Aside from Israel, perhaps, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait what has the US done to maintain the unnatural borders.
There are many. Iraq, Yugoslavia, Nigeria, Pakistan-each a Frankentstien's monster of a country, cobbled together. Somalia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia were imagined as states where only tribes existed. Tribes found themselves split between German, Potruguese, Italian, and English masters, between merciless Belgians and French. It was the opposite in other places - tribes or religious communities with histories of gory rivalry found themselves bound together within a colony destined to become a blood-soaked state. Iraq is an example of one of these Frankentstien's monster states that is unable to sustain a sense of "peace" without that brutal dictator enforcing his prescription.
After WWII, Russia started the race of influence and America joined in the struggle to maintain a balance. We foolishly strived to maintain any existing order as long as it pledged allegiance to us and not to communism. We got so used to this form of statescraft and our obsession with intact borders, no matter the flaws of origin, became so great that a Republican secretary of state tried to persuade the splintering Soviet Union to remain whole-after we had finally cracked it apart. Then his Democratic successor insisted that Yugoslavia must remain intact. In Somalia we pretended that a shifting constellation of tribes was a country. In the Balkans, even now, we pretend that Kosovo might again be a happy extension of Serbia (despite Kosovo's insurmountable internal divisions). And instead of dividing Iraq into its natural fault lines, Marines and soldiers are dying to maintain bounderies agreed upon by a Frenchman and an Englishman a century ago.
We are fighting wars that either we cannot win in the long run or that we can win only at great costs. I've said this before. We are in an age of devolution, of breakdown, of the last dismantling of empires. The world has been made wrong and the world is changing volcanically. We are pretending that the status quo can be maintained but this defies bith history and the immediate evidence. Borders have always changed. The only question today, is how they will change.
We
have to start listening to the will of the people.
Kuwait is arguably an unnatural border. Were we wrong to defend that unnatural border too?
The populaiton of Kuwait gets along very well together. This unnatural border is not a problem and not so unnatural (it's lkike a line between two U.S. states.). But, our involvement with Kuwait was a problem for Osama Bin Ladden and his agents of terror of Al-Queda.
So how does it help US policy by undertaking actions that reinforce what these teachers are preaching?
Again...how exactly did saving Muslims in Kuwait anger Al-Queda so? And how does any nation cause a tsunami that kills countless Muslims? Without a good reason, they simply lie and twist facts. For too long we have allowed the fear of angering people that already have been indoctrinated to hate us. We may as well do somthing that will help them and will give us better security in the end.
I disagree that the Shia/Sunni hatred (if that is to what you were referring) is simply a matter of Islam. Shia and Sunni beliefs are very close, on the same par as Catholics and Protestants. And there have been times when Catholics and Protestants warred. But the real struggle is about power, not intra-Islamic fighting based on religious beliefs. To try to assign the power struggle between Shia and Sunni in Iraq as a simple matter of religion is an attempt to shift the blame for that power struggle for US policy in Iraq, which deposed one group from power in favor of the other.
Sunni and Shi'it in Iraq are fighting for a secular prize: political domination. This schism began 14 centuries ago in 632A.D. after Muhammed died without naming a successor as leader of the new Muslims flock. Some of his believers (future Shi'ite) believed the role of Caliphate should be passed down Muhammed's bloodline, starting with his cousin and son-in-law. But the majority (Sunni) backed the Prophet's friend Abu Bakr. The next few decades would define the seperation between the sects. They have been in a fourteen century struggle for the identity of Islam and for political control over Muhammed's community. And this struggle is very much a part of these governments. Today's Iraq (which Bush stumbled into) is the direct representation of this feud. There is a very well written book called "
The Shia Revival" that explains all of this. It was written by a Muslim professor of Middle East and South Asia politics. He is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. His name is
Vali Nasr.
I keep telling you that this is not a simple issue. Our biggest sin is our ignorance to understand this culture. And this sin has extended as high as the White House for decades.
