Thursday, September 21, 2006
America on the side of history
Hot on the heels of having written about the prospects for democracy in the Arab world, I skipped on over to The Belmont Club and read Wretchard's just-up post on the chances for success in Iraq. Like me, he sees in the American mission a redemption, of sorts, for a land perverted by imperialism.
In Iraq, America is working for the implementation of an Iraqi constitution which creates a federal state, with the central government in charge of working out resource sharing. This is a fundamental difference. Iraq is naturally three nations. It became a unitary state under Sykes-Picot, as an imperial Anglo-French exercise. America has given the Iraqis a chance to leave the Sykes-Picot framework in a constitutional and consensual manner. In a very fundamental sense, history is on America's side and insurgency which aims at re-establishing some ethnic dominance are really fighting the tide of events. Concealed in the debate about Iraq is the little recognized detail that a Federal Iraq with a Shi'ite majority is inherently far stabler than a Sunni minority-dominated state under a strongman, which is what liberals, who ought to know better, seem to hanker for.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, for those few of you who do not know, was the archtypical colonialist deal, in which France and the United Kingdom secretly agreed on the borders between their respective areas of direct control and influence in the Arab Middle East. The Palestinians have a long list of grievances that derive from that fateful deal, as does Iraq, which was given the chance to erase its legacy by Operation Iraqi Freedom.
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Sep 21, 09:08:00 AM:
Get off the colonialist bandwagon. Your holier than thou approach is getting tiresome.
The French and British were not the only countries to practice this division of the spoils. As a simple, even you can understand, example look at the end of WWII. Do you really think the Eastern Bloc countries, especially the Poles, appreciated being glibly given to the Soviet wolves.
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Thu Sep 21, 08:30:00 PM:
So simple as to be false. Poland was not 'glibly given' to the USSR; they were occupied by Soviet troops! The Soviets promised the US and UK to allow free elections following the end of the war in the countries they were occupying. Naturally, they reneged on this and set up Communist puppet governments. (The Cold War: A New History; J.L. Gaddis, p.21)
If you're going to be an asshole, the very least you can do is get your facts straight.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu Sep 21, 09:21:00 PM:
Ouch davod.
I don't think the Iraqis, busy with the birth pangs of democracy, view our actions as redemption for the West.
"History is on our side." Put that away and save it until there are no longer thousands dying every month. Someday the strife will end, but until then you've got a platitude, not a vindication.
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Sep 22, 12:42:00 AM:
given to the Soviet wolves
Ummm, I'll have to check my AAA maps, but wasn't Poland kind of on the way to Germany?
Do you really think the Soviets would have left without a fight if we just asked nicey nice and offered them some milk and cookies, or maybe some of those kinky Berlin hookers?
