should the west be involved in the middle east?

Question

should the west be involved in the middle east and i want to hear from both view.

Answer 1

its really important for them to do so...the middle east is the hub of natural resources...the west should let itslef be blackmailed by the unstable democracies in the middleeast who are working with terrorists....not only the west but the whole of the world should be concerned about it.

Answer 2

The West must be concerned with what is happening in the Middle East now. The crisis is the concern of everybody considering that it involves world peace and supply of oil.

Answer 3

That's a pretty wide open question. How about, "Should the West be in the Middle East, or should they have a physical troop presence in the Middle East." I think no. It's a newly evolved stage in colonialism.

Answer 4

In essence, the real question is not should the West, and the United States in particular, be involved in the Middle East, for as long as Israel is important in American domestic politics and petroleum is important to our economy we surely will be. Right or wrong those are just geopolitical facts. The problem with the current American policy in the Middle East is that it was founded on an essentially Wilsonian and astonishingly liberal view of human nature for an administration that claimed to be as conservative as the Bush Administration. The president came to believe, along with his neoconservative advisers, that the application of American military and economic power in one Middle Eastern Arab country--Iraq--could be successful in transforming a dictatorial, basically tribal society into a democratic, free market, modern nation-state in less than a single generation. This was a startling notion for conservatives, whose intellectual tradition as passed down from the time of the French Revolution was that human societies can only truly change as part of a long process of cultural evolution, not as the result of any attempt to reorder them radically through intentional changes. I do not believe that the Arab people are incapable of developing and enjoying the fruits of democracy and the free market, but this is a process that they must undergo through their own choices, not by having them imposed from without and according to a model that may not work for the particular conditions of the Arab world. The West, and the United States in particular, seems to transmit its values best when it serves as an example of what can be achieved for other peoples to emulate rather than seeking to actively go abroad in search of new monsters to destroy.

Yet, only the West, and in particular the United States, can deal with the one problem which stands in the way of any true progress in the Middle East--the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is the central dilemma of the region that affects and exacerbates all of the other problems in the Arab and Muslim world. Only the United States has both the power and the credibility, especially with Israel which has few other friends in the international community, to try and serve as an honest broker between the two sides and as the potential guarantor of any eventual deal. Unfortunately, the current administration has chosen to play a very one-sided role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, when it has paid any attention at all to the problem, since it preferred to believe that transforming Iraq could serve as a panacea which would allow the United States to transform the region while ignoring the much harder to solve Arab-Israeli conflict. The West as a whole can also help the situation in the Middle East by integrating Turkey into the European Union and so guaranteeing that an Islamic nation like Turkey continues its sometimes painful and halting evolution towards becoming the first truly advanced and wholly democratic Muslim society.

With the current situation in the Middle East, the United States' many mistakes have led to a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the creation of a "Shiite crescent" of Iranian influence that extends from Lebanon to the border of Pakistan. This has worsened not only the Arab-Israeli conflict but also reawakened the traditional (and even bloodier in ancient times) Sunni-Shiite divide. The possibility of the civil war in Iraq coming to encompass the larger sectarian fault lines in the Arab world is not a small one if the situation remains unstabilized. The best that can be hoped for at the present is that some way is found to restore stability in Iraq, provide the Afghans with the resources they need to build a working national police force and army that can stand up to the Taliban, and reengage the United States in the Arab-Israeli peace process in such a way that Washington can again serve as the honest broker of a true, just and most importantly, secure peace between both sides. If these things can be accomplished, than the West can return to doing that which it does best--serve as a model to other peoples of how democracy and the free market can be extraordinary tools to unleash the wonders of human potential--if they so choose.

Answer 5

It depends what you consider 'west' and what 'involvevment'.The problem there is the brain child of the famous and celebrated Eastern Question.We europeans allowed the wound to fester too long by maintaining the existence of Ottoman Empire too long,and allowing these nomads to convert to Islam by fire and sword millions of Christians in a Middle East predominatly Christian.Even in the twentieth century we continued that blind attitude although there were considerable communities of Christians (and still are...) numbering millions in Turkey,Syria,Libanon,Egypt,Azerbaitzan etc;the US involvement in Irak is geographically and geopolitically wrong and lacks any sense of reality and pragmatism.The west should have been involed earlier by at least fifty or even fourty years earlier and far more decisively, in different places for different reasons and with careful planning,not myopically by seeking ephemeral and short-lived advantages(Libanon,Israel,Suez canal,etc) Irak, is in the middle of a region frought with totalitarian religious regims and religious dissensions that frequently lead to civil strifes...the experiment should have started in an aeria within easy access to democratic and christian Europe that would have made any kind of support easily available...So yes to involvent of Europe in the middle east,but we could do with less miscalculations or manifestations of USA naivete...

Answer 6

one likes it or not without the active involvement of West peace is not possible in middle east.

Answer 7

i am from middle east.... No, i don't think that they should be involved in our internal affairs. But all what matters for the US government is the OIL not the mass destruction weapons that have never existed at first place. It's all going like some low production movie or play... Americans should be really ashamed of their government's acts!

Answer 8

no, i think the war in iraq was a failure, to say the most , the war in the middle east can be compared to vietnam, brave soldiers risking thier lives so bush can attempt to monopolize oil and settle a hit that was put on bush SR's head , i think we should have bombed the taliban and left...........

Answer 9

After Islamic extremist terrorists flew planes into the WTC it became a matter rendered academic. They are out to KILL us. We have to defend ourselves. And in case you get the wrong idea, I do not support the insane failed policies in Iraq.

Answer 10

Hell no. We ought to pull out completely and let Israel handle it. They'd settle it in six days.