The Cure for Middle East Turmoil: Decentralization
Ivan Eland explores the one option hardly anyone has proposed for ending ethno-sectarian violence in the Middle East: voluntary, peaceful decentralization and partition:
The hard truth is that at this juncture, these countries, as currently configured on a map, may be ungovernable without authoritarian leaders to prevent anarchy. Yet unlike Egypt – in which the divisiveness is over whether the state should govern using religious principles or secular ones – the conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Iraq are more tribally based or ethno-sectarian in nature. The latter three may be more solvable without the need for a despot, elected or not, at the helm. In Libya, instead of trying to strengthen the central government after the despotic Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow, perhaps instead the existing situation on the ground of many tribal militias governing certain local areas should simply be ratified. Such decentralized governance might prevent a civil war in which competing groups attempt to control a stronger government to prevent it from being used to oppress their group.Many peoples in the Middle East are still feeling the shock waves from having their borders drawn up for them by triumphant European powers. In those cases, the aim was to prevent the formation of social capital in these nations, the idea being that without unity, they would be more easily manipulated. Here in the multi-cultural DC Empire, the same idea is being implemented in reverse order. DC is importing hostile groups from around the globe to deliberately weaken existing social capital, again, to make it easier for the government to control the population. And of course, that's exactly where we're headed. For example, our handlers point to Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev to justify more citizen surveillance and the further erosion of that pesky Bill of Rights -- never mind that DC-sponsored Muslim immigration is the underlying problem.