I thought that when the US embarked upon the fools mission of invasion of Iraq with it's built in three-way ethnic/religious divide, that they should have split the state three ways, but barring that, they should have done some sort of find-grained grid of local control.
Then, after a year or two, examined each as to how they allocated their reconstruction funds and established a functioning civil government. After two years, and if a grid "square" (doesn't HAVE to be a grid) is being heavily mismanaged, you pick one of the surrounding grids and pick the one with the best functioning civil governance, and give them control over THAT grid.
But far too late for that. Trillions of dollars evaporated. Of course our best potential ally, the Kurds, we didn't support enough. God we are so stupid.
It's "partly" funny to see all the grandiose plans of the past that never came through. Humanity reacts short term but when you take some distance you realize most of ideas in the air are wrong somehow.
> A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe
It is radical, but if you drop the 'c' you've got a more descriptive title.
Sure, it seems like an insane plan, but just imagine being able to tour every major European region in a couple seconds. You could even do it over and over until you got dizzy.
> drop the 'c' you've got a more descriptive title.
Which?
> A Radial Plan for Peace in Europe
> A Radical Plan for Peae in Europe
> Divide and oncur: A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe (1920)
> Divide and Conur: A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe (1920)
"Radial" plan? Seems to fit, spoke-hub layout and all.
>> There are alternative arrangements, but P.A.M. assures his reader that he has chosen “the most advantageous and fair” division, which will instantly resolve the Balkan question and all other tensions.
Haha.
This is why academics and idealists must be mocked without regard when they come up with idiotisms like this.
They did that in Africa: they created some arbitrary country lines without regards for the local tribes. The results? Constant political fighting and wars because you now forced two tribes which hated each other with a force of a thousand suns into the same new country.
So it wasn't "left" vs "right" but "Triba A" vs "Tribe B". No chance they'd get togather or that people would move from triba A to B because of some "political" opinion. It was more like blood revenge.
The belief that you could force two hating cultures into loving each other because you draw up some arbitrary lines on the map and say "now get well together, children" is [redacted] to say the least.
I'm not convinced by this argument. Plenty of ethnostates waging war on each other as well as stable multiethnic states.
> Plenty of ethnostates waging war on each other as well as stable multiethnic states.
How many multi-ethnic states were created by an outside power, from two or more warring ethnic groups? That was the argument put forth:
> > They did that in Africa: they created some arbitrary country lines without regards for the local tribes. The results? Constant political fighting and wars because you now forced two tribes which hated each other with a force of a thousand suns into the same new country.
...
> > The belief that you could force two hating cultures into loving each other because you draw up some arbitrary lines on the map and say "now get well together, children" is [redacted] to say the least.
but sometimes western powers cultivated rancor between existed tribe. then leave them in same country.
> The results? Constant political fighting and wars
It's a very old concept: "divide er impera".
See: Crimea. Israel. Etc.