The tragedy of imperial retreat

http://english.aljazeera.net/ ^ | 07/21/2011 | Tarak Barkawi

[Natural Law]

"The lesson: don’t waste your time on a protracted war in a foreign land..."

Wars have a shelf-life beyond which they become unwinnable. Wars must have:
1) An overwhelming moral and self-interest imperative.
2) An ultimate objective (i.e.; total victory, acquisition of a specific territory, regime change, etc.).
3) A clear strategy to accomplish the objective, and
4) A timetable acceptable to the populace to accomplish the objective.

[Cronos]

That's called Balkanisation when different ethnicities who have been living side by side IN THE SAME AREA for centuries are forced to separate into separate nations -- as when the rise of nationalism caused problems in Poland (mix of Poles, Jews, Germans, Ruthenians and Lithuania), Romania (Romanians in the mountains and countryside and Hungarians and Germans in the cities), etc.

That is the outcome of nationalism

In contrast, Iraq and Pakistan have artificially created borders

in the case of Iraq, the British at the end of WWI got 3 distinct Ottoman provinces and combined the northern oil-rich province that was occupied by Kurdish people(a distinct Indo-European, Irani people) and the southernmost province populated by Marsh Arabs (Semitic people, mostly Shia) and they had to include the middle Sunni Arab province to join the two

The Kurds are ethnically distinct and have a homeland that is stretched across Turkey, Iraq and Iran.

in the case of Pakistan, the line dividing the Pathans into Afghanistan and the NWFP was artificially created as an outcome of the Anglo-Afghan wars.

The people on both sides are nearly completely Pathani

This is not Balkanisation, but rather reuniting populations that were artificially divided

[Cronos]

Nah, Empires are not fraudulent -- it is the natural outcome of nation-building. Either the empire tries to homogenize its peoples or it becomes a confederation. But in either case it expands

Most of the problems in the world today are not due to colonial issues (except TO AN EXTENT in Africa where tribes are artificially divided) but due to islam, industrialisation, increased medical care (so more people live longer, but they are not equally skilled, and don't have the same opportunities) and lack of focus.

In the case of Kurdistan and breaking up Pakistan, there will be problems, but they're gonna happen sooner or later, you know it, so why not bite the bullet now?

In the case of Iraq, let the Kurdish state get more and more autonomy. Then it will become the Turk's headache and hopefully cause a Turkish-Irani war

In the case of Pakistan -- Pakistan has no identity right now, hence is inherently stable -- it was supposed to be the land of the Indian Moslems, but many of the Indian Moslems stayed on in India, so its aim was twarted at the start, then Bangladesh happened. So, what is the definition of Pakistan? Nothing.

Plus it has Pathans and Baluchis artificially separated from their kinsmen

Reduce Pakistan to Sindhis and Punjabis and much of the problem of identity is solved (except for Muhajirs) -- in the case of both Sindh and Punjab, the Moslem Sindhis and Punjabis are there, while the Hindu and Sikh ones are in India -- so the states of Punjab and Sindh are the lands of the Moslem Punjabis and Sindhis respectively

They then at least have ideological reasons to exist

[Cronos]

In Africa, most states are mere geographical expressions and have no meaning. For example, there is no reason why Djibouti should be a separate, independent country and Somaliland is not. There is no reason why Togo should be an independent country and why Nigeria should not be at least three different countries.

Djibouti is a separate case -- it is somali by culture and ethnicity with a lot of Arabs. Somaliland and Putland are viable states and should be recognised

In the case of Togo, yes, this ex-German colony should be merged with the neighbouring states --> the majority Ewe are split between the states of Togo and Ghana

In fact I believe sub-saharan west africa should be joined into a larger "union" -- as the different people are too intermeshed for there to be anything BUT balkanisation as the alternative -- the current split isn't working either

[Lurker]

“It is dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, but it is frequently lethal to be a friend of the United States.” Henry Kissinger.

[Cronos]

Nah, only the Russians

Alexander the great conquered Sogdiana and then on the banks of the Indus in Punjab he decided to turn back after a big war (his troops probably heard of the huge Magadha army that lay to the east in Bihar)

Then the various Graeco-Bactrian, Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian empires ruled this area pretty nicely,thank you

Then the Mongols came and conquered it (some of their descendents are the Hazaras)

Then Timur-e-lang came and conquered it, then the Moghuls conquered it on their way to India, then Abdul Durrani created his Pathan kingdom.

The Brits never really wanted to conquer it as they saw it as a buffer state between their Indian empire and the Russian Empire (and no doubt so did the Russians)

[AfricanChristian]

In West Africa there are two main groups: the Christianised coastal groups and the Islamic hinterland. Pretending that they can coexist peacefully is just plain stupid. They should split and split as soon as possible.

This does not inhibit the formation of a West African customs union, like the EEC. West African can live with a customs union composed of independent relatively homogenous states.

Secondly, what is called a “language” or “ethnic group” in Africa is different from the Western concept. For example, the Yoruba and Igbirra are mutually intelligible. Igbo, Idoma and Ibibio have a lot in common and the Hausa and Fulani have intermingled for several hundred years.

This should form the basis of three new countries. The British united these separate groups for nothing other than administrative convenience. Two million people died during the Nigerian Civil War and several hundred thousand have died ever since. It is better to preempt a future bloodbath and split than to go on maintaining an unhappy union for sentimental reasons.

Africa’s political map needs to and will be redrawn. I see nations like Togo being absorbed into Ghana (when the French influence wanes as it must). The ancient Kongo kingdom stretching over three African nations (Congo Brazzaville, Congo Kinshasa and Angola) will be reborn.

Africa is just like Europe during its warring period. Artificial states did not last (just like Belgium the last artificial state in Europe with no government for a couple of months). The earlier we do it the better.

[AfricanChristian]

You are a typical innocent American. America has never really maintained an empire, so you guys don’t really have a hang on how empires are built.

All empires are built on deceit. You have 4,000 British administering a colony the size of Nigeria - so what do they do? They apply the time tested Roman principle of “divide et impera”. The problem is that the inter-tribal suspicions that they so assiduously cultivated over a period of a hundred years are not erased at independence, so you have the usual African predicament.

The Belgians did exactly the same thing but they were worse than the British. The French made an effort to “make French men out of the natives”, but they still played the same game to a lesser degree.

Now, I know you Americans see the Brits, the Belgians and the French as paragons of virtue. We who live in Africa have a more realistic view of who and what they are. (If you doubt me, ask a well informed Indian).

[ClearCase_guy]

The problem is that the inter-tribal suspicions that they so assiduously cultivated over a period of a hundred years are not erased at independence

Are you implying that the inter-tribal suspicions were created by the Europeans? I guess I'm not so familiar with Africa, but I can say that the Native Americans of North America for the most part lived in a state of constant tribal warfare throughout their history. That wasn't something that the Europeans had to teach them over here. I would assume that Africa has a similar history.

[Smokin' Joe]

See? Look at the turnover rate. (8^D)

(I stand corrected)

[AfricanChristian]

I’m not saying that there were no inter-tribal wars between African states but the Europeans actively encouraged them to weaken resistance to their rule.

Secondly, the history of Africa and Europe is very long it goes back to the 1600’s. There had always been slavery in Africa but when the Europeans came, the encouraged tribes to fight each other in order to capture slaves and sell them.

African slavery was not the industrial scale event that occurred in the new World. In many cases, the slave master married slave women and male slaves were adopted into the family. The slave trade influenced by the Arabs in the Sahel region was another matter though.

However, neither the Arabs nor the local Africans put their slaves to work in plantations.

[Cronos]

nah, it's not your fault. When we went into Afghanistan, the lib media spread that false story about how "ooooh so scary Afghanistan was", "graveyard of empires" etc.

I bought it too, but then checked up on it over the years (yeah, I'm slow :-P) and it turned out to be false (big surprise, eh? does the lib media ever not exaggerate?)

[Cronos]

Divide and conquer maybe — yet weren’t those tribes already fighting with each other BEFORE the English, French, Belgians etc.?

[Cronos]

Belgium is not an artificial state. it was the southern part of the Netherlands and has always been part of the low-countries. However, post the Reformatting, the northern parts became Calvinist while the southern stayed Catholic

When the southern parts were taken over by the Northern in the early 1800s post the Napoleonic wars, then the southerners were discriminated against

They hence took their independence in 1830

however, the northern part of belgium, Flanders speaks flemish and the southern part and Brussels speak Walloon French.

the Wallons are not "French" and don't feel French. neither do the Flemish feel Dutch.

[Smokin' Joe]

I was recalling many many moons ago when I wrote a paper in High School and Remember Alexander running afoul of the locals in the vicinity of the Hindu Kush. I must have had the wrong bunch.

A college professor of mine flew for the RAF and bombed the Wazirs (pre WWII), but they, too withdrew from the area after discovering bribery was cheaper than outright warfare.

[AfricanChristian]

Divide and conquer maybe — yet weren’t those tribes already fighting with each other BEFORE the English, French, Belgians etc.?

Even if they did, like the Europeans spent most of the last 1000 years doing. What exactly was/is the point of forcing them to live in the same territory in artificial states after independence?

[Cronos]

Even if they did, like the Europeans spent most of the last 1000 years doing.

Of course -- I'm under no delusion that Europeans or Asians or Americans (in the sense of the wider Americas) did not fight wars

What exactly was/is the point of forcing them to live in the same territory in artificial states after independence?

The same reason you just gave to my proposal to carve up Iraq and Pakistan -- its too difficult and it will cause problems.

Let the status quo be instead of cleaning up after themselves is what they did

your proposal of separating the West African Christians from the West African Moslems makes sense -- but aren't there cases where tribes are evenly split across religious grounds (I don't know -- so I'm asking you who would know)?

Also, I'm sorry to say this, but I think the peoples living in the democratic republic of Congo are still way behind civilisation -- when there were the various Ghana and Mandi kingdoms and other Empires in West Africa, the Congo, due to its terrain, was made of hunter-gatherers.

That place is too far behind culturally to catch up on its own. It never developed any feasible governance system. -- I have no idea for what can be done with the Congo, but it does not seem capable of ruling itself democratically -- it still has to go through feudalism/kingdoms

[Cronos]

I was recalling many many moons ago when I wrote a paper in High School and Remember Alexander running afoul of the locals in the vicinity of the Hindu Kush. I must have had the wrong bunch.

The area is roughly correct but the distance between Kabul and the place where the battle took place (in Punjab mind you) is about 600 km - maybe 320 miles -- further than New York from DC

The Indian subcontinent (and I include Afghanistan in that) is blooming big -- but the two areas are distinct -- Punjab, from Panch jab, five rivers and Afghanistan, well actually Pashtun lands

[Cronos]

African slavery was not the industrial scale event that occurred in the new World. In many cases, the slave master married slave women and male slaves were adopted into the family. The slave trade influenced by the Arabs in the Sahel region was another matter though.

True enough -- until the 1700s slavery was not racial -- in Roman times, the color of one's skin didn't matter..

[Cronos]

However, neither the Arabs nor the local Africans put their slaves to work in plantations.

Don't bring the ARabs into this -- they were the most cruel slavers even in those cruel times and Arabs had black slaves right up until the 1970s....and they started out with black slaves from the 700s -- so much longer

The difference is that they castrated all their black male slaves, so they had no slave "population" with a future

Besides you are wrong that the Arabs did not have slaves on plantations -- read on the Zanj rebellion in the 9th century. During formation of the Arab Empire, plantation cash crops made sense, hence they were grown and slaves were needed. I don't know if these were purely black slaves -- I doubt it, I think there were many Slavic, Roman, Persian, Greek, etc. slaves instead.

The local Africans didn't have large scale agricultural economies, hence no plantations

What is a plantation in any case? it's industrial farming -- of cotton, tobacco etc. that rely on cash crops.

To make these economically viable you need to have machinery or slaves (the latter is what the Southerners thought) -- tobacco in particular is heavily labor intensive, so without robots you need to pay lots of workers.