Occupation and Foreign Insurgents

[TahirNuri]

I believe there is a definite correlation between the American occupation of Iraq and guerilla activity spurned from foreign bodies.

By introducing a definitive democracy to Iraq, America is de-stabilizing the muslim governed region. The rationale is, when the people of mullah governed countries see how much general freedoms/happiness democratic people have, the political figures in power will lose their strength to govern their own citizens.
This push could be compared to the fall of Communism.

The backlash of this destabilization process unravelled in the past month. Terrorist attacks in their back yards on our facilities. Religious factions sending their "soldiers" to interfere with our attempt to turn their world upside down.

Baghdad represents what the old Middle East was: Factions of muslim sects and an unequal division of power.

The question I have to pose a serious discussion on is:
How long, if possible, will it take to change the complexion of the Middle East? Is it even possible at all?

Is it better to take the war to them? Or let their terrorism occur in our backyards?

 

[vat_man]

Gee - way to load up the questions with your last line there.

 

[Talentless]

Loaded, yes, but not one that could easily be presented as an absurd contention. I see it as a question of the power of diplomacy. If that third option fails, then the second option may be inevitable.

 

[DGB454]

I don't know that it's possible to change the complexion of the middle east. You may change some of the smaller dictator states but as a whole I think it would take a very long time if ever.

As far as the last part of the question I think it's better to take it to them rather than them bringing it to us.
Although (if we are lucky)neither may be necessary. We just have to figure out how to negotiate a lasting peace. At the moment that doesn't seem possible though does it?