Posted on 07/29/2004 9:07:02 PM PDT by quidnunc
From Winston Churchill in 1921 to Donald Rumsfeld in 2004, what to do with the part of the world we now call Iraq has perplexed even the mightiest of Western politicians.
The students I teach at the University of Richmond are puzzled at the complexity of the situation in Iraq. What is the "Sunni triangle"? Why are the Shiite Muslims different, if they too are Arabs? If the Kurds are Sunni, why do they not want to be part of Iraq? Why are brave Americans dying?
All these questions have a simple answer — Iraq was a completely new and artificial state created by Winston Churchill in 1921.
In 1920, Churchill was the politician in charge of the British army. Britain was, as America is today, the global superpower, with forces all over the world. From crushing rebels in Ireland to suppressing riots in India, Britain had global responsibilities. But as Churchill realized, there was simply not the money to maintain vast armies overseas, especially in peacetime. So he decided that a much smaller army was needed, and that air power — the Royal Air Force — was a cheaper and more effective way of projecting British power internationally.
His worst fears were confirmed by the major rebellion in Britain's newly acquired Middle Eastern territories in 1920, when a large nationalist force caused the deaths of many British troops, and also ruinous expense to the British taxpayer.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
bump for an interesting read
It almost seems like to me, in ever situation i have seen, that liberals dont take time to study history. In 1901 President William McKinley made a speech, telling America that if we wanted to be a world power, we could no longer stand in isolation. Then, in the 1930s under Democratic leadership we did our best to stay out of World War 2, letting Hitler become more powerful than he ever should have been, and letting the axis almost take over all of the Middle East and Europe. Then Pearl Harbor happened, which was the worst attack on American soil up until that time. Pearl Harbor could have been prevented, if it wasn't for our isolation. Than the 1990s came along, and once again under a Democratic President (this time much more liberal), we suffered from many terrorist attacks on the US Embassys and the USS Cole. However, it seems like Clinton was to buisy with the Lewinsky scandal and the problems in Bosnia, to focus on the Americans who were killed by terrorists. Then, Septemeber 11th happened, and was even worse than Pearl Harbor. Now, liberals are pressuring the President to pull out of Iraq way to quick.
We can learn from history because it often repeats itself, many conservatives understand this and study history passionatley like I do, but it seems like liberals JUST DONT CARE.
It may have seemed like a quick fix, but it endured for 80 plus years. The Kurds helped keep Iraq from being strong and united. Considering what Islamo-facists do when they are united under a totalitarian theocratically christened regime, I can understand the logic of that. Now, we do what was near-impossible back in 1920. With the Information Age able to counter the slanderous rantings of Islamo-factists: through the internet, printers on many home computers, abundant cell phones, the concept of talk radio, etc, we hope to bring freedom to whatever Muslim countries we can. FReegards....
I entirely agree - even if at that time the Republican Party was not adverse to isolationism. That's why I hope you'll have a Republican victory in November, that could open the door to a new era of international cooperation.
No you don't. If you did you would know that the isolationists of the '30s were conservative Republicans whose heirs still accuse Roosevelt of illegally dragging us into war...and that's just he most egregious of your errors.
And Caterwood doesn't really do justice to the role of oil...which was the main reason Britain held on to those places.
Moreover, I think he has left out nearly all of the historical context. For example, WHY did the League of Nations grant Britain a mandate over that part of the world? Well, because the German, Ottoman, and Austro-Hungarian Empires were being broken up, is why, and something had to be done with those widely scattered possessions.
Caterwood somehow fails to mention that the creation of Iraq was one of many, many such creations in the same time frame -- including Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and so on.... Some worked, some didn't. The fundamental fact is that something had to be done, and that's what was done.
Caterwood apparently prefers to ignore the wider context, and prefers to make this an "oil thing." IMO this says a lot more about Caterwood's modern-day interests, than it does about why Iraq came to be in the first place.
You raise interesting questions.
Certainly, something had to be done. I haven't studied the debates of the time but I do know that the switch from coal to oil as motive power for warships was well under way (wasn't it begun by Teddy's Great White Fleet?) and that oil was therefore extremely important to Great Britain.
It would appear that his quibble was that Churchill's plan put together different ethnic groups under a single government. But Iraq was not the only place where this happened at the same time -- again, look at Lebanon, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Jordan, Palestine, and so on. These things were done for various reasons, but they were never done on a whim.
Caterwood is engaging in a bit of 20-20 hindsight, and I suspect at the same time he's feeding a couple of personal animosities (against Churchill and the Iraq war....)
I'd dearly like to know what those reasons were.
It's not as if the statesmen of the time didn't understand the problems that come with such constructions. They had the examples of the Balkans, the Astro-Hungarian empire, the Russian empire, the Ottoman Empire, and many historical precedents staring them in the face.
Since, even today, noone has a solution to ethnic and religious animosities and rivalries I suspect that Churchill and others simply addressed the economic issues, hoping the rest would work out better than previously.
Which means that you're right about Caterwood.
On the creation of Jordan, Churchill's preference for the "Hashemite solution" was based on various considerations which he discusses at some length. It's worth noting that Churchill's discussions of Palestinians vs. Jews proves that nothing has changed in 80+ years.....
I tried to Google similarly on Churchill and Iraq, but Catherwood's book seems to have swamped most of the hits on that.....
Why dont you inform me of my errors? Seems as if President Roosevelt WAS a great President, he lead us out of the Great Depression, and did keep America united during the world war. However, we didnt have idiots in Hollywood and the media like we do today dividing us one step at a time. Democrats like to tell us that republicans "need a divided America", however they are the ones yelling that BUSH BETRAYED THE COUNTRY!!!! And that BUSH LIED TO LEAD US TO WAR!!!!!!!! Eventhough both the Senate Intelligence and 9/11 Commitees tell us otherwise. You seem very upset about my criticism of good ol' FDR...who also put thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans into internment camps. Im sure you criticize our country and the Bush administration for the Abu-Gharib (however you spell it) prison. But I bet one of your favorite presidents is FDR, who was DIRECTLEY responsible for the torture of thousands innocent people. Liberals seem to be very ANTI-WAR even when it comes to defending our country. Times have changed since the "new deal" Democrats, and great Democrats like JFK even. JFK was strong in his stance against the Soviet Union, John Kerry however voted for a nuclear freeze during the cold war, at the same time the USSR was openly trying to take over the world. Anyways, we must remember the words of the great Republican William McKinley (who began his campaign promising isolation, but then learned the lesson) and know that we can never stand in isolation and expect to be safe. Yes, the Spanish American War was entered by the Americans because of mis-information, but those words still should stand strong and history has time and time again tought us that those words could possibly save us from future suffering.
I can credit John Kerry with wanting to see things to, which he does. But I am sick of people trying to pressure Bush to leave Iraq to early, we entered a country full of people who needed to be liberated, we promise we would do that, we must finish the job and make sure we dont leave their again with the country and its people in danger.
One more thing just because I think America is great, because it allows for healthy debate. To be honest with you, I love writing on here and talking to my fellow conservitaves and freereps, but I love it even more when someone of a opposite view comes on here because I get a chance to debate. I love to understand where people who have opposite view points that I have, and debateing is the best way to learn other sides of all issues.
Heres my question. Do you believe that if a modern Democrat like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, or John Edwards were in office that they would have dropped the big atomic bomb over Hiroshima to save American lives and end the war?
I don't, and I believe that in itself shows how much the Democratic party has changed since then.
If you want to make scatter-shot charges punctuate them properly by using paragraphs. Otherwise, someone else has to do the hard work of separating them in order to reply. I for one an not willing to do it.
I agree with you.
I'm sure that none of them would have invaded Iraq, either. I still believe that it was the right thing to do. But I also believe that the evidence for WMDs and connections to Al Queda WAS exagerated in order to sell the strategy. I believe that was the right thing to do as well.
Do you find that shocking?
Larry, I am posting on a internet website, not writing a book. All you have to do is read it to get the point. I am not shocked either by your opinion on Iraq.
Im not shocked by your position and I think that it is awesome, that eventhough you are a professed liberal you have the intelectual honesty to admit when a Republican President is right.
I agree with many Democrats on issues also, I don't think that Joe Liebreman (correct me on that spelling if it is wrong) would have been a bad president at all.
I don't care about spelling or minor errors. I meant well when I recommended using paragraphs to separate ideas. Have you ever tried to read an article which someone posted without the formatting? :)
I am taking your advice well Larry lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.