If the U.S. removed its presence in the Middle East.....

Did you read the article in the link I supplied?

 

The Middle East is just a long simmering dispute over family inheritance.

 

Maybe we should pull out of the Middle East and remove our hand from Isreal. Let Isreal wreck havoc in the region and remove all threat of anyone else developing nuclear weapons and send them back into tribal warfare -- isolated to their own region.

 

I don't have much contention with what you said, except that I believe the public underestimates the diversity of the ME and of those practicing Islam. The public even underestimates the diversity of terrorists. The vast majority are not like Al Queda who actually target non-local targets (e.g., US soil).

In Iraq now there certainly are a lot more fanatical terrorists there who now see the US as enemy #1 relative to before the war, both terrorist groups arriving from other countries and those somehwat home grown. IMO it would certainly be harder to do effective humanitarian aid (without it being intercepted by, or those takers being intimated by, groups hell bent against US influence at all costs) in Iraq and probably other ME places right now than before the war--I think Mr Bightside's point as well.

 

I did. It seems like a great idea, especially in an area where $200 is a substantial amount of money. That has little bearing on what I said, other than a little bit of commentary at the end from the prize committee, who made a general statement that lasting peace cannot exist without people having a stake in their communities. I liked the article, and think Yunus is a much better recipient than some former winners of this award *cough*Arafat*cough*, but that really doesn't affect my point that we should not give money to terrorists and their supporters.

 

In the short run yes in the long run no.

If the US pulled out of the MidEast there will be those who are upset that we left a huge mess in Iraq and those who see it as a victory and insist on pressing the fight further. I don't believe that those people who want to keep on fighting against the US will be able to maintain support for very long and what will happen is that eventually the people of the Middle East will have to look at their own situations instead of blaming outside oppressors. IMO that will lead to reform. Israel will far survive as they are by far the strongest military power I predict without US support though there will be a resolution to the conflict largely involving giving back most if not all of the occupied territories as Israel won't be able to economically support occupation, building and defending settlements.

The problem though I see with saying that we have to stay to guarentee peace and security is the fallacy that the US can manage the Middle East. As others have pointed out the Middle East is complicated but as long as the US maintains a paternalistic attitude about the region there are bound to be negative repurcussions.

 

I think Iraqis are tough enough to fight for their freedom, but it might be a different 'freedom' than the one we're promoting.

Anyways, it is just not that simple, even if we leave Iraq we will be involved in the region for the foreseeable future, and for practical reasons. We really have no choice.

However, what we can do is alter our approach to the region and may be 'fine tune' some aspects of our foreign policy.