How Iraq might have looked

[jjwq8]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4332702.stm

[Sponsored Links]

[Steven Hauser]

Absolutely fascinating.

[Bugman]

It's amazing how many countries were created by the colonial powers with no consideration given to the native ethnic groups. It's no wonder there is so much strife in many of these countries when you have ethnic groups who fought for centuries before the area was colonized and split into countries. Now they are expected to get along and live in peace.

[smee]

Jeremy - ever hear of a woman names Gertrude Bell. Check her out. I think she may have had something to do with that map. She and Lawrence were contemporaries in the region and as far as my knowledge goes on her she had an not an unsubstantial influence on the circumstances reguarding the demarcation of the region. I read a book about her some time ago - the details escape me - and anytime this comes up - she fails to get a mention...........how odd

[smee]

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues98/apr98/bell.html

"Daughter of the Desert"

[jjwq8]

Recommended reading:


Sowing the Wind: The Seeds of Conflict in the Middle East
John Keay.

Check it out here:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=lU2M26UBp2&isbn=0393058492&itm=8

[Steven Hauser]

Thanks. I'll do it.


I've been studying about the Carribean. It's amazing how muddy the clear blue water actually is.

[John Bridge]

I prefer to accept the movie version.

Nah, just kidding. ;)

Did love the movie, though.

[Eric Philson]

This is rather off topic, but it is intriguing to me. It seems that this emphasizes a worthwhile point. The aforementioned nations were created with the stroke of a pen. No regard was taken of the ethnic realities and so on of those regions. Decisions were made on a whim affecting the lives of every person living within those regions. The implications of those decisions were far reaching as it turns out. In fact, these kind of things can be said about other empires too. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans also did these sorts of things. The actions of politicians and beurocrats who have been dead for millenia affect us yet today. To no small degree we owe who we are, or at least who we perceive ourselves to be, to the decisions of moronic, self absorbed, short sighted, self important people who advised kings and emporers in halls of gov't which are now of no more than archeological interest. In more modern times the British empire and now the USA are the examples. The US has in recent times come under fire regarding its actions from heads of state, etc., of nations which forefathers did all the same things our country does and worse. So as a US citizen, seeing how unpopular my country has become on the world stage, I have one thought that is of some small comfort to me. At least we are in good company. :dance: :) :) :dance:

[jjwq8]

John,
The movie dealt with a very narrow view of a very limited time in Lawrence's career. It touched upon but skated (or glossed) over the hatred of the Sauds and their allied tribes for the Hashemites. It totally ignored Gertrude Bell, though in truth her real involvement was outside the time frame.

Eric,
I suggest you read the book above too. Whim did not really enter it. Certainly there were conflicting camps of thought, but none were the result of "whimsy".
believe it or not Iraq was the result of the need for the British to Protect the route to India and secure the Oil reserves for the British Fleet. Not very noble I grant you but legitimate and pressing needs at the time.

[Steven Hauser]

I actually ordered three books to read together.

The afore mentioned, one about Lawrence, and the final about Bell.

It'll take me a few weeks but I am looking forward to the exercise.

[Eric Philson]

Actually Jeremy, I did not know that. I'm sure the book is a fascinating read and one day, maybe this winter, I'll delve further into the subject. My interest has certainly been pricked. Shamefully, all I know about Lawrence and the forming of Iraq is from an eighth grade report I did 26 years ago (and the movie of course :rolleyes: ). Whatever the encyclopedia had to offer was all I leaned and I've forgotten it all by now. I was really just making a silly point about other empires being self serving and our little empire over here across the pond doing the same. Actually, what you mentioned to enlighten my perspective seems to validate my point. I suppose England was despised then for pursuing its self interest like the US is now for doing the same. Anyway, it was merely an interesting observation to me. Being an arrogant American, I assumed we are the first to be hated for everything. Turns out that many others thought of it first. We never have been very original. :)

[jjwq8]

True Eric, and more pathetic is the apparent inability or obdurate refusal of your political leadership to heed the lessons of history.
Yes the Brits were hated, particularly in Iraq, and Egypt. They were despised by the Zionists, which assuages my otherwise guilt (not!) for despising them right back :D

[Eric Philson]

Which lessons are you referring to? Seems there is plenty ignoring of history's lessons going around these days.

[jjwq8]

Any of them, all of them, take your pick.

For sure we have just witnessed the delivery of another Trojan Horse in the shape of the White House driven "federalist paper" in Iraq.

[newbieonhomes]

It's amazing how many countries were created by the colonial powers with no consideration given to the native ethnic groups. ...

I can't help but put in my humble thoughts. It may be amazing but not surprising. Wars, Many generations, millions of death, human suffering, has mostly resulted by the decisions of few individuals in power. History (in my view) has shown that human rights and peace has always taken a backseat to economical leadership (read "greed"). My leaders would put human intellectual advancements before economic and peace for people before military power.

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

By Federalist paper I assume you mean our constitution. The Iraqi constitution shows little resemblance to ours other than perhaps some basic form.

Trojan horse is hardly a fitting analogy seeing as we've already invaded. I don't think it's necessarily the Iraqi constitution that is the instrument of control for the US in Iraq. Basically our instruments for control are people who hold positions of influence and control.

This "spreading of democracy" campaign that we seem to have adopted as our mission is what I have the biggest problem with overall. We were not formed as a democracy, nor did we become great as a nation under democracy. Yet, somehow the dominant idea is to suggest that other nations will thrive under democracy. Talk about missing a lesson from history.

I suppose that forces the question as to just what type of govt would work over there. A constitutional republic would never work there since a body of law could never be established in that environment which would represent the interests of the many factions. An out and out dictatorship won't happen again soon. So, probably the default govt will be a socialistic entity dressing itself as a democracy. Seems to be what everybody is slipping into these days. Go figure.

[jjwq8]

Eric,
The Trojan Horse analogy stands and does not refer to the presence of invading forces.
Federalism requires that the federating states have a commoness of purpose and recognition that they are better and stronger together than apart. It also requires that the federating states have not been at war with one another or other had the will of one state imposed upon them by force or intimidation. All factors singularly lacking at the time of promulagation of your own constitution.
None of these conditions exist in Iraq. The Kurds have been pressing for, indeed demanding a separate sovereign state for a century or more. The Shias have a loyalty that lies East of the current Eastern border. Both have suffered under the "tutelage" of the Sunni center. The Kurds are aching for payback and under the federalist system imposed will have the economic and political wherewithal to achieve it.

The new constitution is a trojan horse that will lead to a razing of the state as it currently stands.

[John Bridge]

Why not give the Kurds their separate state? :)

[flatfloor]

An out and out dictatorship won't happen again soon.

Eric, wanna bet? It's close to happening in Afganistan right now.

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

I see now how your use of the trojan horse fits with what your communicating. But that fits with my statement that a constitutional republic, or constitutional govt of any sort, will not work there. like you say, it would require a confederation. Like I said, There are too many factions with too much history there to create a blanket body of law, which is what a constitution is. We're on the same page on that.

This begs the question, what will work then? As John suggested the Kurds as well as the shia could be divided into territories. The Sunni could be allowed to crawl under a rock, but what would that resolve? I hardly believe that would create peace. The US's part of the quagmire is that the shia just can't be worked with because, as you stated, their loyalty lies with enemies of the US. The Kurds can't be convinced not to be vengeful. The Sunni seem to think they should still be in rightful control. No win scenario, except for the fact that a few enemies of the US are being eliminated along the way. Oh yes....and oil. So, like the brits decided when this land was divided so awkwardly, should the US concern itself with this mess so much as do what serves the US best? That's what the Brits did, right?

Now please let me clarify here, I'm so mistrustful of my govt that I'm suspicious of virtually everything they do to the point of being borderline paranoid. So, I'm not standing up for anyone here. Also, I'm all for learning from history's mistakes and all that. But It does seem that not much has changed since Lawrence' day. The same factions hate one another and are in there vying for position now as they did then. So, would it have really mattered or significantly changed the outcome of things had the brits done things differently? Same question can be asked concerning the US' involvement now. Regardless of the motivation, what would it change if we hadn't invaded? And now that we have, what does it matter who gets the trump card this trick? Another hand will be dealt in a century or two, and some other faction will get the chance to slaughter, rape and pillage the others.

Now I am absolutely positive that I am oversimplifying this to some degree. And this particular subject is not a particular strong point for me. Still, it seems that there has never been a good solution for these peoples of this region of the planet, nor will there be soon. This ongoing turmoil creates a situation which is ripe for exploitation from outside powers, whether for good intent or ill.


Jim,

Ditto the above for Afghanistan. There are some controling entities in place now. That does not equate to dictatorship. It is somewhat of a wartime scenario. The centuries old system of tribal warlord domains will continue on long after we are gone. They are merely squelched for a time now. If it is a dictatorship now, what was it pre-invasion? I'm truly not up on current events there, but I'm not sure one needs to be. All seems to continue on there in the likeness of the past. But I'm open to being wrong about that.

[flatfloor]

Eric, I agree with what you say.

While there is not a dictatorship in place YET, it's only a natter of time. As soon as they straighten out amongst themselves who the strongest most powerful drug/warlord is he will be the de facto dictator.

[Steven Hauser]

Well with what I've read so far, it's the Brit's fault. They need to sort it out. I'm starting to feel like a patsy.

:D

[jjwq8]

:eek: You mean one of those doohickies that the burlesque slappers use to maintain their decoletage?

Dare I suggest that if the current gung-ho administrations on both sides of the pond would remind themselves to walk softly and carry a big stick, far more would be achieved, at much less cost.

It seems to be all about legacies.

Forget the fiscal cost.

The ultimate price is the odium and condemnation of the poor and unwanted, the very resource upon which your modern nation is founded.

[Steven Hauser]

Yes, true yet your point is still not made. Though you may draw parallels with our (US) history. Is it not just the case that it appears eerily similar to the time peiod after the fall of the Turkish rule after WW1

[Steven Hauser]

Jeremy,

What is the difference btween now and after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in Mesopotamian region?

[jjwq8]

more Bleedin' Egyptians!:bang::D

[Steven Hauser]

Ya know, I'm still reading that damn book you recommended. At the rate I'm going it'll be a couple of months.

I finished the ones on Lawrence and Bell.

They were far easier, I didn't have to read the associated footnotes.

:scratch: