A National Military Insures Legitimacy

Saddam was not the first to use gas against the Kurds in Iraq. ⁽¹⁾ Iran and Turkey were not the first. The British were the first. The first time poison gas was dispersed by airplane was by the British in 1925 when it was dropped on Kurdish Sulaimaniya in Iraq.

"...I'm fairly certain the claim that Saddam Hussein used chemical warfare against Iraqi Kurds was part of the demonization campaign against Iraq in preparation for the war against that country by the U.S. and its allies. What a monster! If he would slaughter his own people, he must be some kind of bad guy..." (Jude Wanniski to Barbara Crossette in the New York Times - December 14, 2000) ⁽²⁾

"Not only was the evidence weak against Iraq and strong that Iran had carried out the chemical warfare attacks in Halabjeh, but subsequent charges that Iraq was carrying out further gas attacks on the Kurds were found to be without evidence. Turkish doctors treating ailing Kurds could not verify the use of poison gas on them, and the U.S. Army War College study in early 1990 also found it impossible to determine if gas had been used by the Iraqis in further attacks." ⁽²⁾

After WWI the British and the French carved up the Middle East. Post 1918 Lebanon and Syria were part of the French empire and Palestine, Jordan and Baghdad and Basra in Iraq were incorporated into the British empire.

Certain promises were made and broken and after all, this was colonial power and the way empires expanded their influence and acquired their booty. It has always been natural for the most powerful countries to take what they wanted. Historically, that was what they always did.

Yosef Bodansky describes it this way:

"..[W]hen the Western powers carved up the Muslim world into new state-like entities in the 20th century, these entities had nothing to do with the character and aspirations of the indigenous population. Furthermore, new ruling elites---be they royal families propped up by the Western colonial powers or Communist elites propped up by the Soviets---were imposed upon the population." ⁽⁴⁾

Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other nation states in the Middle East were all creations of the British and the French.

Said K. Aburish, an author, correspondent, and consultant to two Arab governments said,

"There are no legitimate regimes in the Arab Middle East." ⁽⁵⁾

Why? Because Not only Israel but ALL of the nation-states in the Middle East were created by the colonial powers. All of them were artificial constructs, the carving of the region and establishing spheres of influence. That is the way things were done back then. And it is highly unlikely any of it can now be undone. There are no more Arabian empires. The Ottomans paid the price losers have to pay and new states have emerged.

In fact Said is wrong and they are all legitimate regimes, because nation-states gain legitimacy by creating a national military which in turn insures their national presence and their cultural survival. Arab intellectuals and rulers cannot now deny Israel's place at the table without also denying everyone else's place at the table and that isn't going to happen.

The legitimacy of the United States was established by military might. Might doesn't make right, but it does insure survival against a less capable military - and who is going to argue with a stronger military force, except for an insurgency.

Legitimacy everywhere has been established by force as it was also done in America with the acquisition of Mexican territory from the Mexicans, Florida from the Spanish, and all of the Americas from the natives, etc.

Dimostenis Yagcioglu ⁽⁶⁾ from Turkey while a Ph.D student at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution wrote (1996) an essay called "Nation-States vis-a-vis Ethnocultural Minorities: Oppression and Assimilation Versus Integration and Accomodation", about conflict resolution and ethnic cleansing wherein he anticipates an aceleration of conflict as a result of the creation of nation-states and end of the cold war:

"Since their emergence, nation-states have generally had tense and conflict-ridden relations with the ethnocultural minorities under their jurisdiction. Yet, the social, political, and economic changes that have been taking place in the last two decades, changes that have accelerated and deepened as a result of the end of the Cold War, both in the developed and underdeveloped world, in the East as well as in the West, made this tension and conflict more visible, and a more compelling topic for social scientists.⁽⁶⁾

Yagcioglu's premise adds weight to the debate that the separation "security" wall Israel is building to separate Palestinians from Israelis would reduce conflict. (See articles) ⁽⁶⁾

Turning Myths into Realty

"The formation and rise of nation-states (from the 15th to the 20th Century, first in the West and later in other parts of the World) occurred simultaneously with, and as a result of the gradual emergence of capitalism, the growth in commerce, the beginning of industrialization, the spread of literacy, the development of communications, population explosion, and urbanization." (referencing Gellner, 1983: 19-62 - Anderson, 1983: 75) ⁽⁷⁾

"All these developments together characterize the advent of Modernity. Nations, nation-states, and nationalisms (i.e. ideologies that led to the formation and legitimation of such states) are typically modern phenomena." (referencing Hobsbawm, 1990: 14 )⁽⁷⁾

"The social, political and economic conditions of modernity demanded standardization, uniformity, and homogeneity..."⁽⁷⁾

"During this period, most modern states had to resolve a paradox: the dominant nationalist ideology claimed that within the national boundaries there was one integral, undivided nation, while at the same time the governments were trying to do away with diversity in order to establish homogeneity (the process of "nation-building"). In other words, they were trying to turn a myth into a reality." ⁽⁷⁾

The approach to achieve nation-state homogeneity has been attempted throughout the Middle-East since the formation of nation-states there and all efforts have eventually, and over time, failed. The dominant group is the primary beneficiary in the nation-state and all others are always subject to the whims of the ruling power. In Iraq, just as in Afghanistan there are currently (as before) multiple interests with their own war lords competing for dominance and state benefits.

Attempts at distributed interests always fails without force and eventually fails anyway when another group becomes dominant.. A case in point was Saddam Hussein who, using force, held together a nation-state with Kurds, Sunni, Shiites and some other minority groupings with Saddam's minority Sunni as the dominant power. Another case in point was Yugoslavia under Tito. Another case in point was Lebanon. And there are other examples.

Nation-building is an impossible task for the U.S., Britain and their allies unless they are prepared to stay forever and and I do mean "forever" and impose a kind of semi-equilibrium maintained by force.

Capitalism has been best suited for "modern" states under strong undemocratic rulership and for only as long as these despotic rulers retained power by force with the consent of the world community; that is, with the approval of the dominant major powers. Most of the countries the United States trades with and supports have been dictatorships. Rarely has a U.S. administration supported a developing third world democracy. If anything, the U.S. has been instrumental in overthrowing more democracies than it has supported. The ruling elites do not like countries that introduce reforms and the possibility of nationalization. The ruling elites want to exploit resources and people for profits.

Even socialism, where there are divided ethnic interests it is difficult to maintain without strong centralized government that maintains law and order by force.

Although Arab states were created and ruled by Arab kings and dictators, there was a backlash from the masses and from clerics and from other religious sects, like Wahabbism (a radical form of Sunniism) in Saudi Arabia where a symbiotic arrangement had to be arranged between the rule of one family and the shared rule of religion. Yet, the Saud family is always at risk of being overthrown by those who share the views of Osama bin Laden, who believe the Saud family has betrayed them by permitting the infidels to intrude in the kingdom.

During the homogenization of a nation-state it was thought that modernization would win out over ethnic differences but quite the opposite has been happening. There are several reasons for this. Some of it is poverty and the widely inequitable distribution under capitalism of the benefits of society and the withering away of their culture.

Dimostenis says,

"In almost every country there were ethnocultural minorities, and for every attempt at homogenization they posed a problem that had to be 'solved.'" ⁽⁷⁾

"Most social scientists and thinkers of the 19th and early 20th Century, including Marxist or socialist ones, did not regard the 'problem' of minorities as a major one (Stone, 1985: 83). They argued that racial and ethnic divisions and identities were going to wither away as a result of economic and technological development (Berlin, 1982: 339- 340). They particularly emphasized the impact of industrialization, and suggested that as societies became increasingly industrialized, the dynamics this process was creating was inevitably going to break down barriers between racial and ethnic groups. Industrialism was promoting effectiveness and positivist thinking in the societies; it was transforming society, by facilitating social mobility and urbanization, and, consequently, by undermining the traditional segments, where ethnocultural identities were valued most. According to those social theorists, the process of industrialization, accompanied by the rise of capitalism and the values attached to it, and facilitated by the 'nation-building' policies, was gradually creating an undiversified society; social stratification and social relations were increasingly dictated by the needs and logic of industrial capitalism (e.g. employees versus employers) (Stone, 1985: 84-85 )." ⁽⁷⁾

"Yet, ethnocultural identities, differences and minorities proved more resistant. They were not going to wane that smoothly. Industrialization and urbanization generated widespread frustration, insecurity, and anxiety among the members of traditional segments of society, forcing them to cling even more tightly to their culture (Stone, 1983: 90). By the same token, many ethnocultural minorities that were exposed to modernization, not only did they not lose their distinct identity, but they sought security by emphasizing it even more than before (Eriksen, 1993: 8)....."⁽⁷⁾

Dimostenis offers some "modern" solutions for resolving conflict. He discusses positive conclusions for managing, settling and resolving state-minority conflicts. All Middle East nation-states are conflict ridden not only within their own borders but also with each other. (See articles)⁽⁷⁾

Yagcioglu's premise adds weight to the debate that the separation "security" wall Israel is building to separate Palestinians from Israelis would reduce conflict.⁽⁶⁾⁽⁷⁾

As for Iraq, the British have been there before. No one, especially the Brits should be surprised at the anarchy in Iraq.

"No one, least of all the British, should be surprised at the state of anarchy in Iraq. We have been here before. We know the territory, its long and miasmic history, the all-but-impossible diplomatic balance to be struck between the cultures and ambitions of Arabs, Kurds, Shia and Sunni, of Assyrians, Turks, Americans, French, Russians and of our own desire to keep an economic and strategic presence there."⁽⁸⁾

"Iraq is the product of a lying empire. The British carved it duplicitously from ancient history, thwarted Arab hopes, Ottoman loss, the dunes of Mesopotamia and the mountains of Kurdistan at the end of the first world war. Unsurprisingly, anarchy and insurrection were there from the start." ⁽⁸⁾

Israel inherited the British mess in Palestine also. Air Commodore Harris, who also ordered the bombing of Dresden (see citations below), declared vis-a-vis the Palestinian rioting in 1921,

"the only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand, and sooner or later it will have to be applied".

The Palestinian insurgency (and similarly in Iraq) cannot be defeated, but it can be restrained and a very high penalty can be imposed. It does require a heavy hand. Israelis can also minimize the violence with a disengagement, by sealing themselves off from the insurgents, which they are doing with the security wall. There is another option. It has worked before in history. For those who are hostile and threaten Israel's existence the solution can be expulsion. There is actually another less humane option. If all else fails, there is the complete military option and the objective would be the annihilation of the enemy (insurgents or a nation-state).

Because there were betrayals by the French and British colonialists and agreements were discarded and changed to suit the colonial powers, there were mass revolts all over the Middle East at the hands of colonial "democracies". British and French repression of Muslims was also in the extreme and they were brutal. The history of the region has led to an increased radicalization and the roots of today's terrorism is an opposition to Western influence and the forced imposition of alien Western values. Arabs see Israel as the last vestige of that colonialialism even though they were also carved out of the same pie by the same colonialists. And Israel is no more a representative of the British or French colonialists than they are.

Insurgencies have been controlled in the past by despotic and harsh regimes. Israel is neither despotic nor is it a dictatorship. It is a democracy and there is only one choice that Palestinians can make. The choice for peace is theirs.

Hank Roth

Quotes are in compliance with the Fair Use Doctrine for educational and discussion purposes per Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, Copyright Law

References