The war in the middle east is one of the most misunderstood wars. Throughout the country, there seem to be three primary arguments. First, the war is about oil. With the ideologies of a post-colonial nation, and in the wake of several colonized nations, such as India, gaining power, tangents are drawn. For what purposes did countries throughout the last two centuries colonize countries? There is one reason, and one reason alone- resources. 25% of our oil comes from the middle east, and the US, depleting 22% of the world's oil (the next highest is China at 9%), has become dependent. As a result, the oil companies, who retain a vast amount of power in a modern globalized economy, supported legislation promoting conquering the middle east, with the hopes of controlling the oil market rather than allowing such small countries to control our economy. Then, after the war began, who were the ones controlling where the governments were directed? Which groups were the primary writers of their new "democratic" constitutions? None other than the world's leading oil companies. Our countries don't support democracy, they support capitalism. The peak of the pyramid wins.
The second reason promoted is strict economics, a type of Darwinian approach to a globalized economy. America, who imports $2,314,000,000,000 worth of goods (while exporting $1,511,000,000,000, meaning we're losing because we spend more than we make in the globalized economy) have found themselves in a position of unbalance. We had to pay other countries to do the things we wouldn't do, as a result of both resources and labor force. While we focused on the internet, iPods, computer technology, and weapons, other countries focused on transportation, mining, and food. So, America was forced to figure out which market would be the most powerful in the upcoming years. The middle east, providing us with oil (a limited resource) began to realize the power they had. Without oil, there is no transportation. Without transportation, an American economy, which connects to the global market, would collapse. This was symbolized through the attack on the World Trade Centers on September 11th. A small nation, with little power, found they controlled the world's most demanded resource, while America seemed to guide the economic and political market of the entire world. If they were the one's providing the most timely important resource, then how were they holding the bottom wrung of the financial and political bat? Thus, the lower class began to spread to underground organizations which sought the downfall of a nation controlling their political and social wealth. America, being that power, determined that these groups were in fact terrorists. Thus, attacking the World Trade Centers served as a social and economic message- no longer shall a country providing the majority of America's most important resource allow America (who provides relatively nothing in comparison) to control the World markets. America, wishing to withhold this power, sought to conquer these nations, reaching out to the groups who were not already apart of these underground organizations.
The third group labeled the war a mere response to terrorism, and believes the war to be spreading the positive and humane message of democracy. Utilizing an abused female class (abused in the eyes of a western civilization) as figureheads, they sought to show the world the negative aspects to this opposing government. This group believes that these middle eastern countries not only live in a government structure which supports terrorist organizations, terrorism being the promotion of global terror with the hopes of guiding the fear induced groups who find themselves afraid, but also believes democracy is the alternative which could demolish these terrorist organizations. The majority could not, and would not, support a government structure which sought to send fear through the hearts of the world. It was simply a matter of a power imbalance, which could be undermined through a democratic election process. We would let their people decide, right?
It appears that history shows, while these groups are in opposition, fighting with one another regarding the reasons of this war, each group is, in their own respect, correct. There are several soldiers who believe they are fighting for democracy, others who believe they are fighting to help America retain economic sustainability, and others who believe they are fighting to gain control of the resource market. Similarly, the politicians controlling the war support, or attack, the war for the very same principles. War doesn't come from one group alone, it comes from multiple groups supporting a war for divergent reasons, allowing a vast majority of the population to support the war for one reason or another. It is not about economics alone, nor resources alone, nor democracy and terror alone, but some combination of the three, each side being promoted to specific groups to gain support.
Even further than this, however, very few discuss the broader implications of this war. When one zooms out of this last thirty year block, what precedes? World War I, from whose ashes sprung up the burning phoenix of war, transfiguring itself into World War II, from which arose the Korean War and the Cold War, each being a battle between communism and capitalism, which evoked the Vietnam War, the very same battle in a different territory, and then a transition into the war in the middle east. And today, who are the two biggest world threats America portrays? China and North Korea- and is it a coincidence that these two nations are the two most powerful communistic societies in the world? So, how have politics evolved into this current state, and what does this historical string entail? Let us digress a bit to understand through analogy.
Modern day politics are surrounded by the idea of campaigning. Each of the opposing groups, particularly during election years, initially distinguish which states are red, which states are blue, and which states the political war shall be fought over- those states which remain somewhere in the middle. Elections are decided by these states, by the states where each opposing group spends the majority of their time trying to persuade, reward, and promise with the hopes of swaying the undecided groups to either the red or the blue. Now, zoom out a bit and apply this very same technique, the technique which controls our elections, to the global political environment. Where are the undecided areas of the globe? The middle east. Could the middle east, similar to the middle of our country, be a battleground for something much larger than the majority has come to understand? Could it be the very same wars seeking support in opposing nations, awaiting some inevitable storm, some inevitable conclusion which the Cold War and the Vietnam war left ambiguous? Could world politics truly serve as a mirror for American politics? Capitalism, metaphorically represented by a deceptive mask known as democracy, versus... What? Communism, perhaps, with the middle ground combining both democratic ideals and communal ideals as Socialism? Could these truly be the three powers seeking support, particularly in this battle ground at the center of the globe, an ambiguously unpolitical group who supports none of these? Could the decision truly remain in their power, little to our knowledge? In the past century, ever since World War I, each war has been like a chess move, conquering these global squares, each one seeking support in a divergent region of the globe, finally climaxing at the center- the middle east.
So what will most likely occur? Chances are, the focus of the media will shift from the war in the middle east to China and North Korea. Because China is a power which is actually threatening to America, they will at first be presented as a friendly country who is nearly an ally. Korea, on the other hand, will be presented as a country which American reporters believe that "we may need to interfere with in order to maintain global peace." This is because Korea isn't a significant threat alone, but only if they have China as an ally side. Quickly after America begins to interfere with Korea, China will declare its allegiance to the northern communist side. After this, the friendly portrayal of China will transform into one of a dangerous threat which is undermining global peace and democracy itself. The media, without meaning to, will pave the path of war, like pawns on an allegorical chess board. Until, finally...
Checkmate.
