instead of being invested in faraway lands.

Ralph Peters responds:

Mr. Gurkaynak and many others read my article through the distorting lens of Turkish nationalism — with which I have had my share of unpleasant first-hand encounters. Even then, he did not read it closely. At no point does the article suggest that the U.S. can and should redraw the Middle East’s borders. We can’t, and we won’t. The article sought to portray the way the Middle East would look if the people, rather than dictators and oppressive states, determined the lines on the maps. It was meant to sober the American political establishment, not to inspire it to extravagant deeds. I do believe, as the article stated, that the U.S. made a tragic mistake by trying to keep the ineptly constructed state of Iraq intact; beyond that, the article merely states the truth: Flawed borders generate violent conflicts, within states and among them. Redrawing the map of the Middle East on paper sought to force U.S. decision-makers, diplomats and military leaders to think beyond the traumas of the moment in order to understand how deep and intractable the Middle East’s problems are and shall remain. Rather than instigating American attempts at domination, the point was to clarify how difficult any efforts at changing the collapsed civilization of the Middle East would be. It was meant as a warning to blithe Americans, not to sensitive Turks.

continued: