How should the world deal with ISIS?

Mugwump · Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne

To be clear, the British acted in line with their interests,. Nations always do, and all nations did so especially assertively in those days. The link below gives a pretty unbiased summary of events. You are certainly correct that the nationalist uprising of 1920 was general, but the northern and southern tribes were not aligned, and would not cooperate with each other. The one book I read on this was called And God Made Hell. I do not have it now (it died with a kindle about three years ago) but my memory of it is that the fighting started against the British but soon became three-way as the Southerners started to fight the northerners, and the country descended into anarchy.

http://countrystudies.us/iraq/19.htm

Faisal was indeed "thrown out of Syria" - not by the Arab people of Syria, but by the French after he had led a revolt against them. So he was hardly a puppet. And you write as though syria and Iraq were established political entities, where in reality they were largely Western constructs on a map built from Sykes-Picot and the Cairo conference. No Arab at that time thought in terms of Syria vs Iraq, and as I recall my reading, Faisal was the preeminent Pan-Arab nationalist of the time. He was a credible leader of Iraq, and in many ways he did a great deal of good in building education and civil infrastructure as Iraq transitioned to independence in 1932.

Now, of course the British did not act as a UN peacekeeping force. Nobody did, in those days, amd there are plenty of atrocity stories about British reprisals ("punitive raids") against local populations as the British were attacked and sought to regain control of a chaotic and anarchic situation. TE "Lawrence of Arabia" is not seen as reliable history nowadays, but he was famously crtitical of the ways in which he felt the Arabs were betrayed by Britain in 1919-20.

The ultimate point , to me, is that Iraq's nightmare is not primarily a result of Western interference, with the notable exception of the Second Iraq War. That tragic and stupid enterprise was conducted without sufficient awareness of the very story that we are discussing here. History is always an ingredient, and it flavours the pie. But the bulk of the nightmare is rooted in events more recent than 1920. It is largely home grown as a result of the sectarianism that has always characterised the area, and the warlike and harsh inter-Arab tribal history, controlled through dictatorship. Islam itself, a political religion from the get-go, has played a large role. Anything which tells people that their politics comes from God, not from their rulers and their citizenship, tends to undermine political maturity.

Though your view of the meaning of the events is different to my understanding from the modest reading I have done on it, your knowledge of the period is rare, and quite possibly superior to mine. So i am open to revising my view of it, if you have references for me to read.

The Prototype · Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:10 pm

Wokko · Come and take it. Joined: 04 Oct 2005

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/21/isis-delenda-est-what-the-romans-knew-about-winning-a-war/

Jezza · 2023 PREMIERS! Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End

pietillidie · Joined: 07 Jan 2005

David · I dare you to try Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda

Yeah, I think I need to see his strategy condensed into bullet points. At the moment, it seems to consist mostly of 1) work with, not against Russia (a point I reluctantly agree on, but one which is hardly novel); 2) lay wreaths at sites of terror attacks (huh?); and 3) Keep telling ourselves that we will win (...).