A United States of Islam in the Middle East?

Something very big is going on in the Middle East. This is not about an inflammatory film or a political assassination in Libya. Rather, recent events confirm that throughout the Muslim world, radical Islam is on the march. The radical Muslims have figured out a much better strategy than the Al Qaeda strategy of the past decade. Instead of terrorist acts aimed at directly wounding the “far enemy,” namely the United States, Islamic radicals are using democracy and public protest to defeat the “near enemy,” namely their own autocratic governments, and seize power. Remarkably President Obama seems to be responding in a way that helps the Islamic radicals, and the vital question is why.

I believe I can answer these questions and explain Obama’s double standards. The key is to realize that Obama isn’t a fool. He isn’t getting results opposite to the ones he intends; rather, he intends the results he’s getting. He said during his inaugural speech that he wanted to remake America and transform its place in the world, and this is exactly what he is doing.

Obama’s is an anti-colonialist, an ideology he adopted from his Kenyan father.

he subscribes to an ideology that considers it a good thing for America’s influence to be reduced. Obama wants to reduce America’s footprint in the world because he believes we have been stepping on the world.

He wants to undermine America’s allies and leave in place regimes that are indifferent or hostile to America. This is what the anti-colonial ideology predicts he would do, and this is what his actions show he is doing. No wonder that in recent days Obama seems more concerned with containing America than with acting decisively against the hostile forces of radical Islam in the Middle East.

They are... and they aren't. How can the Shiites and Sunnis co-exist under a united theocracy?

The Sunnis are working on that right now with Syria, and by proxy, Iran. This was something a few FReepers predicted several years ago, after we invaded Iraq in 2003.

With Iraq effectively divided/out of the running thanks to our invasion and a pseudo civil war backed by Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, and with Azerbaijan tied up (or tied together) with Armenia/Russia/Turkey, and Azerbaijan being cozy with the Israelis anyways for whatever reason, that leaves Iran and Syria as the only two clear Shiite-led countries/allies that can help each other.

And right now Iran is starting to have to pump a lot more troops and other resources into Syria to keep the Shiites in power. I don't think Iran can keep Syria propped up over the long haul. If Syria falls, Iran finds itself relatively isolated with no major friends, and Sunnis looking for revenge for Iran's support of the Shiite powers in Syria and Iraq.

I'm beginning to think all of Iran's talk about Israel is nothing but them trying to distract their population from the coming Sunni/Shiite civil war or trying to win Sunnis to their side.

It's becoming clear that Iran's biggest concern is the Sunni problem, and it's becoming even more clear that Iran is not as powerful as they like to think they are. If they can't keep Syria's Shiite government in power, and if Saudi Arabia keeps funneling money, weapons, and even recruits in to fight the Shiites, things are going to get really hot in the ME.

It makes me wonder sometimes if Iran's nuclear program is more for their survival against the Sunnis. A question that not many are asking is would the Shiites, if backed into a corner by Sunnis who are intent on killing or converting them by force, drop a nuke on Sunnis?

You are a real downer this morning. Try this one on for size...
The Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc, etc, is THE defining document of HUMAN RIGHTS bar none. Want to know what American exceptionalism is? It is contained in those ten amendments.
Our foreign policy SHOULD be based upon installing, encouraging, cajoling and spreading those ideals to every corner of the globe.
The problem with “the people” putting a jihadist regime in power is that radical Islam’s beliefs are ANTITHETICAL to the ideals of the Bill of Rights, and therefore, anathema to a free people.

So we go to war to force peoples to be free.

The obvious question is, “Free to do what?”

And the obvious answer is, “Whatever they want to do.”

The notion of us forcing people to be free to do what we want them to do is more than slightly oxymoronic.

I actually agree with you. What you are describing is not democracy, it is civil society and rule of law.

Civil society and rule of law has existed under a variety of systems of government. Its general connection with democracy, which means rule by the people, has been only because democracy has historically been the only way of maintaining civil society for an extended period.

But we really have no effective way to force civil society on cultures that don’t want it. Attempting to do so would by definition kill the very freedom we’re trying to spread.

Unfortunately.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.