Foreign Affairs.... the Journal.
There are a couple essays in the current issue of Foreign Affairs that I think are worth a read.
The first, Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon, looks at the allegation that Iraq is like Vietnam. They are not the same. The author lays out how and why they are very different and then offers up some guidance on what he thinks the U.S. should be doing. It isn't pulling out...
The second, The Last Exit From Iraq, looks at the British experience in the region. The British took over governance of the region following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the close of World War I. What the author finds is a remarkable resemblence to events in the 1920s to those we face today. The British had too few troops and were all to quick to get out. The consequences of which bring us to Iraq today. [the second article is not online in it's entirety, yet]
An observation of sorts. We should bear in mind that Iraq is in a part of the world that never really had experienced any sort of independence. Mesopotamia, up until the end of World War I, has been ruled by various 'empires' for thousands of years; the Ottomans, the Persians, the 'Caliphate', the Byzantines, the Romans, etc. It is a part of the world where a multitude of ethnic groups and religions have intermingled for just as long. You read about some sorts of regional aspirations like Kurdistan but the whole idea of 'nationhood' is really something that only came about following the collapse of the Ottomans. The lines on the map are even arbitrary, set by London and Paris. They never truelly reflected the fabric of humanity on the ground. Like the Balkans, there is little homogenity in the people who live there. This is a stark contrast to Western Europe where homogenity is more pronounced. I think the reason for this has a lot to do with the differing histories. The Balkans and the Middle East weren't settled by singuler barbaric hordes. They remained under 'imperial' influences long before and long after Western Europe had fractured. People moved around some and peoples intermingled. It was normal. But after World War I, the notion that people should separate and form their own respective nations was a foreign concept. Dealing with that is part of the Middle East's history.
The first, Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon, looks at the allegation that Iraq is like Vietnam. They are not the same. The author lays out how and why they are very different and then offers up some guidance on what he thinks the U.S. should be doing. It isn't pulling out...
The second, The Last Exit From Iraq, looks at the British experience in the region. The British took over governance of the region following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the close of World War I. What the author finds is a remarkable resemblence to events in the 1920s to those we face today. The British had too few troops and were all to quick to get out. The consequences of which bring us to Iraq today. [the second article is not online in it's entirety, yet]
An observation of sorts. We should bear in mind that Iraq is in a part of the world that never really had experienced any sort of independence. Mesopotamia, up until the end of World War I, has been ruled by various 'empires' for thousands of years; the Ottomans, the Persians, the 'Caliphate', the Byzantines, the Romans, etc. It is a part of the world where a multitude of ethnic groups and religions have intermingled for just as long. You read about some sorts of regional aspirations like Kurdistan but the whole idea of 'nationhood' is really something that only came about following the collapse of the Ottomans. The lines on the map are even arbitrary, set by London and Paris. They never truelly reflected the fabric of humanity on the ground. Like the Balkans, there is little homogenity in the people who live there. This is a stark contrast to Western Europe where homogenity is more pronounced. I think the reason for this has a lot to do with the differing histories. The Balkans and the Middle East weren't settled by singuler barbaric hordes. They remained under 'imperial' influences long before and long after Western Europe had fractured. People moved around some and peoples intermingled. It was normal. But after World War I, the notion that people should separate and form their own respective nations was a foreign concept. Dealing with that is part of the Middle East's history.
posted by Mahkno at 7:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home