OT:US don't qualify for EU membership, don't spank children, WW2 history.

[jimbob]

If you're a big buff of Samuel Huntington (Clash of Civilizations) you would suppose that the best thing the world could experience right now would be the production of a strong/leading Islamic nation who is developed enough to desire stability and prosperity. This civilizational leader would work to keep the smaller nations and Groups within it's civilizational group "in line", giving them some rope to play, but also having the ability to reel them in when they embarass the civilization on the global stage.

However, at this time there isn't a civilizational leader for the Islamic states. Iran is getting close, but doesn't have the necessary wealth and military strength, the Saudi's in Arabia have the financial capability but not the population base to ever create a military that is relevant... Indonesia perhaps in a few decades could fill this role, but it is fairly distant from the other nations in their civilization (geographically and ethnically speaking) so would have a tougher time leading the pack, so to speak.

While Huntington would suggest that unification of the civilization behind a leader would actually decrease the amount of conflict, he does note that demographically the majority of Islamic states are currently "volatile" due to their average/mean age. I think that this is a bit of a challenge to the dominant western view that these nations most desperately need to experience an elevation in their standard of living - and that such an elevation would result in an almost automatic cessation of suicide bombings and local wars. While I personally believe that an increase in their standard of living would help (c.f. the suicide bomber numbers from the ethnic Palistinians living in Isreal vs. those living in the as-yet to be declared Palistine), I do also believe that a country with a population with an average age below 25 will be far more hot headed than those with higher aged populations. If you don't believe me, check and see what the average ages of France and the Colonies were at the time of their revolutions. Oh, and the Iranian revolution too. Old guys led, but young punks did all the heavy lifting

With this in mind, I don't think the current American administrations' ideas are all that stupid. There is no probable leader of the Islamic "bloc" in the near future, and the populations need time to age, have children (responsibilites) and settle down. Making them more wealthy will not in-and-of-itself make for peace. Apeasing with land is not the only answer. I think Bush and crowd are just hoping to keep the lid on the whole thing, and let things simmer down a bit - the old fashioned way: let people grow old!

Plus the fact that Iraq just came off having a horrible dictator (so some gratitude for "liberation", at least as compared to how Iranians would have responded) and that the nation has some degree of history with the separation of church and state/government secularism makes Iraq the "most likely to succeed" middle eastern nation when it comes to having a successful democracy. (Let it be noted that there are only three democratic Islamic states at this time: Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia, all at the edges of the Islamic geographical world. Imagine the effect of having one in the centre!!)

I think the administration is gambling on the reformation of Iraq into a democratic, wealthy, powerful, centralized Islamic leader. The Iraqi are a fierce and proud people, unlikely to follow, but very likely to lead... If only they could
i) become democratic (and thus self-interested and thus interested in stability and peace)
ii) stay democratic until the majority of the population is old enough to want a better future for their children via economic growth rather than the destruction of their "oppressor(s)"
iii) begin interacting on the international stage to the degree that they become inter-dependent with the leaders of other civilizational Groups.

Edit: Oh, and I believe the majority of Muslims would believe that "sparing the rod" is a poor way to develop one's children into mature, God-obeying members of a society. I don't think many would qualify for EU membership if non-spanking legislation is a requirement

[ July 31, 2003, 17:50: Message edited by: jimbob ]