For my part they can build a huge wall around it and no one is to be let out, just some pipelines coming out. They can fight it out among each other and leave the rest of the world in peace.

In exchange for oil, we'll throw BigMac's (pure beef!) over the wall. Feeding hours: 13:00 - 13:30.

Surley the puropse of the map is to show an alternative geo-policital future. People can argue about the actual detail (marcfrans: it seems NK has been 'lost' to Azerbaijan in the map, although that isn't the reality on the ground).

Ralph Peters's important contribution is to implant in the minds of policy makers that keeping the constitutional status quo, propping up failed states and ignoring legitimate aspirations of submerged nations or communities isn't always the best option. Borders and states change because identity is a dynamic thing.

The map reminds me of a map I had on my wall in the 1980s of the nations of Europe (rather than the states). It included Estonia, Lativia etc. Although as late at 1990 George Bush Snr told the Baltics to forget their aspirations for independence within a few months they were free. The map I and other West European nationalists (be they Welsh, Scottish, Basque, Flemish etc) saw was more correct than those maps used by the CIA, Western Foreign Offices, their Embassies and the International Politics course I was following at the time! I've got a feeling that Peters's map (though not 'perfect') will be the same.

The increase in more soverign states in Europe has contributed to, and has been a fundamental part of the extension of democracy in Europe. The lands between Istanbul and the Indus have a different tradition to Europe but I believe that old states will be dimished and new ones created before long. Peters's wants us to recognise that.

Many lives have been lost to 'nationalists' but a greater many lives are lost in the name of states as they pursue 'unity' and 'stability'.

On a point of interest - what's the reasoning/justificaton for a 'Greater Lebanon?

@ traveller

Are we looking at the same Peters map?  In the one I see, Iran looses territory and people.  It is not clear what this means in terms of oil output.  But in the map of Peters: (1) Koeweit remains independent, (2) the "Arab Shia State" gets southern Irak and the eastern Saudi oil fields, and (3) Kirkuk goes to the Kurds (which seems to have almost occurred already anyway).

So, what do you mean by "giving Iran COMPLETE control over Middle East oil fields"?  However, you might have a point if you assume that an "Arab Shia State" would not be independent from Teheran.  That is a good reason to work against that eventuality, and to seek the breakup of the ayathollah Persian Empire. 

In drawing a future map of the Middle East based on Islamic ethnicity and religious beliefs, don't forget those areas of Europe that will have to be included within the next 20 years or so. For example, Andalusia (formerly Spain) and The Gallic Islamic State (formerly France) will have to be included given their present birth rates, demographic, immigration patterns, and policies of complete capitulation to Islamofacism.

Dog of Flanders,

Curious, is it not, but I certainly don't feel guilty for the past - an American predisposition? However, I do find myself at times - especially those arising out of a professional capacity - feeling guilty in not being capable of making a great many more aware of the dangers we currently face.

Now lets see, how did the map of Europe look in …1650?

You there! Wench! Get me an eraser and be quick!

Well, if we're throwing out suggestions what about returning Van and Mt. Ararat back to Armenia for the crimes the Turks did against them 100 years ago.

@ pvdh

.....

Yes, what about Wezembeek-Oppem?

It is fundamentally dishonest for you to compare this problem of 'muslim' borders with Belgian or European borders.  I know, the naive-left thinks that all people are the same, and reason in the same way, but that is just not the case.   And, you ignore my MAIN point, which is that IDEALLY the various peoples could benefit greatly EVENTUALLY from VOLUNTARY integration in regional institutions.   It is distressing that the naive-left mindset does not see a moral distinction between FORCED integration (usually inevitably under undemocratic regimes) and the VOLUNTARY integration of 'free peoples'.   So, yes,  a truly autonomous Flanders (dutch-speaking part of Belgium) in a more democratic EU would be greatly preferable to the present situation). It would at least remove a totally unnecessary layer of government, remove a variety of unnecessary frictions and 'robbery', and put responsibility closer where it belongs, i.e. the 'free' peoples of Europe.

It remains of course possible that those 'reasonable' Europeans may not be able to find a reasonable accomodation when drawing the line in Wezembeek-Oppem.  That would strengthen your view about 'all people being the same'.  It would also support my view that, historically, to the victors (Di Rupo and co) belong the spoils.

@ pvdh

How could I say this gently....?  Your sarcastic comments are not constructive ones to the discussion at hand.  If your point is that there are specific 'problems' with the fictional proposed map, it will not have escaped your attention that these problems exist with the current map of the region.

-- I presume that Kuweit remains on the fictional map because it is populated largely by sunni Arabs, surrounded by a sea of shia Arabs (in Irak, Iran, and Saudi Arabia).  The 'Kapitein' claims that these surrounding people are not Arabs, but "Arabised".  I don't really know for sure, but I believe that the sunni-shia split goes deeper for 'identity' than ethnicity. 

-- It is interesting to note that you seem to think that Koeweitis (irrespective of what their 'identity' might be) did NOT need to be liberated from Saddam's terrible Baath regime.  Once again, the pretense of 'morality' of the naive-left mindset in Belgium is astonishing.

-- If you look carefully at the Peters-map, you will notice that the problem of Nagorno-K is taken care of.  My understanding is that, on this minor point, his map reflects the existing reality between Armenia and Azerbajan. So, what's your point?  

-- And, then, there remains "Wezembeek-Oppem".......

.....

An excellent proposal, if only for the seething and teeth-gashing value. As they say, ‘There’s more than one way to produce a collective Islamic cerebral aneurysm.’

Favorable comments should be directed to: The American Cabal of Neocon Hegemony
The White House
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington,

Firstly, the map is incorrect from an ethno-national sense.

• Iran and Syria are legitimate nations, despite the presence of minority groups in both e.g. Gilachs and Kurds in Iran may not identify themselves as Persians but they do as Iranians.
• The future of democracy in the Middle East remains Syria, Iran, and to some extent Lebanon; it is foolish to annex parts of the former two. Rather Shi'ite Iraq should eventually be ceded to Iran. Additionally, Azeri Iranians do identify as Iranian and are not identical to their kin to the North.
• The various Arab "states" exist due to persistent feudalism and socio-economic stratification based upon tribes, headed of course by dynasties. These Arab states are not ethno-national in the true sense e.g. Jordan, Koweit, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc.
• I agree with an independent Kurdistan, however, as little territory should be removed from Turkey as possible.
• I would not classify Iraqis as Arabs, rather they are Arabized - what their exact ethnicity is I am not sure. It might be wise to have a smaller Sunni Iraqi state including Baghdad...

These are just some broad and varied ideas, not a pretext for argument. If you're looking to go on a Kruschev-at-the-UN-style rant about these my response is self-explanatory: put the shoe away...

@ Stuart

I agree with you that borders along ethnic and religious lines would in the end reduce violent conflicts.  It would also respect the value of self-determination of peoples. 

However, I doubt that, in and of itself, these 'new' borders would lead to "more non-oil 'free' economy".  Nor do I think that they would better safeguard individual freedoms.  At least not in the muslim world.  Although, the experience with the self-government of the Kurds in Iraq over the past 15 years, and particularly the past 3 years since 'liberation') provides a powerful example of contra-evidence.  That, in itself provides a strong argument in favor of the Peters-map as an 'ideal'.  But an ideal that is largely unattainable for the peoples of the region. Precisely because of opposition from the entrenched kleptocracies.

I think that individual freedoms (including economic ones, 'your non-oil free economy') could be enhanced or better guaranteed for individuals in that region if their peoples could VOLUNTARILY integrate in regional political structures. But, for that to become possible in the distant future, the existing 'unnatural' political monstrosities will need to be destroyed first. If that makes me sound like a 'jihadist', believe me it is purely co-incidental. They don't wish for the Peters map, whereas I do.

...and moderation.

@traveller

Ralph Peters is one (yes 1!) pundit and strategic thinker who publishes regulary on geopolitical and military issues.  And, you turn this into "the US having a geostrategic thought".  That is not very serious, and also smells of - may I say it? -  somewhat 'idiotic' and unnecessary self-flagellation. 

Furthermore, you refer to Peters (indirectly) as "an idiot".  His views are sometimes controversial and not widely shared, at least not by the currrent US powers-that-be.  But referring to him as an "idiot" is not very smart, nor wise.  

I think that some of your 'objections' are valid ones.  But, consider that Peters is NOT saying that the US should redraw the map.  He is saying that one should be prepared for much more trouble, and endless conflict, until the actual Middle East map will approach something resembling his fictional map, through the confluence of numerous developments to come.

A detail.  Why do you care that Saudi Arabia might lose "the reason for its existance"?  Saudi Arabia is not a country (in the sense of a 'nation'); it is a (family) regime, and a despicable one at that.

traveller,

As the article stated, there will be problems and unsatisfied minorities no matter how the map of the Middle East may be drawn. It's quite clear that its current configuration is haphazard and contrary to ethnic and religious boundaries. One reason the 20th century Islamic nations have been ruled by dictatorships is because that's the only way to hold contrary minorities together in that part of the world.

Much of the map of this part of the world was drawn by the British along the lines of natural resources rather than cultural affinity. The one significant natural resource, oil, has been a curse for Middle Eastern nations as they have become so entirely dependent on it. If you subtract all the oil revenue from the combined GDP of all the Arab nations -- Morocco to Iraq, Syria to Yemen -- that combined GDP is less than that of Finland. In my mind that’s about the most important of many horrible facts about the Islamic Middle East.

Rearranging the borders along truly ethnic lines would surely mean less dictatorship, more non-oil free economy, and therefore less hostility.

Stuart

Every time the U.S. has a geo-strategic thought I wonder which idiot has been reponsible this time?
Free Baluchistan: all the natural resources of Pakistan and its 160.000.000 people go to max. 6.000.000 people.
Kuwait stays a little independent dot in a sea of "arab shia", for how long? 3 days?
The "arab shia state" will receive the oil wells of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Basrah in order to hand it over to Iran???
Saudi Arabia will lose Mecca and Medina, the reason for its existence.
God help us and saves us from those idiots, I don't even want to go further about the greater Afghanistan and Kurdistan which means war between Afghanistan and Pakistan and between Turkey, Iran and Iraq,etc. etc.