The author is an idiot.
The Ottoman's conquered what is now Iraq in 1532. The people were "forced to live together" for nearly 400 years before Churchill got involved.
Posted on 07/13/2006 5:49:17 PM PDT by sonsofliberty2000
Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq By Christopher Catherwood Sunday, July 09, 2006
Modern Iraq is a complex country with three disparate groups - Sunni Muslim Kurds, Sunni Muslim Arabs and Shiite Muslims - being forced to live together. The creation of an artificial monarchy in Iraq, with a single ruler, unwittingly produced a Middle Eastern powder keg.
Christopher Catherwood's book, published by Carroll & Graff Publishers last year, examines the factors that led to the creation of this unwieldy state. These same events later led to the 1958 military coup against the Iraqi Hashemite government, which had been imposed on the people. Thereafter a series of bloody regimes ruled, until the ultimate rise of the Ba'ath party, which prevailed for decades under Saddam Hussein.
Churchill's Folly will give the reader a clear understanding of the historical background to the problems the Americans now face in Iraq. Author Christopher Catherwood is a historian and scholar based at Cambridge University, with links to the University of Richmond, Virginia. He has also been a consultant to the Strategy Unit of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet.
The book of some 260 pages is divided into seven chapters with an illuminating introduction, a speculative afterword and an extensive list of sources and notes. The overall theme is that much of the conflict and mayhem in the Middle East is the direct result of Western European powers squabbling among themselves for influence and territory in the Middle East after World War II. While Catherwood's main thesis deals with the creation of modern Iraq, from time to time he digresses to discuss issues in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
He argues that two major factors contributed to the Middle East confusion of today. Firstly, the break-up of the once mighty Ottoman empire. Their leaders made the mistake of aligning themselves with Germany in World War I. With Germany's defeat in 1918, that once great empire was shattered. What follwed was a wave of nationalism and the strong desire of self-government. Secondly, squabbling between the victorious Allied powers and their actions in the Middle East.
Catherwood lays the legacy of Iraq squarely at the feet of Winston Churchill, who had Cabinet responsibility for the developments in the country and who convened a conference to map out its future. The charismatic Churchill, Britain's World War II hero, was not without faults, and these keep popping up in the narrative; though it is probably a little unfair to lay all the blame for the current state of Iraq at his door.
Chapter One: From Abraham to Allenby provides the background to the territories of the Middle East, giving a bird's eye view of the history of the land between two mighty rivers - the Tigris and the Euphrates - the cradle of much of civilisation. With that comes the story of the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire and the emergence of the two main branches of Islam in the region - the Shiite and Sunni sects - from a 7th-century debate over who was the successor of the Prophet Mohammed following his death in 632.
The Shiites took the position that the leader of Muslims should be a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed, and followed his cousin and son-in-law Ali. The Sunni version adheres to the view that leadership should be by an elected group who are not necessarily related to Mohammed. Worldwide, the Sunnis are in the majority, except in Iraq (and neighbouring Iran). The Shiite majority live in the south of Iraq, but in the centre of the country, around Baghdad, there's a hard core of Sunni loyalists. In addition, the northern tribes, the Kurds, choose to align themselves with the Sunnis.
Chapter two: How Two Men in London Changed the World. The two men, who met on December 1, 1918, were Georges Clemenceau, premier of France, and British prime minister David Lloyd George. Their discussion centered on who would get the spoils of war in the Middle East. Easily said but not easily delivered, for promises could not be fulfilled and early expectations came to grief. The chapter ends with the appointment of Churchill, who was given the power to deal with the problems of the Middle East as he thought best.
Chapter Five: Changing the Map: The Cairo Conference of 1921. Chapter four describes the plans for the conference to be held in Egypt, with the delegates nicknamed by Churchill as 'the 40 thieves'. Two critical decisions had long-term implications. The first was to create a single state in Iraq out of what had been three previous Ottoman vilayets (provinces). The Kurds could have enjoyed their own buffer zone in the north, and the rest of Mesopotamia could have been split into two kingdoms.
This, according to Catherwood, could have been solved in Cairo. Secondly, the decision was made to appoint as king of the new unified state, the Hashemite Amir Feisal, who would have been acceptable to the majority of Iraqis. This never happened, as he was perceived as an imperial implant. Also, wanting to be his own man, he refused to play along with the forces that had placed him on the throne. These tensions were never really resolved.
Chapter Seven: From Feisal to Saddam. This was a period of severe confusion. From the violent overthrow of the monarchy in 1958, Iraq had a total of 58 governments in 37 years - a clear sign of chronic instability.
A very speculative Afterword. In terms of the future, Catherwood compares Iraq under Saddam Hussein with Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito. Both strong dictators, they were able to unite the country by force. When Tito died, any national unity disintegrated and old hatreds erupted, resulting in bloody civil wars in the 1990s over Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia.
The removal of Saddam Hussein has created a similar situation in Iraq, with Shiites, Sunnis and Kurd Muslims killing each other. What, Catherwood asks, can be the future of Iraq? He suggests some options: . A dictator emerges who will again subjugate the people with ruthless force. An unlikely scenario.
. The country is plunged into civil war with various factions fighting for power and territory. This might be a possibility with the Shiite majority, previously sidelined by Saddam, now assuming majority rule and political power. The role of the insurgent Sunni minority will be critical as to whether their role will become stronger or weaker. . The third and highly desirable alternative: various factions unite in a sharing of power and governance. The world watches and waits to see how Iraqis will treat their chance to have democracy at last.
The root of chaos in the Middle East is islam.
Wherever islam goes, chaos is not far behind. It's islam's fault and no one else.
Of course Islamic imperialism has nothing to do with it.
Once again, it's everyone's fault but the mooselimbs.
Now it's Churchill's fault and tomorrow it will be Tony Blair's fault. And in five decades it will be someone else's fault.
The person who's fault it will never be, is the Arab on the street who cares more about sticking it to Israel than the lives of his own children.
I wonder if the Germans didn't stir up a few things during WWI and WWII. And of course, the people who really attracted the interest of Modern Europe to the Middle East, none other than the Barbary Pirates. Which, way back when, were terrorist being supported by state governments.
""Islam is now the number one enemy not only of Europe, but of the entire free world," states Filip Dewinter, leader of Vlaams Belang (The Flemish Interest), now Belgium's most popular political party."
Winston Churchill, age 24, 107 years ago.
Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green | 1899
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism[72 virgins, I'm assuming] deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Has anything really changed?
I highly recommend therapy and a 12 Step Program!!!! LOL!
""Islam is now the number one enemy not only of Europe, but of the entire free world," states Filip Dewinter, leader of Vlaams Belang (The Flemish Interest), now Belgium's most popular political party."
That paragraph is not Churchills
The author is an idiot.
The Ottoman's conquered what is now Iraq in 1532. The people were "forced to live together" for nearly 400 years before Churchill got involved.
You beat me to it. Let`s not forget the Islamic condolence committee to the Holocaust in the late 1940`s was having 5 camel jockey scum sucking middle eastern prick bastard nations attack Israel all at once. "Welcome, we are so sorry for what has happened to you in Europe! Now die please!" And Israel has been fending off these sucmbags ever since.
This author isn't fit to wipe Churchill's shoes.
"You beat me to it. Let`s not forget the Islamic condolence committee to the Holocaust in the late 1940`s was having 5 camel jockey scum sucking middle eastern prick bastard nations attack Israel all at once. "Welcome, we are so sorry for what has happened to you in Europe! Now die please!" And Israel has been fending off these sucmbags ever since"
Good post Scream. For me it comes down to this: the Wahhabies and Shia fanatics want to kill my family. Enough said.
The real issue is tribalism. Islam is an excuse. They fought among each other before Islam, and they will continue to do so until the consummation of the world.
The Kurds are Muslims, the Turks are Muslims and the various rival Arab tribes are Muslims, yet they seem to end up fighting each other.
I did not read the article, but we have all seen the residue spread accross the Middle East from the "dearly departed" British Empire; and I myself have criticized the Brits directly for some of the current situations.
But, many history books later, I am reminded that the British Empire did not exist or arise in a vacuum, and there is every indication that any number of imperial minded powers would have stepped in and filled the power vacuum that would have existed in many places, inviting others in the absence of the Brits.
It was not simply the Brits, it was the times and the nature of the "world order" in those times. The Brits were no worse than many other "empires" and better than most.
"The real issue is tribalism. Islam is an excuse. They fought among each other before Islam, and they will continue to do so until the consummation of the world.
The Kurds are Muslims, the Turks are Muslims and the various rival Arab tribes are Muslims, yet they seem to end up fighting each other."
Your right in a certain respect, in that tribalism is a major problem in the world period. It is particularly acute among the practitioners of islam. My theory on that is islam is anti-modern, a primitive religion and that exacerbates the problem between and among the different arabic and ethnic groups that are cult followers of this religion of peace.
Geez, if I understand the 'author' correctly, I guess strong dictators are good. They keep nations united, quell old hatreds and bloody civil wars, etc. /sarc
The Bedouin tribes have been fighting among themselves for centuries.
It's not Islam that is anti-modern, but rather it's the sect of Islam followed by these brigands.
Sufi Islam, by contrast, is pacifist.
"As long as you remain a nation of tribes, you will always be a little people". (paraphrase...Lawrence of Arabia...or "Awrence" if you prefer)
FMCDH(BITS)
Dittos.
Blaming this on Churchill is the height of absurdity... might as well blame it on 'the previous 5,000 years of history'.
Iraq has been through a lot. it was the start of world civilization (the Sumerian civilization predeceded all others in the region). Why cant they get their act together now? I think they can, if the fanatic islamicists got out of the way.
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.