Will history judge it a "damn fool war"? Yes or no.

[Ninas_grandpa]

1 more for DFW

[MrTuffPaws]

Damn fool war. ++ungood

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by cmkeller *
**
That was prior to WWII, when the British had the League of Nations mandate over the area. That was (and I mentioned this in my most recent post) specifically one of the reasons why I made WWII the cutoff point.
**

*Originally posted by cmkeller *
**
With the possible exception of Lebanon by the French, the Middle East was never subject to outright colonialism by Western powers, and very little interference.
**

I’ve started a new thread to end the hijak.

[eponymous]

*Originally posted by cmkeller *

No, because logic has its basis in reality. Unfortunately, the mind-set of these Arabs is not based on the reality of having been on the losing end of WWI, and having been granted sovoreignty by the British and French as a gift, but (due to major ego-stroking, especially by the British), rather, on the perception that somehow these Arab rulers were being given what they’re entitled to, and that they’ve even been shortchanged somehow.

As a counter-example, post-WWII Japan and Germany understood that they lost their war, and, having accepted that, their governments did not scapegoat the Allies for whatever problems they had and forment unrest amongst the masses. LOGICALLY, the rulers and inhabitants of those countries understood that the problems were of their own predecessors’ making, and set about building a new society along a more productive model.

Hmmm - I’m a bit confused. My undersanding is that the British got help from various Arab groups in their efforts against combating the Turks in the Middle East during WWI. I was under the impression that as a consequence, the British “awarded” some of these groups (such as the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) for helping te British in their effrots.

I put “awarded” in quotes, because naturally, the British actually controlled it (via indirect methods that was a common practice of British colonialism). A somewat similar circumstance occurred in Palestine (again, created out of the spoils of war from the Ottoman Empire by the British). Likewise, the British were instrumental is helping establish Iraq and Saudi Arabia as nation-states (as well as countries such as Kuwait and Oman).

So I am a a loss in trying to understand how these various Arab groups were on the losing side in WWI (I’ve no doubt that there probably were various groups that sided with the Turks). Granted, the British (as well as the French) were in no way required to give up the territory taken - but one then needs to ask WHY the various Arab groups that did support the British in their efforts against the Turks did so.

To me, it doesn’t make much sense for those Arab groups to fight against the Turks (the outside power in the region), only to be replaced by another (the British and French) without some sort of implied or explicit agreement on future control.

So, help me out here (Tamerlane, your comments would be helpful here as well). In what sense did/do Arab leaders feel that they were being shortchanged in not getting what they were entitled to? Or is this more along the lines of continued criticism of the “West” for establishing (and exacerbating) the internal problems of many Middle Eastern Countries?

[CTB]

DFW. All the more so because knowledgable folks from both sides of the aisle were saying so from the very beginning.

Perhaps a more interesting question, and one that cannot be answered at this time, is how history will judge Hussein’s decision to let Bagdad fall with little to no resistence, and to wage a “death by a thousand cuts” guerilla campaign. Will he succeed? Does he need to in order to “win” in the eyes of history? Everyone knew he was crazy and evil, but hopefully no one had the folly to think him stupid. Not trying to hijack, just putting forward a related question.

And I just have to respond to those who would put forward the “flypaper” defense of this war. My cousins and other people’s sons, daughters, husbands and wives did not sign up to be the cheese in some fool mousetrap. They signed up to honorably defend this nation. To paint a target on their back in order to lure the enemy to Iraq is disrespectful of their sacrifice and honor. Paint a target on your own goddamned back if you think it’s such a nifty plan. Effective or not, it ain’t what our fighting men and women signed up for.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by cmkeller

I don’t disagree with that, but the question is whether pre-WWII actions can be termed “outside interference” that logically should breed resenement amongst the populace.

Absolutely it was and could be and did :).

Once the Ottoman Empire was dismantled as a result of their loss in WWI, the victorious powers had every right to administer the lands that were once part of it. It was only after the British (and later, the French) began to grant independence to the countries of that region (a process that, I will grant you, began before WWII but wasn’t complete until after it) that any Western meddling could rightfully be considered “interference.”

I’d tend to disagree. Because this…

Because once the Allied powers beat the Ottoman Empire and its allies in World War I, those lands became theirs. The side of the war that the previous rulers of those lands was on lost. Being the loser is a tough reality to accept, but you can’t go forward after a war without accepting it.

Unfortunately, the mind-set of these Arabs is not based on the reality of having been on the losing end of WWI, and having been granted sovoreignty by the British and French as a gift, but (due to major ego-stroking, especially by the British), rather, on the perception that somehow these Arab rulers were being given what they’re entitled to, and that they’ve even been shortchanged somehow.

…is not how the situation was defined at the time ( at least by the British ). It was the Turks who were cast as the defeated ( and endeed up fighting their way to full independence under Ataturk ) - the Arabs were framed as allies/liberated subjects of an oppressive state. The reality of this is arguable, but that’s how it was cast. When instead of granting self-determination the European powers played the same old game of divvy up the lands, it was viewed as a betrayal. Logically so, IMHO.

Further, outside of the Ottoman state, what about North Africa? Were the Moroccans resentment of Spain and France’s conquest of their country for no other reason than imperial aggrandisment misplaced? Howabout Libya’s conquest by the Italians, eager to carve out a colonial empire so they could look like one of the “big boys”? What about Algeria, whose conquest relied in part on a pretext based on the Algerian Dey hitting the French Consul in the face with a flyswatter over some obscure issue of personal debt ( the “flyswatter incident” of 1827 )?

Nonetheless, the Shah was just as constitutional an institution as the Prime Minister at the time. Rather than saving George III from American colonists, a more apt analogy would be saving Queen Beartice of the Netherlands from a (hypothetical) attempted coup by that country’s parliament. Is it wrong for an ally to come to the aid of an embattled allied ruler?

In this case, I’d contend it was. If the United States is pro-democracy, then it must act in a pro-democratic fashion. The first coup was initiated by the Shah against Mossadeq ( described by the CIA themselves as a “quasi-legal” coup ), backed by the Shah in part because Mossadeq had been trying ( semi-successfully ) to limit the Shah’s powers to that of the 1906-1907 constitution, something that had never been fully accomplished before for long, in the 1910’s in part because British and Russian forces had backed the autocratic powers of the Shah. It failed and a counter-coup essentially ousted the Shah ( for a few days ). Then a counter-counter-coup ( in fact the first coup finally getting traction as events shifted momentum ), succeeded in breaking Mossadeq and his allies. The upshot of which was the de facto suspension of the constituition altogether and the installation of a virtually absolute monarch. All to maintain British petroleum profits and in the name of Cold War realpolitik ( probably misplaced - Mossadeq was allied with the leftists, but wasn’t particularly pro-communist himself ).

• Tamerlane

[duality72]

Yes, damn fool war.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by cmkeller *
The Iranian constitution that was in force at the time dictated a form of government that included a Shah. If Mossadegh was plotting to overthrow the Shah, and the Shah was (with US assistance) defending his constitutional post, is that not rightful?

That is (1) not established, and (2) none of our business or that of any other non-Iranians anyway. Let me remind you that the fundamental concept of democracy is “the consent of the governed” - you’re avoiding the central principle for some reason, and it would help us all to explain why.

If he originally came to power in a manner approved by the Romanian people (as the Shah did in Iran), then it was not outside interference.

Maintaining him in power against the consent of the governed (there it is again) most certainly was outside interference, on the USSR’s part in that case.

Maybe not, but, whatever the Iranian perception, the reality is that the Shah was not a vassal of Western power,

And so forth. You do see, don’t you, the problem in dismissing anyone else’s differing attitudes as “misperceptions” while your own are “reality”? The people who (1) live there and know the situation first-hand, and (2) have the most direct stake in the matter (there’s that “consent of the governed” stuff again - pesky, ain’t it?) have far more credibility than those who don’t - you and I, for instance. You also know, I’m sure, that in politics, perception is reality anyway.

[Ale]

Damn fool war indeed; even if this turn all peachy in the end; fools sometimes get lucky, but stay fools nonetheless.

The pre-war drum beating was foolish. Pissed off people innecesarily.
The war went quite well, that was a given, Iraq didn´t have a chance.
The post-war so far is not going very well, mainly, IMHO as a concequence of the pre-war attitude of he USA goverment; thus foolish by birth.

[notquitekarpov]

Chaim, you are falling back on simple verbal gymnastics. Perception of the people being governed is everything, the whole construct of being governed is an act of faith and when you lose that then revolution follows. To claim that foreign intervention was not the major factor is simply foolish.

I don’t think you can regard the Ottoman Empire as the rightful ruler of the Arabs or Persians as they were not governed with their consent or participation. Nor does conquest give you the right to do what you like with a country and claim that is not outside interference. It requires you to bend over backwards with some weird definition that defies common sense.

Anyway, can we close this hijack now please. This thread was supposed to be about the Iraqi war…

My vote is already down - foolish, damn foolish.