Geopolitics in the Middle East - Essay Example

Despite the struggles of the advocates of change, with the neo-conservatives envisioning an end for the, sort of chaotic Middle East society, the fight leads to a different scenario than what was expected. Peace is still so elusive, terrorist threats still exist, and instability is still greatly felt. We examined the reasons behind the pitfalls of this political blitzkrieg based on the articles written by Jeffrey Goldberg entitled "After Iraq" and the article "Parties of God: The Bush doctrine and the rise of Islamic Democracy" written by Ken Silverstein.

Goldberg generally expressed the fact that the political agenda of the US and its allies are contrary to what Iraq's minority groups and even the rest of the countries in the region are looking for. Silverstein in the other hand expressed the fact that the Bush doctrine and the western democratic system do not fit the Islamic cultures and ways. While the US and the rest of its allies are eyeing to push their own vested interests in the Middle East campaign, the Middle Eastern nations affected by the current transitions in the other hand are looking at it in a different perspective.

The war on Iraq was generally aimed at ousting Saddam Hussein, a dictatorial leader, for the major reason of removing a danger to social equality in the region, which Hussein had proven to be a threat, and instate a unified democratic government. . The plans may have been understood plainly by both the allies and Arab compatriots, like the Kurds, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and the rest, and laid open for them to work through, but beneath the shadows of their support, the Middle eastern countries, and minority regions within Iraq, are hoping to push through with their own agenda, for their own people, for their leader's interest.

Take for example the case of the Kurds. In a personal interview by Jeffrey Goldberg with Abdul Rahman Mustafa, the Kurdish-Iraqi governor of Kirkuk in northern Iraq, considered as domains of the Kurds, it appeared that the Kurds really wanted independence from Iraq (Goldberg 79). The article of Goldberg speak further of other regions in the middle east that wanted to be governed based on their own cultural minority principles such as the "Shiites did not want to be ruled from Baghdad by a Sunni minority"(78), and other minority groups from Egypt, Israel, and other areas want their own sovereignty.

In other words, the zeroing in was just superficial. The question is why The answer perhaps lies on the cultural differences between the east and the west, and the way these two civilizations are molded through time. We agree on Goldberg's idea that western democratic strategies don't seem to fit with the Middle Eastern cultures, which are highly diverse. Islam, which is the main religion in the Middle Eastern countries, is a diverse religion with differing principles across different minorities.

While the west is generally Christian, although differing in minor teachings, have common core values that has high regard to peace and order. There is no Christian jihad, to cite a particular difference, while the Muslim jihad is primarily exploited by Muslim extremists and used to push their ideals and principles. In the western world, as a common knowledge, governance in civic