Migrants

There are all sorts of analyses on the current migrant crises, but as usual, the most important points are left out. And those points are:

1. The cause of the crisis

2. Optimal crisis management

3. The end result

With current crises management, the end result is pretty much this:

Europe, 2015

But let's handle first things first.

The cause

There are actually two causes, one internal and one external. The internal cause can pretty much be summed up as - too many people. Or, if we want to get down and dirty with the details, it can be described as as too many young people in a water-depleted part of the world that failed to properly capitalize on oil abundance. Even when the oil was above 100$ per barel, most of the Mideast countries failed to use that economic boon as a vehicle for their social and technological transformation. Instead, they built golden skyscrapers and bought excess military equipment. Now that the oil is cheap, and will likely remain so thanks to the emergence of electric cars, that historical opportunity has been lost. Instead, what we have is too many young adults realizing the rest of their lives will pretty much suck.

The second cause, which affects only about 1/3 of the migrants, is strategic and is basically the result of the rise of IS (it's pointless to call the organization that is active in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Lybia, and Yemen ISIS or ISIL). Yet the rise of the IS is more or less an engineered event, a result of regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. After GW Bush's idiotic Iraqi intervention, population dynamics resulted in about 2/3 of the former Iraq to fall under full Iranian Shia influence. The rest is split between the Kurds and the Sunnis. By gaining dominance over Iraq, Iran basically became the primary regional power with direct access to the Mediterranean sea through its Syrian ally Assad. With around 29 million people, Saudi Arabia was no match for 80 million Iranians, and another 20 million Iraqi and 2 million Syrian Shiites. Turkey was also not very happy to see a rival equal in size arise on their southern flank. But they had an ace up their sleeve, and that ace was the fact that there were still a bit more than 15 million Sunni Arabs in Syria, as well as another 5 million in Iraq, which formed a wedge that split the Shiite crescent in half. It didn't take much to unite those people, as they already considered themselves of the same stock (noticed already a century ago by Lawrence of Arabia and pretty much noone else) and have them form a brand new state. Cruel and crazy the IS may be, but it achieved important strategic objectives for both Turkey and SA. Iran was contained, and the Kurds were occupied with a new enemy, which was quite a nice additional bonus for Turkey.

The US, being allied with both Turkey and SA, as well as opposed to Iran and Syria, wholeheartedly supported the whole thing as well. And therein lies the mystical survival of the Islamic State. While on the surface they pretend to be enemies with pretty much everyone, in reality they are allies of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and United States. It's silly to believe that a country which was able to plow through Iraq and dispose Saddam Hussein in a matter of days can't destroy an entity that's militarily less than 10% its size.

There's also one more possible scenario, and that is yet another way of containing Russia. Syria is Russia's biggest ally in the region, and the Russians are using a Syrian port for their Mediterranean fleet. It's pretty obvious why the US would want to put an end to such an agreement. With the USA still being paranoid about Russia, I'm inclined to believe that Saudi decision to keep the oil pumping regardless of the market crash was conceived in accordance with the United States in order to weaken the Russian economy. Even if it weakened bot the American and the Saudi Arabian economies as well. Perhaps as a part of that deal, Saudi Arabia was allowed to push the IS into becoming primary Syrian opposition, while the US abandoned their former Al Qaeda allies.

An odd alliance

Crisis management

Currently, the crisis is managed by actively supporting the Islamic State and allowing hordes of refugees (likely infiltrated by AQ or IS terrorists as well) into Europe. This is very short-sighted thinking (for Europe at least, the US may well want Europe to be weak), and the end result may more than likely be a religious or civil war in Europe. What Kosovo is to Serbia today, Marseilles will be to France tomorrow. European politicians who believe migrants will accept new culture are living in a fantasy world. If Turkey, which occupied the Balkan peninsula for almost 500 years, failed to integrate and assimilate Serbs, Greeks, and pretty much everyone else it conquered, it is unlikely that Europe will be able to do the same thing in 50 or so years that are left before Islam becomes a dominant religion on the continent.

What should have been done is not attacking Iraq in the first place. What should now be done is to sign a peace agreement with Assad, force Saudi Arabia to pacify the IS and give them the Sunni state they so desperately desire. What should not be done is prolonging this war ad infinitum and flooding Europe with countless waves of immigrants that will irrevocably change the very essence of its culture.

Endgame

As already mentioned, the end result is basically the destruction of Europe as we know it. It shouldn't be so. These nations and people should be left to handle themselves on their own, and ultimately they would reorganize their lands into something Lawrence of Arabia suggested a century ago. While the current sequence of events may be beneficial to the US, which still seems to think Russia is USSR 2.0 (while it's looking more and more like inverse is becoming the case), Islamic Europe is most certainly not in their interest. It would have been much better to have a friendly relationship with Russia and leave the Arab countries to rot after squandering the opportunity given to them by oil. Maybe they would have come to their senses sooner as well.

But what is more likely to happen is Islamization and Africanization of Europe. With a dwindling population, Europe is already less populated than Africa (although it had 4 times as many people a 100 years ago). Moving Africa to Europe will help neither the Africans nor the Europeans. It will destroy the latter, while making no difference to the former. 

People get all teary when they see refugee children, but no one mentions that there's just too many refugee children. Pathological altruism consecrates people who destroy their lives for strangers, but pathologically altruistic societies tend to die out or be destroyed by others which are not that altruistic. By naively helping everyone who needs help, Europe will help nobody and destroy itself. What should be done is ending involvement and minding one's own business. And already accepted migrants should be shipped off to the US and Saudi Arabia which both started this whole mess.