It does not need to be, but it depends on our actions. I shall concentrate on the greater middle east but there are similar arguments to be made about Africa.
The wave of global sympathy for the United States in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks were a unique opportunity for the international community to act together to formulate a coherent long term strategic plan. Unfortunately, the opportunity was lost, and a series of short term tactical moves have made the future much less certain. The problems today with Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran are all inter-connected, and they affect our wider ability to cope with Congo or Darfur like crises.
A good example of failing to maintain the aim. Western leaders accepted that they should not have left the country to radicalise after the end of the Cold War, and promised that they would not make the same mistake again. On 22 October 2001, Jack Straw, in a speech to the IISS laid out an ambitious and expensive international plan for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, once al-Qaeda had been destroyed.
While the difficult task of post-conflict reconstruction, constitution building and seeking donors made a reasonable start, the US Adminstration was diverted by the perceived threat from Iraq during 2002. Hamad Karzai's call for 50,000 troops to help restore the rule of law was answered with just one tenth of that number limited to the Kabul area.
This has left the South and East of the country to fester over nearly five years, and NATO has agreed that it must push its reconstruction effort into these more hostile areas.The focus this week has been very much on what NATO is going to do. It has been difficult to get agreement over which troops to deploy, and it has not proved possible to merge the US offensive operations into the NATO reconstruction tasks. This may prove to be particularly unfortunate in the lawless areas where the opium harvest is the main source of income. It also has implications for NATO cohesion, which suffered great damage after the invasion of Iraq.
The lack of strategy has also pervaded all decision making over Iraq. The original ill conceived invasion seemed to ignore the consequences in the region. It has empowered both extremists and also Iran.
Four years ago President Bush promoted Iran to the "axis of evil", alongside Iraq and North Korea. Meanwhile, western entanglement in Iraq has given a new dimension to the regional strategic balance. Iran presumably feared the rise of a reconstructed Iraq under US influence, which could threaten it again. It has watched the growing power of the Shia community through the Iraqi elections with relief. If anarchy were to lead to fragmentation, Iran would see advantage in aligning with the Shias to form an enlarged Islamic state. It can therefore see advantage whether Iraq is stable or not.
This year we have also had a new crisis. The short but very violent intervention by Israel against Lebanon, after the seizing of two soldiers by Hezbollah based in Lebanon has resulted in an uneasy ceasefire. Lebanon was emerging as one of the more successful Arab countries, but is now in great difficulty after the bombing by Israel.
Israel blames Iran for supporting Hezbollah and supplying weapons to it through Syria. This has added to the feeling that something must be done about Iran.
Finally in these interlocking crisis areas of the greater middle east, I must mention Israel-Palestine. While the UN, the US and the world argues that the only just settlement is for two states leaving in harmony, we seem ever further from achieving it. The election of Hamas – viewed as a terrorist organistaion - to the Palestinian government has divided the two even more, and has also made life much more difficult for the ordinary Palestinian.
It is time to stand back and take a long look at progress so far. Is the piecemeal strategy working for the West? The threat from extremist terrorism is now worse than it was five years ago. More Muslims have been radicalised. Afghanistan is supplying Europe's heroin and thus increasing international crime and corruption, as well as still providing safe havens for terrorists. Iraq is broken and lawless in some parts. Its citizens die violently at the hands of extremists, criminals and insurgents.
Iran makes threats to Israel, and flaunts its nuclear enrichment aspirations. It threatens to use its energy exports as a counter to any international sanctions regime. It can incite violence in Iraq without difficulty. Meanwhile, the Israel-Palestine and the Israel-Lebanon problem fires radicalism further, and gives electoral success to Hamas and Hezbollah.
While it is clearer now than ever that the intervention in Iraq is the major cause of our many difficulties, we have to deal with world as it now is. Afghanistan must be helped, and it will cost more in cash and casualties than it need have done. But we cannot ignore it as it is remains a twofold threat from drugs as well as terrorism. Iraq and Iran cannot be compartmentalised given the geography and history. Isolating Iran and a long term occupation in Iraq will deepen the problems. Difficult as it is, a way to re-engage with Iran must be found. Nor can the problems around Israel be left to fester.
Unfortunately, the signs are that little has been learned by the key decision makers over the past 5 years. While we advocate the ballot box for the countries of the region, we refuse to face up to the consequences of uncongenial outcomes. Nor do we treat the people as our equals. Injustice turns to anger, and anger to violence. Meeting this with military intervention can only perpetuate the cycle.