[lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:35:18 -0800
Irene, you can't really get enough detail off the internet on such a subject
as this one. An excellent treatment of the subject and the one I had in
mind during my comments was A Peace to End all Peace, the Fall of the
Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, by David Fromkin,
635 pages. This is an excellent treatment of the subject and rivals
Margaret Macmillan's Paris, 1919. I think you will find that Wilson did his
own negotiation which was a mistake from one standpoint because the clever
Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau were able to pull the wool over his eyes
in some areas. But he insisted upon an end to colonialism and only agreed
to British and French oversight for limited periods as an alternative to
political and social chaos. Wilson was hailed by virtually everyone at the
time as a world savior. He was unselfish, taking no colonial booty and
suffering the continued presence in the Middle East of the British and
French insofar as it was promised to be temporary. He didn't accomplish
everything he wanted, but he seriously curtailed the ambitions of the French
and the British. He trusted too much in his own understanding and should
have had expert help. Unfortunately it wasn't available to America in those
days.
As to modern Arabs twisting this and claiming Wilsonian malevolence, I refer
you to The Hidden Hand, Middle East fears of Conspiracy by Daniel Pipes.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:44 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
Regarding U.S. involvement in Iraq after WWI, try:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_01.shtml>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_01.shtml
[Starting on page 3:] Under strong pressure from the United States, a sort
of compromise was evolved whereby Britain and France were given mandates for
the administration of these provinces, under international supervision, by
the League of Nations. The Arabs claimed this was a vei led colonialism,
because there was only an indefinite promise of independence.
Iraq (the old Arabic name for part of the region) was to become a British
mandate, carved out of the three former Ottoman provinces. France took
control of Syria and Lebanon. There was immediate resentment amongst Ir aq's
inhabitants at what they saw as a charade, and in 1920 a strong revolt
spread through the country - a revolt that was put down only with great
difficulty and by methods that do not bear close scrutiny. The situation was
so bad that the British commander, General Sir Aylmer Haldane, at one time
called for supplies of poisonous gas.
End of excerpt.
Regarding the military admitting defeat in Iraq, Seymour Hersh, among
others, has written on it. Not seeing the whole picture can be detrimental.
We'll self destruct from within the way the Soviet Union did from sheer
bankruptcy. We're broke, and this war is being fought on borrowed money,
the way the entire country is being funded. This war was politically
motivated, it has weakened us and it's a quagmire. No matter what we do,
they compensate and keep going. Are you not impressed that 500,000 tons of
bombs were dropped to no avail? Lawrence of Ar abia once said we'd need the
equivalent of something like 900,000 troops to subdue Iraq. We have
something like under 150,000 there. If we put 900,000 troops (do we have
that many in the entire army?) into Iraq, what happens if something else
happens in the world? That's Murtha's reason for pulling the troops out.
They now are saber rattling at Iran. What would they invade with?
Literally, where would the troops come from? Where would the m oney come
from? I know your answer is stay the course. That's fine. I'm done.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 1/21/2006 12:30:50 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
You need to check out who George Friedman is, Irene. Major companies and
government agencies subscribe to his service. He isnt a conspiracy
theorist. Many of the people working for him are former CIA. His book has
been out long enough for people in the government to quibble with it he was
wrong. No one has. We did believe Al Quaeda had suitcase nukes and were
extremely concerned about it for awhile. We didnt specifically invade a
country because of that, but we threatened several. We went after Al Quaeda
more strenuously because of that. It was the stonewalling of a major player
in the world of Al Quaeda, Saudi Arabia, which added to our reasons for
invading Iraq.
You see this is the danger with attempting to summarize the several books
Ive referred to. I didnt summarize it but I mentioned a few issues only
to have them sneered at as epitomizing the whole. I havent epitomized the
whole.
But we mustnt get away from the fact that we are at war and must fight it
as best we can. The enemy is real. He has the will and the means to do us
serious harm. We need to prevent that if possible. If someone were to
convince us his intentions and capabilities arent as potent as some of us
believe and he were subsequently to harm us, well, shame on us.
And who said the U.S had its eyes upon Iraq since the 20s? Thats not true.
Wilson specifically refused any of the spoils offered him by Lloyd George.
He ascended the moral high ground and pretty much stayed there. After he
returned to the U.S. and the congress refused to ratify membership in the
League of Nations, there was little interest in the Middle East for a number
of years unless it was on the part of the diplomatic service, for which see
The Arabists, The Romance of an American Elite, by Robert D. Kaplan.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
