America’s Ignorance and Stupidity When it Comes to Muslim Countries

Once again we have Bill Maher saying stupid stuff about religion. Though I am a fan and find him correct most of the time, he keeps sticking his foot in his mouth about religion. I do not understand why he refuses to listen to the experts on this topic. This time though, it was not just Bill Maher, but our liberal media. Both sides, liberal and conservative, seem to be equally ignorant or stupid about the topic of religion, Islam, and the Middle East. I have spoken about this issue before but I wanted to do a blog dedicated to the topic because it really needs it. Religion, especially Islam, is very misunderstood in this country and for whatever reason, no one cares to listen to the experts.

The thing that made me feel the need to type this up was Reza Aslan’s interview on CNN. Before I show the video, I want to give his credentials…

Aslan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of Iowa’s Writers’ Workshop, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction. Aslan also received a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology, focusing in the history of religion, from the University of California, Santa Barbara.[7][8][9] His dissertation was titled “Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework.”-Wikipedia

If anyone is confused about Religious Studies I would suggest either Googling it or reading my blog about it before you continue because it is more than reading the Bible or “studying God.”

Here is the interview.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2014/09/30/cnn-tonight-reza-aslan-bill-maher.cnn&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FNgRGButZCG

I expect that kind of crap from Bill Maher when it comes to religion but CNN shows the larger problem. “Muslim countries,” “Muslim countries,” Muslim countries,” he really hits the nail on the head with everything he said. To keep saying “Muslim countries” as if they are all the same is stupid. It is more than ignorant because he is there educating them on the topic and they ignore him. That is stupid. He is pointing out the fact that not all Muslim countries are the same and Americans appear to be completely clueless to this. Before I get into Muslim countries, let me do the exact same thing with America…
Do you believe these pictures accurately represent America?

Would you be offended if I said those pictures accurately represented most, or the average, American(s)? If you do not believe that is fair, why is it fair to do that to the Muslim world? Do you simply not realize the way we portray Muslims is not representative? The way we portray Muslims is the minority of Muslims, this is the point Reza was trying to make.

Contrary to popular belief, Religion is not the biggest driving factor in people’s actions, culture and society is. In Religious Studies we look at religion from all the different angles including sociological and anthropological (cultural) and it is painfully obvious that these issues are due to culture or society and not religion. The Sunni-Shia rift is a CULTURAL argument. We know culture and society are the driving factors because they both SHAPE religion. Religion can shape culture and society but culture and society are the bigger force. We know this because different cultures and societies with the same religion are very different. Also, if religion was the driving force, why are there so many denominations? The reason is people do not agree. Whether that disagreement is societal or personal, it is more powerful than religion because religion was changed because of that.

This is exactly what Reza was talking about. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is an AFRICAN problem. Here are a few maps of FGM and Religion. Click on the pics to enlarge them

It is certainly a problem in a very specific part of the world, mostly Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. It does certainly appear to be in areas that are Muslim, but Christian majority countries in Africa also have an issue with it. One map echoes what Reza was saying about Ethiopia. Ethiopia has around 75% of women experiencing FGM and they are a Christian majority…

According to the 2007 National Census, Christians make up 62.8% of the country’s population (43.5% Ethiopian Orthodox, 19.3% other denominations), Muslims 33.9%, practitioners of traditional faiths 2.6%, and other religions 0.6%

If this were strictly a Muslim issue we would expect to see around 1/3rd, not 3/4th. This shows it is clearly a cultural thing, not a religious thing. You may want to point out that the Arabian Peninsula is not Africa. Actually it is, in a cultural sense. If we trace culture backwards we will see that Arabs are a Semitic speaking peoples, and the Semitic language originated in Africa. Here is a map…

You will notice that only a few pockets of people in Iran are Semitic peoples. That is because the Iranian peoples are Indo-European peoples. This is the nature of the Sunni-Shia rift, the culture, not religion.

Besides FGM, how do we typically portray Muslims? Radical terrorists that treat women worse than dogs? As Reza says, that is certainly representative of certain countries, such as Saudi Arabia. No one is debating that the way SA treats their women is primitive and barbaric or that their beheading of people is alright. The problem is this is not representative of all Muslim countries. Would a Muslim country that saw women as inferior elect one as their head of state? As Reza mentions, seven women have been elected head of state in majority Muslim nations, another one was appointed…

Tansu Çiller, elected prime minister of Turkey, 1993-1996
Benazir Bhutto, elected prime minister of Pakistan 1988-1990, 1993-1996
Mame Madior Boye, appointed prime minister of Senegal, 2001-2002.
Megawati Sukarnoputri, elected president of Indonesia, 2001-2004
Khaleda Zia, elected prime minister of Bangladesh, 1991-1996 and 2001-2006
Sheikh Hasina, elected prime minister of Bangladesh 2009-
Roza Otunbayeva, president of Kyrgyzstan, 2010- 2011
Atifete Jahjaga, elected president of Kosovo 2011-

And actually throughout the history of Islam women have been leaders or held positions of power…

http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Muslim_Leaders.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_female_political_leaders

Like Reza asks, how many female leaders have we had here in the US?

Many Muslim nations are very secular. Take Turkey for example.

Turkey has been a secular state since it was founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1923. He introduced the secularization of the state in the Turkish Constitution of 1924, alongside Atatürk’s Reforms. These were in accordance with the Kemalist Ideology, with a strict appliance of laicite in the constitution. Atatürk saw headscarves as backward-looking[original research?] and an obstacle to his campaign to secularize and modernize the new Turkish Republic. The issue of the headscarf debate has been very intense and controversial since it was banned.[1] Turkey is a secular country and over 95% of its people are Muslims.[2] It has resulted in a clash between those favouring the secular principles of the state, such as the Turkish Army,[3] and those who are more conservative with their religious beliefs.-Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey

The United States needs to grow some secular balls and ban the headscarves! Seriously, I am not for that, but look at a Muslim country our secularizing the United States, impressive for a primitive and oppressive, conservative religious people. *Sarcasm*

I can point out leaders and point out facts. I can tell you about my experience with Muslims in the Religious Studies department at the University of Minnesota. I can tell you about my classes in Middle Eastern studies and Islam, but I have a more effective method. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I will save on the typing and post some pictures.

While in the Air Force I spent time in two Muslim countries. The first was Kyrgyzstan…

Islam is the dominant religion of Kyrgyzstan: 80% of the population is Muslim while 17% follow Russian Orthodoxy and 3% other religions.[70] A 2009 Pew Research Center report indicates a higher percentage of Muslims, with 86.3% of Kyrgyzstan’s population adhering to Islam.[71] The majority of Muslims are non-denominational Muslims at 64% while roughly 23% are Sunni, adhering to the Hanafi school of thought.[72] There are a few Ahmadiyya Muslims, though unrecognised by the country.-Wikipedia

The second was the United Arab Emirates…

Islam is the largest and the official state religion of the UAE. The government follows a policy of tolerance toward other religions and rarely interferes in the activities of non-Muslims.[77] By the same token, non-Muslims are expected to avoid interfering in Islamic religious matters or the Islamic upbringing of Muslims.

The government imposes restrictions on spreading other religions through any form of media as it is considered a form of proselytizing. There are approximately 31 churches throughout the country, one Hindu temple in the region of Bur Dubai,[172] one Sikh Gurudwara in Jebel Ali and also a Buddhist temple in Al Garhoud.

Based on the Ministry of Economy census in 2005, 76% of the total population was Muslim, 9% Christian, and 15% other (mainly Hindu).[77] Census figures do not take into account the many “temporary” visitors and workers while also counting Baha’is and Druze as Muslim.[77] Among Emirati citizens, 85% are Sunni Muslim, while Shi’a Muslims are 15%, mostly concentrated in the emirates of Sharjah and Dubai.[77] Omani immigrants are mostly Ibadi, while Sufi influences exist too.[173]

People of all faiths or no faith are given equal protection under the country’s constitution and laws.-Wikipedia

While we were deployed, we had a shared folder of pictures taken while on our trips. That is where most of these pictures were taken from. The only purpose of these pictures is to show how the women dress and their freedom. Click on the pictures to enlarge them

Here are a few pictures from Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan has a mixed population of Russians and Kyrgyz. They have a heavy Russian influence and 64% of their Muslims are non-denominational Muslims. It is safe to assume that in these pictures the white people are Russian Orthodox (the Kyrgyz look more Asian) and not Muslim but the point is how WOMEN are treated in a Muslim country.

Here is a picture from a typical market place. The women here are dressed the same way you would find them dressed in Europe or America. They are also out there by themselves, no men needed.

Here is a picture from what I believe is a class trip. If it were not for the background you might assume this was a group of American kids.

The next three pictures are of the two lovely women that worked with us in linen exchange at Manas Air Base. They are there by themselves, no men. You will notice me in a picture with one of them and I am certainly not related to her.

On to the UAE. This was a fun trip. The people were so diverse. You have very conservative Muslims with the women covered from head to toe all the way to what we typically see here in America. The pictures that truly show how oppressed women are is best illustrated at a water park. Here are pictures taken from the shared file of a trip to the water park. Keep a close eye on what people are wearing and who they are with.

I want you to focus specifically on these two pictures. Notice that in the back ground there is a woman with a hijab with her face shown an in another it appears her face may be completely covered.

The range of diversity rivals and probably surpasses the United States. They have very conservative to very secular or liberal. I know recently on the news they showed a picture of a female UAE pilot, which Fox News thought was appropriate to make fun of, calling it “boobs on the ground” and saying she would have problems parking the plane. So apparently in America the idea of a female pilot is something to joke about but in the UAE women have the right to be one and their armed forces see them as just as capable as a man to do the job. It really makes me wonder which country has the problem with women being equal, Muslim UAE, or Christian America. Here is the picture of that woman and also a picture of other female pilots in the UAE Air Force. Notice that half of the women have their head covered and the other half, do not.

Is this what you thought a Muslim country looked like? This is exactly what Reza Aslan was saying. Not all Muslims countries are the same and vary greatly with how conservative or secular they are. Some Muslims countries surpass the United States when it comes to the equality of women. Some are more secular than the United States. I would argue that some run their countries better. Take UAE for example. They have billions, possibly trillions, from their oil. Instead of letting it sit in banks accounts, like we do here in the United States, they have been putting it back into the country to build infrastructure and some of the most beautiful buildings in the world. They have turned it into a tourist destination. They have a ski resort inside of a mall. Like Reza says, to say “Muslim countries” to suggest that all Muslim countries are like Saudi Arabia, Somalia, or Afghanistan is STUPID.

I leave you with some pictures of the UAE and what they have done with their oil money. I ask that you think about what billionaires have built for America recently…

Is Modern Day Israel Entitled to Exist?

I am getting so sick of the general Israel pseudo-experts running around on Twitter and in the media with their undying love for Israel. The ignorance on the topic is mind-blowing and the statements are absurd. I have been told repeatedly to read a history book. Well I did…a dozen of them…

A major in Religious Studies, focusing on Ancient Near Eastern religions and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam,) a major in History, focusing on Ancient Near East and the Middle East, and a minor in Jewish Studies does not get one much in life but there is one thing is does do. It gives me the ability to explain basic Middle Eastern history and conflicts to self-proclaimed know-it-alls on the Right and Left. They tell me to read a history book even though I know for a fact they did not do it themselves. To be honest, they did not even look to Wikipedia. I figured I would take the privilege to explain a few of the claims I hear made about the Israel-Palestine conflict using just a couple of 500 page books.

The first claim I want to address is the claim that the Jews have a right or are entitlement to the land of modern day Israel. They argue that this land is rightfully theirs, given to them by God, and that they have lived there for thousands of years.
I will give them the last part, the Jews have lived there since Biblical times. As far as the rest, it is simply laughable. Nowhere else in history does such an irrelevant state receive such a deep sense of entitlement. Yes, you read that correctly, I said irrelevant. I will explain my reasoning.

When I say irrelevant, I am talking about their time as an independent state and an independent state with influence in the region. An example of an irrelevant state would be like the Republic of Texas. Texas existed as an independent nation from 1836 to 1946. If you did not know that, it is not surprising. Unless you enjoy general trivia, the only place one is taught about this is in Texas. As far as the history of the world goes, the Republic of Texas is completely irrelevant. Let’s explore the history of Israel.

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible is not a history book. Some parts are historically significant, or accurate, but much is not. What we do in history is take all of the texts and archaeology and compare them. Based on all the combined evidence we attempt to establish a historically accurate narrative. Doing this, we can determine things such as the emergence of Israel.

The very first mention of Israel, outside of the Bible, is on the Egyptian stele of pharaoh Merneptah, which dates to around 1,200 BCE. Even though we have evidence of people living in these lands dating back to around 10,000 BCE, the first people we can call Israelites do not appear until 1,200 BCE.

Right around 1,000 BCE the largest and only significant national state was established and lasted for nearly a century. During this time it had three rulers, Saul, David, and Solomon. Here is a picture of the Kingdom of Israel.

To put in to perspective how significant this was, I will quote one of those 500 page history books…

“For nearly a century at the beginning of the Iron II period (1025-586 BCE,) most of Palestine was organized as a national state with a dynastic figure…

The formation of a state in Iron Age Palestine…was an extraordinary event. Never before in the millennia of sedentary life in the eastern Mediterranean had a territorial state existed in that land. And following the dissolution that would occur fairly soon, never again until the mid-twentieth century would this narrow stretch of the ancient Fertile Crescent be home to an autonomous cultural entity under local leadership.” –Carol Meyer, chapter 5 Kinship and Kingship: The Early Monarch p.165 found in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited by Michael Coogan.

There is your state of Israel. Three kings, one century. After Solomon died in 928 BCE, the kingdom was divided into two political entities, Israel (Samaria) and Judah. They are pictured here…

They were different states with different political agendas. We see the conflict in the literature of the Bible, we see one source that is clearly Judah biased and one that has an Israel bias. They were an autonomous group. The kingdom of Judah is entirely irrelevant. We find few references of Judah outside of the Bible. Samaria was in existence for nearly 200 years and was significant under only Omri and Ahab.

“Other historical sources, however, suggest that with Omri and his son Ahab, Israel entered upon an era of strong leadership and political-even international-prominence.” –Edward Campbell, chapter 6 A Land Divided: Judah and Israel from the Death of Solomon to the fall of Samaria p. 219 found in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited by Michael Coogan.

Samaria lasted from 928-720 BCE. In 720 BCE Assyria invaded and conquered Samaria. They exiled people to other areas of Assyria control.

Due to cooperation with the Assyrians, the state of Judah was allowed to exist. It existed until 586 BCE when the Babylonians conquered the Assyrians. The elite of the community were exiled to Babylon.

While in Babylon, a significant portion of the Hebrew Bible was written and edited. In 539 BCE Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered the Babylonians and allowed the exiled Jews to return to their homeland in the Edict of Cyrus.

From this point on, the area of modern day Israel was controlled by a number of different peoples and empires. Here are a few…
Alexander the Great
The Roman Empire
Persians again
Roman Empire
Byzantium Empire
Muslim Caliphate
Crusaders
Ottoman Turks
They then came under the control of the British in the British Mandate. The British Mandate allowed them to create the modern state of Israel after WW2.

If we look at roughly 12,000 years of history, the modern state of Israel existed, as a whole, for one century and the northern part (Samaria) for two, while only being prominent under two rulers. The idea that those who can trace their ancestry back to the ancient Israelites and Judahites are somehow deserving of this land is laughable. Did those people LIVE in that area for thousands of years? Sure, of course they did, and in other places. Other people also lived their also and have just as much claim to the land as Jews do. Is the fact that it is their ancestral homeland good enough of a reason to go in and create a state for them? That could be the case for dozens of peoples. What about the Kurds? Are they not deserving of their own state? They are a minority and persecuted in all of the countries they are in. We could easily make a Kurdish state and the people already live there, so why not? Why not restore nations for other peoples around the world? Why not give our lands in America back to the American Indians? Who makes the decision which fallen states we resurrect?

The fact of the matter is that Israel has no more of a right to exist than a Kurdistan would. Jews want to live in their ancestral homeland? A lot of people do…and they could have, under Muslim rule like they had been since Islam came about. The only reason Israel exists is because of the influence of Christianity in the West and because Britain and the power (through the mandate) to create it. Besides, how great is it for the West to have an ally right there in the Middle East?

A Hypothetical Story to Understand the Iraq Situation

I did an actual historical blog about the Iraq situation here…

An Easy Way to Understand Conflict in the Middle East and Iraq

But I know a lot of people do not like reading history, so what I have done is created a Conservative friendly hypothetical story to help people understand the situation in Iraq.

There was a World War and France was on the victor’s side and the United States was on the loser’s side. Instead of France making the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, they lump them into one country. They were very different people with very different beliefs, but France decided to lump them all together Did France do this knowingly to create conflict, or was it ignorance and a lack of caring? That can be debated but over the years, political tensions rise and the Liberals and Conservatives breakout into civil war, this would have been prevented if they had our own countries to start out. The Conservatives are strong with their powerful military. They defeat the Liberals, and establishing their Conservative government. Years later, France says the Conservative leader is harboring terrorists and has weapons of mass destruction. France rushes in there, destroys the Conservative government and puts the Liberals in power while not letting the Conservatives be involved in the government. The Liberals were weaker than the Conservatives so France had to stick around with their troops.

After 7 years, France decides to pull out and let the Liberal government takeover, in part because the Liberal leader did not want to sign a status of forces agreement. After 7 years of being ruled by people with a totally different ideology of their own, the Conservatives are more upset than ever. They are also furious at France for coming in and putting the Liberals in power. France did after all start the problem and have been messing with the Conservatives for years. The Conservatives were strong, stronger than the Liberals in power and had been organizing in the chaos. With France out of the way, they begin to launch attacks against the Liberals.

France now has a decision to make. Do they come back in subdue the Conservative forces, or do they let them fight it out?

If you have not been able to guess, France is the United States and the United States (in our story) is Iraq (Sunni and Shia.) Does that make it clear why half of the Iraqi population hates us and why Iraq is unstable? So what do you do? Do you let the conflict play itself out, or do you keep going in there every few decades to stir up conflict? My vote would be leave them the hell alone and maybe in a generation when the population does not actively remember the conflict, they will stop hating us so much…

I hope this helps people understand the situation in Iraq

An Easy Way to Understand Conflict in the Middle East and Iraq

I am doing this bit to help people understand the conflict in Middle East, and specifically Iraq. At the root it is a very simple problem to understand. The problem is that people are only getting bits and pieces of selected information. Who is right, who is wrong? Who has a motive, what side are they on? Which books do I read and where do I start?

The most difficult task is determining where to start and which direction to follow. This is the reason my path in my education has changed so many times. The vast majority of people do not want to take the time to sift though thousands of years or Middle Eastern history or read dozens of 400 pages books of mostly dry material. I have done that for you and I am going to provide an easy way to understand the conflict in the Middle East, which will allow you to just understand the basics, or dive in and do as much reading as you want. I am going to do this with a great feature that never everyone has access to…Wikipedia

Wikipedia is on the edge of being a legitimate source for undergrads in Universities. It is broad and unbiased. It always points out the criticisms, opposing views, and conflicts with current view. If this is not enough, Wikipedia cites its information, so one can go to the primary source if they so desire. Wikipedia is not going to get one to the Ph.D. level, or even someone with a degree in a certain area, but it provides more than enough information to understand most things in the world today. One of the biggest problems is not knowing where to start or which path to follow. That is what I am here for. Let’s begin.

I will give a narrative that can be followed without clicking on the actual link, but I will provide the link so that you may do any addition reading that intrigues you.

We will start at the beginning of Middle Eastern (ME) history. The ME used to be referred to as the Ancient Near East (ANE.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Near_East

The ANE is where the first civilizations developed. This is an area of the world that has shared many cultures, civilizations, and religions over the last 6,000 years or so. This part of the world has been in conflict for all of history, and that is clearly still the case today. What we want to understand is what the current causes for conflict are.

Most Westerners attribute the problem to crazy Muslims that hate Christians or boil it down to the Sunni-Shia rift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

The reality is that it has much more to do with culture than religion. I can actually support that statement with Wikipedia…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam#History

“Historians dispute the origin of Shia Islam, with many Western scholars positing that Shiism began as a political faction rather than a truly religious movement.[8][48][49] However, other scholars disagree, considering this concept of religious-political separation to be an anachronistic application of a Western concept.”

At this point we should consider one of the three major players in the Iraqi case. The first group of people to consider are the Shia Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam

Take a look at this map.

Notice that the main concentration of Shia is Iran. This is no coincidence. Ancient Iran was known by the name Persia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_peoples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

The Persians were ethnically Indo-European, which is also called Aryans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race

The Indo-Europeans are the ancestors of modern Europeans and the people of India. Their religion, Zoroastrianism, is also Indo-European.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

This was the major religion until they were conquered by Islamic Empires, which forced them to convert to Islam. The thing about religion is that it is formed by differing opinions and traditions. This relates to the quote I stated earlier. The Shia branch was formed because of cultural and political differences from the Arab Muslims, which can clearly be seen by looking at the concentration of them on the map. It is not a coincidence that the Shia are concentrated in an area of traditionally Indo-European peoples. This has much more to do with culture than an argument over Muhammad’s successor.

This is the point when I should bring in our second player, the Sunni Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam

The Sunnis, the largest group in Islam, share the Arab culture at the root.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language

Arabs are a Semitic people. Semitic language and culture originated in Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages

Here is a map that illustrates this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#mediaviewer/File:Semitic_languages.svg

The Sunnis and the Shia are ethnically two different types of people, with different languages and cultures. This is the reason they have different interpretations of Islam.

The third group in this conflict is the Kurds. Out of the three, the Kurds got the worst deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds

The Kurds are also a unique people of Indo-European decent, and were once part of the Indo-Iranian peoples. However, they were separate from the Persians and formed their own culture, which blended parts of the Semitic tradition. Because of this, they are Shafi’I Muslims, which is a branch of Sunnis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi

Here is the area the Kurds cover.

As you can see, the Kurds were separated into several different countries, becoming a minority in all of them.

Now that we have introduced the three major groups, let’s look back at our map.

Do you notice how Iraq is the only country in the ME that is sitting around 50%? That is because it is a country in which three different people were combined, with the Shia and Sunnis being the two dominate groups.

The next key point is how these people were combined together and how the borders of Iraq were drawn.

Before World War One the area of Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in WW1 and when they lost the war they lost the empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Ottoman_Iraq

After the loss, the League of Nations mandate drew the borders for the modern countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#British_Mandate_and_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate

The borders were drawn in a very specific way…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

“The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence.”

Borders were drawn specifically to be controlled or influenced. One of the keys to controlling people is ensure they cannot unite and overthrow their oppressor. What is the easiest way to ensure people do not unite? You create conflict within the country. Just like in Sudan, borders were drawn around people of different cultures and religions. As we saw in Sudan, we (the West) set them up to have a civil war.

After their fighting, a ruling party emerged, the Ba’ath Party, Saddam Hussein’s party, who were Sunni Muslims. The reason they were in power was because they were the dominant and more powerful group in the country. The Kurds were the big losers. In a genocidal campaign by Saddam, 200 thousand Kurds were killed.

Let’s skip over the 80’s and 90’s and fast forward to 2003. In 2003 the United States decided to invade Iraq. There have been many reasons given as to why we did this. The big one was nuclear weapons but then changed to my favorite “freeing the Iraqi people.” Those that supported the Iraq war, even after we did not find any weapons of mass destruction, point to the children in the streets waving at American soldiers because they were so happy we were there. There was also the idea that Saddam was supporting and breeding terrorism.

Really the point of going in is irrelevant to understanding the current situation. The point is that we went in and destroyed a stable government. What did this lead to?

“Following the invasion, the United States established the Coalition Provisional Authority to govern Iraq. In May 2003 L. Paul Bremer, the chief executive of the CPA, issued orders to exclude Baath Party members from the new Iraqi government (CPA Order 1) and to disband the Iraqi Army (CPA Order 2).[54] The decision to dissolve the army was blamed for leading many Sunnis, who led much of the army, to join the insurgency against American occupation.[55] The exclusion of people who belonged to the ruling party and the abolition of whole ministries were considered to have gutted the state and helped bring about chaos.[56]

The years following the invasion saw insurgency against Coalition and government troops as well as intense violence between Sunnis and Shias.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#US-led_invasion_and_aftermath

So what were the results of us invading Iraq? We pissed off the Sunnis, the ruling party, the one responsible for slaughtering the Kurds, and left them out of the government. These are the people that formed ISIS. They:

1. Hate Americans because we took them out of power

2. Established a government led by the Shia

Remember the reports of Iraqi civilians waving and cheering for American troops?
“The Kurdish population welcomed the American troops in 2003 by holding celebrations and dancing in the streets.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds#Iraq

So yes, the Kurds liked us. The Shia also liked us for putting them into power. If you refer back to my picture, you will see that Shia Muslims are mainly concentrated in Iran. We put a government in place that is not necessarily a puppet of Iran, but certainly an ally. Our actions directly led to the development of ISIS. We turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists, a country that had no ties to al-Qaeda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

Saddam was actually fighting AGAINST bin Laden.

“The 9/11 Commission stated in its report that bin Laden had been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. Those forces mostly operated in areas not under Saddam’s control. Sudanese Islamic leader Hassan al-Turabi, to protect his ties with Iraq, brokered an agreement with Bin Laden to stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Laden seemed to honor this agreement for a time, although, he continued to aid Islamic extremists in Kurdistan.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations#Skepticism_of_the_link

Saddam more than likely cut the heads off of the same terrorists responsible for 9/11.

So why is Iraq on the verge of civil war and would it have helped if we stayed there longer? The answer to the second question is no, it would not have mattered. This is a battle that has been going on for well over 1000 years. Would us staying there 5 or 10 more years change anything? No, of course not. Would staying 100 years? Maybe, that might be long enough for people to forget. But must I remind you, the United States is kind of broke and does not have the funds to stay in Iraq for 100 years. The answer to the first question, why are they on the verge of civil war? Because we went in there and got rid of a stable government that was established by the more powerful cultural/political group in the country. They were the ones leading the government because they were STRONGER. We go in there, put the weaker group in power, infuriate the powerful group and wonder why the new government is crumbling and why they hate Americans? They hate the West because we drew unnatural borders. Once they finally fight it out to establish a firm government, we go in there and get rid of it. They hate us because we keep going in there and messing with them. So should we go back in there and “finish the job?” NO leave them alone. Leave the Middle East alone so they can fight their civil wars because of the borders we drew to CREATE CONFLICT! These countries are not united because we wanted to ensure they could not unite. If people cannot unite, they cannot effectively fight the larger powers, that being the West. To top it all off, if we go back and attack ISIS, we would be helping Iran out.

I hope this helped to clarify the situation in Iraq and the Middle East in general and I hope posting the links from Wikipedia helped to give you direction for future reading.