Today I need to correct an egregious oversight made in my tour of the Middle East. I missed a country very early on in the alphabet. In all fairness, Bahrain is an island in the Persian Gulf, and the smallest of the Middle Eastern countries, but this is no excuse. To my sizable and highly valued Bahrainian readership, please accept my apology.
Bahrain: As a strategic location centered in the Persian Gulf and a source of fertile lands, Bahrain was the victim of many invasions and conquests throughout its history until it became a British Protectorate in the late 18th century.
In 1932 Bahrain became the first Middle Eastern country to discover oil. This brought economic growth and strengthened ties with Britain, who built a number of bases on the island and modernized the country’s education system.
Following WWII opposition to British colonization throughout the region led to riots in Bahrain, and by 1960 Great Britain left the fate of the country in the hands of the UN. By 1971 the country was declared independent, and the British withdrew. The economic prosperity of the country grew throughout the ‘70s and ’80s as they enjoyed an oil boom and became the Middle East’s banking and financial hub.
Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran a group of Shiite fundamentalists attempted a coup in Bahrain, wishing to install a theocratic government similar to Iran’s. The coup failed, but it raised tensions between the government and Shiite groups on the island.
Rioting broke out amongst Shiite’s in 1994, sparked by women participation in a sporting event (the Shiites were against it). Minor skirmishes continued through the mid ‘90s.
In 1999 Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa became head of state. He went on to issue parliamentary elections, give women the right to vote, and release all political prisoners. These actions were celebrated by Amnesty International as a “historic period of human rights.”
Fun fact: Many believe Bahrain is the site of the Garden of Eden.
Yemen: Alright, I have a feeling that this is going to be a short one.
Yemen was controlled by the Ottoman Empire until its fall. After this, the country was split into North and South Yemen. North Yemen declared its independence immediately following the war, while South Yemen became a British protectorate.
Facing international pressure, the British withdrew from South Yemen in 1967 and the region became a Marxist state. As a result, hundreds of thousands of South Yemenis immigrated to the North, causing hostilities that lasted for two decades. In 1990 the countries were formally unified.
See, I promised that would be quick. Congratulations, readers, we are officially done with our tour of Middle Eastern countries. Feels good, doesn’t it? We are definitely closer to understanding the world around us.
Tomorrow I’ll come back with the much anticipated Who’s Who of the Middle East, and following that I’ll do my best to wrap things up with some final thoughts.
Thanks for reading.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 12
Continuing our journey through the Middle East…
Syria: Like a good portion of the Middle East, Syria’s history goes back to the Bible (we all remember Paul and the Road to Damascus). For my purposes, I’ll once again start with the fall of the Ottoman Empire following WWI.
The Syrians participated with the British in a revolt against the Ottomans in 1917-18, capturing Damascus and other prominent Syrian cities. They went on to form a national government, elect a prime minister and parliament, and declare themselves a free and independent nation. The building blocks of a promising democracy, right? Too bad the League of Nations decided they belonged to France.
In 1920 the French attacked Syria, capturing Damascus and destroying the Syrian resistance. The parliament was dissolved and Syrian was divided into six states.
The Syrians spent the next 10+ years in a continual state of revolt. Eventually tiring of the fight, the French were forced to revise their plans in the region and in 1932 the Syrian Republic was declared. This didn’t necessarily solve the problem, however, as the French appointed mostly pro-French officials to run the country. In 1934 Syrian nationalists called a 60-day strike against the French, and France admitted defeat. A treaty was negotiated which gradually granted Syria independence over a 25 year period.
Unfortunately for the Syrians, their attempts at independence were once again thwarted, this time by the outbreak of WWII. After the surrender of France to Germany in 1940, Syria came under the control of the Vichy government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_government, The Vichy government ruled France from 1940-44. They were not a legitimate French government, but were puppets of the Nazi regime. To counter the Vichy government the Free French Forces (FFL) were created).
In 1941 Syria was invaded by the Free French Forces and the British, an event opposed by many of the allies because it meant that Frenchmen would be fighting Frenchmen, pitting Vichy forces against the FFL and raising the risk of a French civil war. In spite of this possibility, the FFL and the British were able to capture Syria from the Vichy government, the parliament was reinstated, and in 1944 an independence treaty was signed by Syrian and French leaders.
We already know the role of Syria in the 1948 Arab Israeli war, so let’s skip over that and move to the first of a series of coup d’etats that ravaged the country’s stability. The first took place in 1949 by General Husni al-Zaim, backed by the French, British, and the CIA. Al-Zaim promised to back any American pact in the Middle East in exchange for American support in Syria. Less than a year later al-Zaim was overthrown by Colonel Sami al-Hinnawi and was executed. Six months after that another coup was led by Colonel Adib al-Shishakli, who made opposing political parties and news sources illegal. Not surprisingly he won the presidency with 99.8% of the votes (who else did .2% of the population voted for?). Al-Shishakli was himself overthrown in 1954, and the government (president, parliament, cabinet) that existed prior to his reign was reinstated.
By 1957 the Syrian Communist Party had taken control of the country and allied itself with Egypt and the Soviet Union. In 1958 Syrian and Egypt agreed to merge into one country, the United Arab Republic (UAR), with Egyptian president Nasser as the overarching leader. Nasser went on to dissolve the Syrian government. This lasted until 1961, when a group of army officers seized power and declared Syria once again independent. In 1963 the Ba’ath party took over and following the Six-Day war (in which Egypt, Jordan and Syria attacked Israeli), Ba’ath party leader Hafez al-Assad sought to quickly consolidate power, ensuring that Ba’ath officials held the majority of government posts.
In the following years Syria was involved in ongoing disputes with Israel, and participated in the Lebanese Civil War. They sided with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, alienating themselves from many of their neighbors. They were a part of the U.S lead coalition against Iraq in the Gulf War, even participating in the Middle East Peace Conference in 1991 and engaging in direct peace talks with Israel (these negotiations failed).
Al-Assad died in 2000 and the country has since seen increased liberalization with lifts on internet and mobile phone bans and the reduced role of the secret police. Recent allegations have been made that Syria funds the Hezbollah militants and provides safe haven for Palestinian extremists.
United Arab Emirates: The United Arab Emirates are comprised of seven Emirates: Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm al-Quwain.
During the 18th and 19th centuries the region became know as the “Pirate Coast” due to groups of raiders harassing foreign shipping. As a result the British staged a series of attacks, eventually leading to a peace treaty signed in 1853 under which the sheiks in the region agreed to maritime truce while the British agreed to protect their kingdoms.
In 1892, fearing attacks from ambitious European nations, the sheiks signed a new treaty with Britain. Under the new treaty the sheiks would not enter into relationships with any foreign government without British consent and the British would protect the sheikdoms from attack. The region became, essentially, a British protectorate. This lasted for 80 years.
In 1971 the UK decided to end the treaty with the sheiks for the same reasons they severed ties with Kuwait, (See A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 9), including international pressures and the high cost of maintaining armies abroad. The sheikdoms became fully independent and entered into a union known as the United Arab Emirates.
The Emirates have remained uninvolved in most regional affairs. They participated in the coalition during the Gulf War, but otherwise their activity in conflicts has been nonexistent. Due to incredible economic prosperity stemming from large oil reserves they can afford to remain indifferent towards regional disputes.
Perhaps the Emirates greatest claim to fame is the city of Dubai, a booming coastal tourist haven boasting such extravagances as man-made islands (including “The World”) and an indoor ski hill.
We’re so close I can taste it. Two more countries in the Middle East and it’ll be time to wrap things up. Bonus: Anyone who tells me what Monday's countries are will recieve a special prize! (Somebody comment please.) (That’s me being desperate.)
Thanks for reading.
Syria: Like a good portion of the Middle East, Syria’s history goes back to the Bible (we all remember Paul and the Road to Damascus). For my purposes, I’ll once again start with the fall of the Ottoman Empire following WWI.
The Syrians participated with the British in a revolt against the Ottomans in 1917-18, capturing Damascus and other prominent Syrian cities. They went on to form a national government, elect a prime minister and parliament, and declare themselves a free and independent nation. The building blocks of a promising democracy, right? Too bad the League of Nations decided they belonged to France.
In 1920 the French attacked Syria, capturing Damascus and destroying the Syrian resistance. The parliament was dissolved and Syrian was divided into six states.
The Syrians spent the next 10+ years in a continual state of revolt. Eventually tiring of the fight, the French were forced to revise their plans in the region and in 1932 the Syrian Republic was declared. This didn’t necessarily solve the problem, however, as the French appointed mostly pro-French officials to run the country. In 1934 Syrian nationalists called a 60-day strike against the French, and France admitted defeat. A treaty was negotiated which gradually granted Syria independence over a 25 year period.
Unfortunately for the Syrians, their attempts at independence were once again thwarted, this time by the outbreak of WWII. After the surrender of France to Germany in 1940, Syria came under the control of the Vichy government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_government, The Vichy government ruled France from 1940-44. They were not a legitimate French government, but were puppets of the Nazi regime. To counter the Vichy government the Free French Forces (FFL) were created).
In 1941 Syria was invaded by the Free French Forces and the British, an event opposed by many of the allies because it meant that Frenchmen would be fighting Frenchmen, pitting Vichy forces against the FFL and raising the risk of a French civil war. In spite of this possibility, the FFL and the British were able to capture Syria from the Vichy government, the parliament was reinstated, and in 1944 an independence treaty was signed by Syrian and French leaders.
We already know the role of Syria in the 1948 Arab Israeli war, so let’s skip over that and move to the first of a series of coup d’etats that ravaged the country’s stability. The first took place in 1949 by General Husni al-Zaim, backed by the French, British, and the CIA. Al-Zaim promised to back any American pact in the Middle East in exchange for American support in Syria. Less than a year later al-Zaim was overthrown by Colonel Sami al-Hinnawi and was executed. Six months after that another coup was led by Colonel Adib al-Shishakli, who made opposing political parties and news sources illegal. Not surprisingly he won the presidency with 99.8% of the votes (who else did .2% of the population voted for?). Al-Shishakli was himself overthrown in 1954, and the government (president, parliament, cabinet) that existed prior to his reign was reinstated.
By 1957 the Syrian Communist Party had taken control of the country and allied itself with Egypt and the Soviet Union. In 1958 Syrian and Egypt agreed to merge into one country, the United Arab Republic (UAR), with Egyptian president Nasser as the overarching leader. Nasser went on to dissolve the Syrian government. This lasted until 1961, when a group of army officers seized power and declared Syria once again independent. In 1963 the Ba’ath party took over and following the Six-Day war (in which Egypt, Jordan and Syria attacked Israeli), Ba’ath party leader Hafez al-Assad sought to quickly consolidate power, ensuring that Ba’ath officials held the majority of government posts.
In the following years Syria was involved in ongoing disputes with Israel, and participated in the Lebanese Civil War. They sided with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, alienating themselves from many of their neighbors. They were a part of the U.S lead coalition against Iraq in the Gulf War, even participating in the Middle East Peace Conference in 1991 and engaging in direct peace talks with Israel (these negotiations failed).
Al-Assad died in 2000 and the country has since seen increased liberalization with lifts on internet and mobile phone bans and the reduced role of the secret police. Recent allegations have been made that Syria funds the Hezbollah militants and provides safe haven for Palestinian extremists.
United Arab Emirates: The United Arab Emirates are comprised of seven Emirates: Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm al-Quwain.
During the 18th and 19th centuries the region became know as the “Pirate Coast” due to groups of raiders harassing foreign shipping. As a result the British staged a series of attacks, eventually leading to a peace treaty signed in 1853 under which the sheiks in the region agreed to maritime truce while the British agreed to protect their kingdoms.
In 1892, fearing attacks from ambitious European nations, the sheiks signed a new treaty with Britain. Under the new treaty the sheiks would not enter into relationships with any foreign government without British consent and the British would protect the sheikdoms from attack. The region became, essentially, a British protectorate. This lasted for 80 years.
In 1971 the UK decided to end the treaty with the sheiks for the same reasons they severed ties with Kuwait, (See A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 9), including international pressures and the high cost of maintaining armies abroad. The sheikdoms became fully independent and entered into a union known as the United Arab Emirates.
The Emirates have remained uninvolved in most regional affairs. They participated in the coalition during the Gulf War, but otherwise their activity in conflicts has been nonexistent. Due to incredible economic prosperity stemming from large oil reserves they can afford to remain indifferent towards regional disputes.
Perhaps the Emirates greatest claim to fame is the city of Dubai, a booming coastal tourist haven boasting such extravagances as man-made islands (including “The World”) and an indoor ski hill.
We’re so close I can taste it. Two more countries in the Middle East and it’ll be time to wrap things up. Bonus: Anyone who tells me what Monday's countries are will recieve a special prize! (Somebody comment please.) (That’s me being desperate.)
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 11
We grow ever nearer to the end of the alphabet, and as we do I continue to find hidden countries nestled into the Middle East, toiling in virtual anonymity due to their lack of international dealings, yet essential to the global economic picture. Qatar, for example…
Qatar: The pattern of transitions for Middle Eastern countries seems to be Ottoman Empire, British rule, independence. Qatar is no different, though it did gain its independence a little later than other Gulf States (1971)
Qatar officially became a British Protectorate in 1916, but following WWII the reach of the British Empire diminished. Increased international pressure for British withdrawal from Arab states, along with Kuwait’s successful declaration of independence in 1961, encouraged the rest of Arabia to seek its own independence.
Qatar initially joined the group of states that would go on to form the United Arab Emirates, but regional disputes led Qatar to resign and declare its own independence.
Khalifa Bin Hamad Al Thani was the Emir of Qatar from the time it gained independence until 1995, when Khalifa’s son Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani seized power while his father vacationed in Switzerland (what a back-stabber). Hamad rules to this day, and the country has flourished under his leadership. Qatar has been socially liberalized, women have been enfranchised, and the nation ranks as the 11th richest country in the world per capita. Qatar is also home of the controversial Arab television station Al Jazeera.
Qatar, for the most part, stays out world conflicts. It was one of the main launching points for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, but has kept its distance from the war otherwise and sees little terrorist activity.
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia first emerged in 1744 when regional ruler Muhammad bi Saud partnered with cleric Muhammad Abd Al-Wahhab, establishing the roots of what remains Saudi Arabia’s dynasty rule. Over the next 150 years the Saud family contended with Egypt and the Ottoman Empire for control.
In 1902 Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, at the age of 22, recaptured Riyadh, the ancestral capital, from the Al-Rashid family. Abdul Aziz went on to conquer the surrounding kingdoms of Al-Hasa, Al-Qatif, Nejd, and Hejaz. These conquests lasted until 1932, when Abdul Aziz’s conquered territories were unified to form the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Vast reserves of oil were discovered in 1938, and the country has been incredibly economically prosperous ever since. Politically, the country has a history of isolationism. Abdul Aziz refused to join League of Nations, and from 1916 to his death in 1953 left his kingdom only three times.
Due to its size and economic prosperity Saudi Arabia has faced few challenges to its sovereignty. There were concerns that Iraq may trade to invade from Kuwait when they annexed the country in 1991, but coalition forces stepped in before this came to fruition.
Lately the country has become more vocal on the international scene, working with its Arab neighbors and the US to establish peace in the region.
So close…
Thanks for reading.
Qatar: The pattern of transitions for Middle Eastern countries seems to be Ottoman Empire, British rule, independence. Qatar is no different, though it did gain its independence a little later than other Gulf States (1971)
Qatar officially became a British Protectorate in 1916, but following WWII the reach of the British Empire diminished. Increased international pressure for British withdrawal from Arab states, along with Kuwait’s successful declaration of independence in 1961, encouraged the rest of Arabia to seek its own independence.
Qatar initially joined the group of states that would go on to form the United Arab Emirates, but regional disputes led Qatar to resign and declare its own independence.
Khalifa Bin Hamad Al Thani was the Emir of Qatar from the time it gained independence until 1995, when Khalifa’s son Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani seized power while his father vacationed in Switzerland (what a back-stabber). Hamad rules to this day, and the country has flourished under his leadership. Qatar has been socially liberalized, women have been enfranchised, and the nation ranks as the 11th richest country in the world per capita. Qatar is also home of the controversial Arab television station Al Jazeera.
Qatar, for the most part, stays out world conflicts. It was one of the main launching points for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, but has kept its distance from the war otherwise and sees little terrorist activity.
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia first emerged in 1744 when regional ruler Muhammad bi Saud partnered with cleric Muhammad Abd Al-Wahhab, establishing the roots of what remains Saudi Arabia’s dynasty rule. Over the next 150 years the Saud family contended with Egypt and the Ottoman Empire for control.
In 1902 Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, at the age of 22, recaptured Riyadh, the ancestral capital, from the Al-Rashid family. Abdul Aziz went on to conquer the surrounding kingdoms of Al-Hasa, Al-Qatif, Nejd, and Hejaz. These conquests lasted until 1932, when Abdul Aziz’s conquered territories were unified to form the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Vast reserves of oil were discovered in 1938, and the country has been incredibly economically prosperous ever since. Politically, the country has a history of isolationism. Abdul Aziz refused to join League of Nations, and from 1916 to his death in 1953 left his kingdom only three times.
Due to its size and economic prosperity Saudi Arabia has faced few challenges to its sovereignty. There were concerns that Iraq may trade to invade from Kuwait when they annexed the country in 1991, but coalition forces stepped in before this came to fruition.
Lately the country has become more vocal on the international scene, working with its Arab neighbors and the US to establish peace in the region.
So close…
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 10
Today is a celebration, this series is officially double the length that I had anticipated. If this series were a movie, and the length of it was my budget, I think A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East would be Waterworld. The (Very) part has become a little ludicrous. Even the Brief is becoming increasingly nonsensical. But I will press on faithful readers (anyone?), and will pick up where I leave off day after day (to infinity and beyond). Wish me luck.
Pakistan: The nation of Pakistan wasn’t officially formed until 1947, but the history of how this came to fruition dates back much further. Originally a part of India, the country started to split in the 1930s when the Muslim League rose to popularity. The Indian government, engaged in an unarmed struggle with Britain for independence, was Hindu dominated and there were concerns amongst Muslims concerning under-representation.
In 1947 two Muslim majority regions in eastern and northwest British India separated from the country. This led to riots across India and the newly formed Pakistan, and resulted in millions of Muslims immigrating to Pakistan and millions of Hindus immigrating to India.
Disputes arose over several territories, most notably Kashmir, a former princely state which had acceded to India years prior, despite the fact that the majority of the Kashmir population favored independence. The First Kashmir War in 1948 resulted in Pakistan occupying one-third of the state, with India occupying the rest.
In 1956 Pakistan declared itself a republic, but this was stalled by a coup by Ayub Khan, who ruled as “president” from 1958-69. His presidency saw intense instability and violence, including a second war with India, a civil war between East and West Pakistan (The Bangladesh War of Independence) which eventually led East Pakistan to become the independent nation of Bangladesh, and a third war with India.
In 1972 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took over, and the country was once again under civilian rule. This lasted until 1977 when Ali Bhutto was overthrown by General Zia-Ul-Haq, the country’s third military president. Zia replaced Pakistan’s civil law with strict Islamic law. When he died in a plane crash in 1988 Benazir Bhutto, daughter of Zulfikar, became the first female prime minister.
In the years since the economic and political situation in Pakistan has seen its ups and downs. The country participated in the US coalition during the Gulf War, and current leader Pervez Musharraf holds a shaky alliance with the US, aiding in the fight against Taliban while facing accusations that he lets terrorist cross freely over the border.
Palestine: As with Israel, the recorded history of Palestine dates back to ancient Biblical texts (at the time it was known as Canaan) and it would be impossible for me to explain the entire thing. As with the rest of the Middle East, the nation fell under Ottoman Rule for most of the last several hundred years. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed at the end of WWI it was decided that the area would become an international zone not under direct British or French control. Plans changed when persecuted Jews began immigrating. The British government established a mandate over Palestine (lasting from 1920-47) and laid plans for a Jewish homeland to be established in Palestine.
In 1947, following WWII, the British deemed it necessary to terminate their mandate on Palestine due to intensified attacks by Palestinians on British troops, a shift in world opinion regarding Britain’s position in Palestine (they had a policy of preventing Jewish Holocaust survivors from entering the country, sending them instead to refugee camps in Cyprus or, in some instances, back to Germany), and the enormous cost of maintaining a force in the country. When the mandate was terminated control was passed to the UN.
In 1947 the UN General Assembly passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, hoping to end the Arab-Jewish conflict. I have already covered much of the rest in the Israel post (see A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 7).
One thing that I neglected to mention is that following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War an Armistice Agreement was signed between Israel and its neighboring Arab states which eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. The lands were divided between Egypt, Syria and Jordan. It’s understandable that they’re pissed.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964 by the Arab League with the purpose of reestablishing Palestine as a legitimate country, but so far has been largely unsuccessful. In 1988 they issued a proclamation of a State of Palestine, loosely defined by borders established by various UN Resolutions, but this proclamation was for the most part ignored.
The CIA World Factbook states that of ten million people living between Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, 49% are Palestinian. One million of them are citizens of Israel, the other four million are stateless, residing on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, living under Palestinian National Authority jurisdiction, but subject to conditions imposed by Israel.
Imagine if large groups of Latin Americans started immigrating to the US (wait a minute…), established a separate state on US soil, annexed most of the country, and went on to declare that the United States no longer existed. Would you be more than a little annoyed? Yeah, me too.
Good work today, people. Believe me when I say we’re almost there. Just a couple more countries and I’ll wrap this thing up.
Thanks for reading.
Pakistan: The nation of Pakistan wasn’t officially formed until 1947, but the history of how this came to fruition dates back much further. Originally a part of India, the country started to split in the 1930s when the Muslim League rose to popularity. The Indian government, engaged in an unarmed struggle with Britain for independence, was Hindu dominated and there were concerns amongst Muslims concerning under-representation.
In 1947 two Muslim majority regions in eastern and northwest British India separated from the country. This led to riots across India and the newly formed Pakistan, and resulted in millions of Muslims immigrating to Pakistan and millions of Hindus immigrating to India.
Disputes arose over several territories, most notably Kashmir, a former princely state which had acceded to India years prior, despite the fact that the majority of the Kashmir population favored independence. The First Kashmir War in 1948 resulted in Pakistan occupying one-third of the state, with India occupying the rest.
In 1956 Pakistan declared itself a republic, but this was stalled by a coup by Ayub Khan, who ruled as “president” from 1958-69. His presidency saw intense instability and violence, including a second war with India, a civil war between East and West Pakistan (The Bangladesh War of Independence) which eventually led East Pakistan to become the independent nation of Bangladesh, and a third war with India.
In 1972 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took over, and the country was once again under civilian rule. This lasted until 1977 when Ali Bhutto was overthrown by General Zia-Ul-Haq, the country’s third military president. Zia replaced Pakistan’s civil law with strict Islamic law. When he died in a plane crash in 1988 Benazir Bhutto, daughter of Zulfikar, became the first female prime minister.
In the years since the economic and political situation in Pakistan has seen its ups and downs. The country participated in the US coalition during the Gulf War, and current leader Pervez Musharraf holds a shaky alliance with the US, aiding in the fight against Taliban while facing accusations that he lets terrorist cross freely over the border.
Palestine: As with Israel, the recorded history of Palestine dates back to ancient Biblical texts (at the time it was known as Canaan) and it would be impossible for me to explain the entire thing. As with the rest of the Middle East, the nation fell under Ottoman Rule for most of the last several hundred years. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed at the end of WWI it was decided that the area would become an international zone not under direct British or French control. Plans changed when persecuted Jews began immigrating. The British government established a mandate over Palestine (lasting from 1920-47) and laid plans for a Jewish homeland to be established in Palestine.
In 1947, following WWII, the British deemed it necessary to terminate their mandate on Palestine due to intensified attacks by Palestinians on British troops, a shift in world opinion regarding Britain’s position in Palestine (they had a policy of preventing Jewish Holocaust survivors from entering the country, sending them instead to refugee camps in Cyprus or, in some instances, back to Germany), and the enormous cost of maintaining a force in the country. When the mandate was terminated control was passed to the UN.
In 1947 the UN General Assembly passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, hoping to end the Arab-Jewish conflict. I have already covered much of the rest in the Israel post (see A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 7).
One thing that I neglected to mention is that following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War an Armistice Agreement was signed between Israel and its neighboring Arab states which eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. The lands were divided between Egypt, Syria and Jordan. It’s understandable that they’re pissed.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964 by the Arab League with the purpose of reestablishing Palestine as a legitimate country, but so far has been largely unsuccessful. In 1988 they issued a proclamation of a State of Palestine, loosely defined by borders established by various UN Resolutions, but this proclamation was for the most part ignored.
The CIA World Factbook states that of ten million people living between Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, 49% are Palestinian. One million of them are citizens of Israel, the other four million are stateless, residing on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, living under Palestinian National Authority jurisdiction, but subject to conditions imposed by Israel.
Imagine if large groups of Latin Americans started immigrating to the US (wait a minute…), established a separate state on US soil, annexed most of the country, and went on to declare that the United States no longer existed. Would you be more than a little annoyed? Yeah, me too.
Good work today, people. Believe me when I say we’re almost there. Just a couple more countries and I’ll wrap this thing up.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 9
Yesterday was tough. Lebanon is a complicated country, but I think we made it through alright. Hopefully today we’ll find ourselves someplace a little more straightforward…but I doubt it.
You know what I realized though? In all my zeal to get to Lebanon I passed right over Kuwait. I realize I talked about this country quite a bit in the Gulf War posts, but I imagine they deserve their own history. I’ll start with them.
Kuwait: Kuwait was unofficially established in the 18th century when several Arab tribes settled in the area now known as the “Kuwait Bay.” It is a constitutional monarchy that is ruled by the Al-Sabah family. This is now more of a symbolic ruler, as the prime ministers of the various states have more influence in the political forum.
It was ruled by the Ottoman Empire during their reign, and the sheik was considered a provincial sub-governor. When the Ottoman Empire crumbled after WWI the country was declared a British Protectorate.
By the mid 20th century Kuwait became the largest exporter of oil in the Persian Gulf. This influx of wealth allowed them to become the first Gulf state to declare independence in 1961. This was opposed by Iraq, which believed it had a rightful claim to Kuwait. Iraq threatened to invade, but were dispelled by British forces.
During the Iran-Iraq War Kuwait paid Iraq to protect it from Iran. This further encouraged Saddam Hussein and Iraq in its claim on the country. Kuwait was invaded and annexed by Iraq in August of 1990. We know the rest.
Oman: First settled by Yemeni tribes in the 7th century, Oman experienced a series of occupations through the years, first by Portugal, then the Ottoman Empire. In 1741 the leader of one of the Yemeni tribes was able to force the Ottomans out, and established the line of Sultans that rules to this day.
In the early 1800s Oman became a powerhouse. Utilizing their strategic positioning on the Indian Ocean and seafaring knowledge learned from the Portuguese, they took control of the coasts of present day Iran and Pakistan and colonized seaports in Kenya and Zanzibar. This “Empire” was eventually brought down peacefully by Great Britain with the use of economic and political maneuvering, and the Omanis retreated to their homeland, eventually becoming a British Protectorate.
In the 1950s there was an uprising by tribesman against the Sultan, a repressive ruler, which was driven back with the help of the British. With British backing the sultan was then overthrown in 1970 and replaced by his son, current ruler Qaboos bin Said Al Said. The country declared its independence from the British a year later.
Qaboos is regarded as a benevolent leader, and the country has been stable and peaceful during his reign. It does not get involved in the regional conflicts that plague so much of the Middle East, though it does allow the U.S. to maintain military bases and was used as a launching point for bombing raids against Iraq in the Gulf War.
I must have given myself some good karma through positive thinking, because that was much easier than yesterday. I salute you, Kuwait and Oman, for being politically and economically stable, peaceful, and rational in the face of so much violence and strife. I believe you can provide a positive model for the Middle East of how to live peacefully with neighbors and utilize abundant natural resources for the good of the country. Kudos. Back tomorrow.
Thanks for reading.
You know what I realized though? In all my zeal to get to Lebanon I passed right over Kuwait. I realize I talked about this country quite a bit in the Gulf War posts, but I imagine they deserve their own history. I’ll start with them.
Kuwait: Kuwait was unofficially established in the 18th century when several Arab tribes settled in the area now known as the “Kuwait Bay.” It is a constitutional monarchy that is ruled by the Al-Sabah family. This is now more of a symbolic ruler, as the prime ministers of the various states have more influence in the political forum.
It was ruled by the Ottoman Empire during their reign, and the sheik was considered a provincial sub-governor. When the Ottoman Empire crumbled after WWI the country was declared a British Protectorate.
By the mid 20th century Kuwait became the largest exporter of oil in the Persian Gulf. This influx of wealth allowed them to become the first Gulf state to declare independence in 1961. This was opposed by Iraq, which believed it had a rightful claim to Kuwait. Iraq threatened to invade, but were dispelled by British forces.
During the Iran-Iraq War Kuwait paid Iraq to protect it from Iran. This further encouraged Saddam Hussein and Iraq in its claim on the country. Kuwait was invaded and annexed by Iraq in August of 1990. We know the rest.
Oman: First settled by Yemeni tribes in the 7th century, Oman experienced a series of occupations through the years, first by Portugal, then the Ottoman Empire. In 1741 the leader of one of the Yemeni tribes was able to force the Ottomans out, and established the line of Sultans that rules to this day.
In the early 1800s Oman became a powerhouse. Utilizing their strategic positioning on the Indian Ocean and seafaring knowledge learned from the Portuguese, they took control of the coasts of present day Iran and Pakistan and colonized seaports in Kenya and Zanzibar. This “Empire” was eventually brought down peacefully by Great Britain with the use of economic and political maneuvering, and the Omanis retreated to their homeland, eventually becoming a British Protectorate.
In the 1950s there was an uprising by tribesman against the Sultan, a repressive ruler, which was driven back with the help of the British. With British backing the sultan was then overthrown in 1970 and replaced by his son, current ruler Qaboos bin Said Al Said. The country declared its independence from the British a year later.
Qaboos is regarded as a benevolent leader, and the country has been stable and peaceful during his reign. It does not get involved in the regional conflicts that plague so much of the Middle East, though it does allow the U.S. to maintain military bases and was used as a launching point for bombing raids against Iraq in the Gulf War.
I must have given myself some good karma through positive thinking, because that was much easier than yesterday. I salute you, Kuwait and Oman, for being politically and economically stable, peaceful, and rational in the face of so much violence and strife. I believe you can provide a positive model for the Middle East of how to live peacefully with neighbors and utilize abundant natural resources for the good of the country. Kudos. Back tomorrow.
Thanks for reading.
Monday, April 23, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 8
On Friday I started looking at the activities of countries in the Middle East other than Iraq and Iran, beginning with Afghanistan and Israel. I’ll pick up where I left off, moving alphabetically through the region.
Jordan: The modern history of Jordan is heavily tied in with the histories of Palestine and Israel. When the UN partitioned Palestine and Israel into two separate states, 80% of the Palestinian land was east of the Jordan River. As a result, every time Palestine goes to war with Israel, Jordan is right there with them. Following the 1948 War of Independence Jordan annexed the West Bank (though this was only recognized by Great Britain). Jordan also signed a mutual defense pact with Egypt in 1967, thereby participating in the Six-Day War.
After Israel took control of the West Bank following the Six-Day war Jordan ended up with a Palestinian refugee population one million strong and growing, resulting in the growing prominence in size and power of Palestinian resistance elements (known as “fedayeen”) in Jordan. Jordan at the time was a long-standing monarchy, ruled by the Hashemite family, and the Palestinian groups were seen as a threat to its sovereignty. In June of 1970 fighting erupted, and many members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) were expelled from Jordan in what became know as Black September.
Various Arab governments became involved to try and resolve the fighting, to little avail. The PLO continued their actions in Jordan, and the government was forced to respond with heavy fighting. The Syrians, backing the PLO, sent a tank force to invade northern Jordan, but retreated quickly. Interestingly, it is rumored that the Jordanian government asked for help from Israel (whom they had attacked numerous times). Israel responded by threatening to invade Jordan itself if Syria intervened.
Sporadic fighting continued until 1971, when Jordanian forces (backed by Iraq, who was interested because it had bases in Jordan) won a decisive victory and expelled the PLO from Jordan.
In the years following Jordan has been a relatively peaceful country. They didn’t participate in the Gulf War and have negotiated an end to hostilities with Israel.
Lebanon: Lebanon was a part of the Ottoman Empire for over 400 years, until the end of WWI (and the fall of the Ottomans), when it became a part of the French Mandate of Syria. It gained its independence in 1943 while France was occupied by Germany.
In these formative years Lebanon’s citizens were both Christian (majority) and Muslim, and enjoyed economic prosperity and relative peace. They joined their Arab neighbors in the 1948 war against Israel. Following this war approximately 100,000 Palestinian refugees fled Lebanon, and then the Lebanon-Israeli border was closed until after the 1967 Six-Day War.
When Lebanon first gained its independence, under the Christian majority, the constitution guaranteed Christian control of the government. Starting in the ‘60s this came under increasing fire from Muslim and left wing secular groups, which formed the Lebanese National Movement (LNM). In 1969 the LNM called for a new census to be taken (the previous one was in 1932) and to develop a new governmental structure that would reflect the population. The Christian government saw this as a threat, the two sides were unable to come to an agreement, and they started forming militias.
This thing is complicated. Really complicated. I’m going to do my best to break it down, so stick with me. I’ll start by separating the different militia groups (there were 6).
The Christian Militias, drawing support from the majority Christian population and acquiring arms from Romania, Bulgaria, West Germany, Belgium and Israel, backed the government (under Christian control). The largest was the Kataeb (also known as the Phalange – stupid name for a militia), which established its stronghold in East Beirut, where most of the government buildings were located.
Shiite Militias were slow to form, but became quite powerful when they did. At first many Shiites were drawn to Palestinian movement, but became disillusioned by the Palestinians radicalism and secularism. In 1974 Musa Sadr established the Amal Movement. This movement had a moderate Islamic ideology that attracted the young urban poor. This militia grew rapidly and in the early ‘80s a hard-line faction broke away to fight Israel, forming the Hezbollah guerillas. Hezbollah, funded and trained by Iran, remains Lebanon’s most powerful militia.
Smaller Sunni militias were supported by Iraq and Libya, but nevertheless were weak in battle. Early on in the war they joined with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which was controlled by Palestinian Sunnis.
A small sect known as the Druze, strategically located in central Lebanon, were in a precarious position due to a lack of natural allies. As a result they established ties with the Soviet Union at the outset of the war, Israel upon its invasion of Lebanon, and Syria when Israel withdrew,
There were a number of non-religious militias supporting communism, socialism, and assorted other governments.
The PLO relocated much of its strength to Lebanon after being expelled from Jordan (see Jordan post). The PLO was plagued by internal strife that its leader, Yassir Arafat, could not rein in. Arafat’s mainstream PLO, represented by the powerful Fatah guerillas, at first opted to stay out of Lebanon’s conflicts, but were eventually dragged in by radical PLO factions. In 1974 the PLO split when Arafat supported a two-state proposal with Israel. This split restricted organizational unity during the Lebanese Civil War, but the Fatah guerillas remain a powerful force in the country.
The war itself, lasting from 1975 to 1989, can be broken into four phases.
The first phase, lasting from 1975 to 1977, was marked by sectarian struggles and civilian massacres. This came to a climax in 1976, when Christian forces killed 1,000 people in the Karantina massacre. A Palestinian militia responded by killing hundreds in Damour. These massacres led to the migration of nearly all Christians and Muslims to areas under the control of their respective sects, essentially establishing East Beirut as Christian Beirut and West Beirut as Muslim Beirut.
Later that year Syria was asked to intervene. A cease fire was implemented, but this did nothing to stop the conflict. 40,000 Syrian troops entered Lebanon, and an uneasy calm followed. Lebanon was split, with both sides gathering strength.
The Christian militias consolidated power to form the Lebanese Front (LF) in opposition to the Muslim Lebanese National Movement (LNM).
In March of 1977 the leader of the LNM was assassinated, which some blame on the Syrian government. The LNM, which had consisted of Shiite militias, Sunni militias, the PLO, anti-government leftists, and the Druze, crumbled. A man named Hafez Al-Assad filled the void, splitting up both Christian and Muslim coalitions in a game of political intrigue.
The beginning of the second phase of the war, which lasted from 1977 to 1982, was marked by the Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon in retaliation for Fatah forces crossing the border into Israel. Israel withdrew in 1978 after UN interventions, but maintained a 12 mile security zone along the border.
Israel became even more entangled when the Christian Phalange Militia began clashing with the Syrian government, making the Phalange and Israel de facto allies. In 1981 Israel prepared to attack with the intention of destroying the PLO and ensuring the presidency of Phalange leader Bashir Gemayel, who was then expected to sign a peace treaty with Israel and secure their northern border.
The U.S. then intervened, ordering a cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel. This presented a problem from the Israeli perspective. The PLO was located in positions surrounding Israel, so they could attack from countries outside of Lebanon and not violate the cease-fire. Israel, however, could not retaliate with a strike against the PLO in Lebanon and the PLO in other countries was so dispersed that it would be difficult to locate.
The third phase of the war, lasting from 1982-83, began with the assassination of an Israeli ambassador in London by the Abu Nidal Organization. It was difficult to tell which side the Abu Nidal Organization was on, as it had assassinated numerous PLO diplomats as well, but this was of little import to Israel, who ordered a strike against the PLO in West Beirut (a violation of the cease-fire).
In June of 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon. Initially the plan was described as an operation to destroy PLO strongholds along the border and create a larger safe zone, putting Israel out of reach of PLO rockets. It quickly became clear, however, that Israel had every intention of moving into Beirut. The UN created a resolution ordering their withdrawal, which the US vetoed, giving assent to the invasion. The fighting that ensued resulted in 6,700 deaths, 80% civilian.
A truce was eventually negotiated in which both the PLO and Israeli forces would pull out of Beirut, and a multinational force was sent to oversee this process. Israel, however, claimed that over 2,000 PLO militants were hiding in Palestinian refugee camps.
Under Israeli military control Phalange leader Bashir Gemayel was elected president in August. This election was unpopular with many Muslims, fearing his relationship with Israel, and he was assassinated in September. The Israeli government, blaming the PLO and still believing that a number of PLO militants were hiding out in Palestinian refugee camps, allowed 200 Phalange personnel to enter the camps in search of militants. Upwards of 3,000 Palestinians were massacred, none members of the PLO. This massacre made headlines, and calls were made for the international community to stabilize Lebanon. Bashir’s brother Amine was chosen to succeed him and a renewed focus on peace and the withdrawal of Israeli and Syrian troops was brought forth.
In May of 1983 an agreement was signed by Amine, the US and Israel that stated Israel would withdraw when Syrian forces did. Many Muslims saw this as an attempt by Israel to establish a permanent stronghold. Muslims started defecting from the newly formed Lebanese Army, rejoining militias, and fighting resumed.
During this period US interests started being attacked, including the US Embassy in West Beirut. The US retaliated, resulting in heavy civilian casualties. This period also saw the rise of the Hezbollah guerillas.
The fourth phase of the war, lasting from 1984-89, consisted of sectarian conflicts and heavy fighting. In the War of Camps (1985-86) the Syrian backed Amal Militia sought to drive the PLO out of their strongholds, resulting in heavy casualties. In 1987 a coalition of militias including Palestinians and Druze fighters allied against Amal. This is then the Hezbollah emerged, seizing command of several Amal held parts of Beirut. Meanwhile, Iraq got involved. Seeking to lessen the influence of the Iranian backed Hezbollah, Hussein supported Christian militias.
Fighting continued until 1991, when the Lebanese parliament passed an amnesty law pardoning political crimes, militias were disbanded (with the important exception of Hezbollah), and the Lebanese Armed Forces established itself as Lebanon’s major non-sectarian institution.
Lebanon has enjoyed relative peace ever since (albeit this peace is shaky, but peace nonetheless). Hezbollah and Fatah have both emerged as legitimate political groups, though Hezbollah is still a militia and maintains its own forces, which they claim is due to legitimate resistance against Israel (we all remember the little scuffle between the two this summer).
This was a long one. I’m exhausted, how about you? I hope now you know everything you wanted to know (and more) about Jordan and Lebanon.
Thanks for reading.
Jordan: The modern history of Jordan is heavily tied in with the histories of Palestine and Israel. When the UN partitioned Palestine and Israel into two separate states, 80% of the Palestinian land was east of the Jordan River. As a result, every time Palestine goes to war with Israel, Jordan is right there with them. Following the 1948 War of Independence Jordan annexed the West Bank (though this was only recognized by Great Britain). Jordan also signed a mutual defense pact with Egypt in 1967, thereby participating in the Six-Day War.
After Israel took control of the West Bank following the Six-Day war Jordan ended up with a Palestinian refugee population one million strong and growing, resulting in the growing prominence in size and power of Palestinian resistance elements (known as “fedayeen”) in Jordan. Jordan at the time was a long-standing monarchy, ruled by the Hashemite family, and the Palestinian groups were seen as a threat to its sovereignty. In June of 1970 fighting erupted, and many members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) were expelled from Jordan in what became know as Black September.
Various Arab governments became involved to try and resolve the fighting, to little avail. The PLO continued their actions in Jordan, and the government was forced to respond with heavy fighting. The Syrians, backing the PLO, sent a tank force to invade northern Jordan, but retreated quickly. Interestingly, it is rumored that the Jordanian government asked for help from Israel (whom they had attacked numerous times). Israel responded by threatening to invade Jordan itself if Syria intervened.
Sporadic fighting continued until 1971, when Jordanian forces (backed by Iraq, who was interested because it had bases in Jordan) won a decisive victory and expelled the PLO from Jordan.
In the years following Jordan has been a relatively peaceful country. They didn’t participate in the Gulf War and have negotiated an end to hostilities with Israel.
Lebanon: Lebanon was a part of the Ottoman Empire for over 400 years, until the end of WWI (and the fall of the Ottomans), when it became a part of the French Mandate of Syria. It gained its independence in 1943 while France was occupied by Germany.
In these formative years Lebanon’s citizens were both Christian (majority) and Muslim, and enjoyed economic prosperity and relative peace. They joined their Arab neighbors in the 1948 war against Israel. Following this war approximately 100,000 Palestinian refugees fled Lebanon, and then the Lebanon-Israeli border was closed until after the 1967 Six-Day War.
When Lebanon first gained its independence, under the Christian majority, the constitution guaranteed Christian control of the government. Starting in the ‘60s this came under increasing fire from Muslim and left wing secular groups, which formed the Lebanese National Movement (LNM). In 1969 the LNM called for a new census to be taken (the previous one was in 1932) and to develop a new governmental structure that would reflect the population. The Christian government saw this as a threat, the two sides were unable to come to an agreement, and they started forming militias.
This thing is complicated. Really complicated. I’m going to do my best to break it down, so stick with me. I’ll start by separating the different militia groups (there were 6).
The Christian Militias, drawing support from the majority Christian population and acquiring arms from Romania, Bulgaria, West Germany, Belgium and Israel, backed the government (under Christian control). The largest was the Kataeb (also known as the Phalange – stupid name for a militia), which established its stronghold in East Beirut, where most of the government buildings were located.
Shiite Militias were slow to form, but became quite powerful when they did. At first many Shiites were drawn to Palestinian movement, but became disillusioned by the Palestinians radicalism and secularism. In 1974 Musa Sadr established the Amal Movement. This movement had a moderate Islamic ideology that attracted the young urban poor. This militia grew rapidly and in the early ‘80s a hard-line faction broke away to fight Israel, forming the Hezbollah guerillas. Hezbollah, funded and trained by Iran, remains Lebanon’s most powerful militia.
Smaller Sunni militias were supported by Iraq and Libya, but nevertheless were weak in battle. Early on in the war they joined with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which was controlled by Palestinian Sunnis.
A small sect known as the Druze, strategically located in central Lebanon, were in a precarious position due to a lack of natural allies. As a result they established ties with the Soviet Union at the outset of the war, Israel upon its invasion of Lebanon, and Syria when Israel withdrew,
There were a number of non-religious militias supporting communism, socialism, and assorted other governments.
The PLO relocated much of its strength to Lebanon after being expelled from Jordan (see Jordan post). The PLO was plagued by internal strife that its leader, Yassir Arafat, could not rein in. Arafat’s mainstream PLO, represented by the powerful Fatah guerillas, at first opted to stay out of Lebanon’s conflicts, but were eventually dragged in by radical PLO factions. In 1974 the PLO split when Arafat supported a two-state proposal with Israel. This split restricted organizational unity during the Lebanese Civil War, but the Fatah guerillas remain a powerful force in the country.
The war itself, lasting from 1975 to 1989, can be broken into four phases.
The first phase, lasting from 1975 to 1977, was marked by sectarian struggles and civilian massacres. This came to a climax in 1976, when Christian forces killed 1,000 people in the Karantina massacre. A Palestinian militia responded by killing hundreds in Damour. These massacres led to the migration of nearly all Christians and Muslims to areas under the control of their respective sects, essentially establishing East Beirut as Christian Beirut and West Beirut as Muslim Beirut.
Later that year Syria was asked to intervene. A cease fire was implemented, but this did nothing to stop the conflict. 40,000 Syrian troops entered Lebanon, and an uneasy calm followed. Lebanon was split, with both sides gathering strength.
The Christian militias consolidated power to form the Lebanese Front (LF) in opposition to the Muslim Lebanese National Movement (LNM).
In March of 1977 the leader of the LNM was assassinated, which some blame on the Syrian government. The LNM, which had consisted of Shiite militias, Sunni militias, the PLO, anti-government leftists, and the Druze, crumbled. A man named Hafez Al-Assad filled the void, splitting up both Christian and Muslim coalitions in a game of political intrigue.
The beginning of the second phase of the war, which lasted from 1977 to 1982, was marked by the Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon in retaliation for Fatah forces crossing the border into Israel. Israel withdrew in 1978 after UN interventions, but maintained a 12 mile security zone along the border.
Israel became even more entangled when the Christian Phalange Militia began clashing with the Syrian government, making the Phalange and Israel de facto allies. In 1981 Israel prepared to attack with the intention of destroying the PLO and ensuring the presidency of Phalange leader Bashir Gemayel, who was then expected to sign a peace treaty with Israel and secure their northern border.
The U.S. then intervened, ordering a cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel. This presented a problem from the Israeli perspective. The PLO was located in positions surrounding Israel, so they could attack from countries outside of Lebanon and not violate the cease-fire. Israel, however, could not retaliate with a strike against the PLO in Lebanon and the PLO in other countries was so dispersed that it would be difficult to locate.
The third phase of the war, lasting from 1982-83, began with the assassination of an Israeli ambassador in London by the Abu Nidal Organization. It was difficult to tell which side the Abu Nidal Organization was on, as it had assassinated numerous PLO diplomats as well, but this was of little import to Israel, who ordered a strike against the PLO in West Beirut (a violation of the cease-fire).
In June of 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon. Initially the plan was described as an operation to destroy PLO strongholds along the border and create a larger safe zone, putting Israel out of reach of PLO rockets. It quickly became clear, however, that Israel had every intention of moving into Beirut. The UN created a resolution ordering their withdrawal, which the US vetoed, giving assent to the invasion. The fighting that ensued resulted in 6,700 deaths, 80% civilian.
A truce was eventually negotiated in which both the PLO and Israeli forces would pull out of Beirut, and a multinational force was sent to oversee this process. Israel, however, claimed that over 2,000 PLO militants were hiding in Palestinian refugee camps.
Under Israeli military control Phalange leader Bashir Gemayel was elected president in August. This election was unpopular with many Muslims, fearing his relationship with Israel, and he was assassinated in September. The Israeli government, blaming the PLO and still believing that a number of PLO militants were hiding out in Palestinian refugee camps, allowed 200 Phalange personnel to enter the camps in search of militants. Upwards of 3,000 Palestinians were massacred, none members of the PLO. This massacre made headlines, and calls were made for the international community to stabilize Lebanon. Bashir’s brother Amine was chosen to succeed him and a renewed focus on peace and the withdrawal of Israeli and Syrian troops was brought forth.
In May of 1983 an agreement was signed by Amine, the US and Israel that stated Israel would withdraw when Syrian forces did. Many Muslims saw this as an attempt by Israel to establish a permanent stronghold. Muslims started defecting from the newly formed Lebanese Army, rejoining militias, and fighting resumed.
During this period US interests started being attacked, including the US Embassy in West Beirut. The US retaliated, resulting in heavy civilian casualties. This period also saw the rise of the Hezbollah guerillas.
The fourth phase of the war, lasting from 1984-89, consisted of sectarian conflicts and heavy fighting. In the War of Camps (1985-86) the Syrian backed Amal Militia sought to drive the PLO out of their strongholds, resulting in heavy casualties. In 1987 a coalition of militias including Palestinians and Druze fighters allied against Amal. This is then the Hezbollah emerged, seizing command of several Amal held parts of Beirut. Meanwhile, Iraq got involved. Seeking to lessen the influence of the Iranian backed Hezbollah, Hussein supported Christian militias.
Fighting continued until 1991, when the Lebanese parliament passed an amnesty law pardoning political crimes, militias were disbanded (with the important exception of Hezbollah), and the Lebanese Armed Forces established itself as Lebanon’s major non-sectarian institution.
Lebanon has enjoyed relative peace ever since (albeit this peace is shaky, but peace nonetheless). Hezbollah and Fatah have both emerged as legitimate political groups, though Hezbollah is still a militia and maintains its own forces, which they claim is due to legitimate resistance against Israel (we all remember the little scuffle between the two this summer).
This was a long one. I’m exhausted, how about you? I hope now you know everything you wanted to know (and more) about Jordan and Lebanon.
Thanks for reading.
Friday, April 20, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 7
Who else feels a little Iraq-ed out? This one country dominates so much of our attention while much of the Middle East goes virtually unnoticed. Yeah Palestine and Lebanon pop up in the news every once in a while, and of course Iran (come to think of it I’ll skip Iran too. We know their story.) has been a major headliner recently, but what about Jordan? Or Syria? We know so little about these countries, and obviously I can’t completely remedy this situation (I’m just one man, it’s just one blog), but let’s see if I can’t give you a flavor of the Middle East. Out of fairness I’ll go alphabetically, and if anyone is omitted; forgiveness, dear friends, forgiveness.
Afghanistan: Afghanistan was ruled (for the most part) by a series of kings until 1978 (when what I call the “modern history” of Afghanistan started). In 1978 the communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan launched a coup known as the Great Saur Revolution and overthrew the government. As a part of the cold war strategy Jimmy Carter responded by covertly training and funding anti-government “Mujahideen” (same Arabic root as “Jihad”) forces made up of Muslims opposed to the official atheism of communist regimes.
The Soviet Union, citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries, retaliated by sending between 110,000 and 150,000 troops to bolster the 100,000 pro-communist Afghan troops already present. Many Afghanis saw this as an occupation, and over 5 million fled to Pakistan. The Mujahideen forces fought the Soviet occupation until 1989, killing over 15,000 Soviet Soldiers. In 1989 the Soviets pulled out, facing international pressure and this unexpected loss of life.
As an interesting side note, Osama Bin Laden was trained by the U.S. during this period, and was regarded as a hero for his efforts against the Soviet occupation.
Once the Soviet’s pulled out, the world lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country. The communist government fell as it lost ground to guerilla forces, the majority of intellectuals and elites had already fled the country, and a power vacuum emerged. Various Mujahideen factions continued to fight amongst themselves and the country was soon ruled by assorted warlords.
This was until the Taliban emerged. This political-religious force seized Kabul in 1996, and by 2000 controlled 95% of the country, imposing strict Islamic law and harboring the Al-Qaeda network. Under Taliban rule many Afghanis experienced restrictions on their freedoms and violations of their rights. Women weren’t allowed to get jobs, girls were banned from school, communist opposition was eradicated, and criminals faced harsh punishments.
Following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. launched “Operation Enduring Freedom” (I wonder how I could get the job of naming these things). The mission of this operation was two-fold: destroy the Al-Qaeda network and overthrow the Taliban government that supported it.
I’m guessing you know the rest.
Israel: It would be foolish to try and explain to you then entire history of Israel. Read the Bible. If you are familiar with the Bible, you know that Israel was founded as the Promised Land for the Jews, was conquered by a number of different nations throughout its years, and the Jewish population in the region dwindled due to mass expulsions. Finally, in 1517, Israel landed in the hands of the Ottoman Empire, where it remained for many years.
Like I did with Afghanistan, I’ll begin where, in my opinion, the “modern history” of Israel starts. During the early 20th century waves of Jewish immigrants began returning to Israel, facing persecution abroad. Tensions rose between the Arabs living there and Jews, believing that were returning to the land that was rightfully theirs. As the violence between the groups increased mandates were issued to resolve the disputes, but all were unsuccessful at appeasing either side.
In 1947, in the wake of the Holocaust, the UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan, dividing the territory into two separate states, Israel and Palestine. The Jews were given 55% of the land, and the Arabs were given 45%. (Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_Palestine.png for a map of the partition) While the Jews tentatively accepted the plan, the Arab League flat out rejected it and ordered a violent three day strike against Jewish civilians. Underground Jewish militias responded in kind, starting a civil war known as the 1948 War of Independence.
Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon all joined forces against Israel and began invading. Remarkably, Israeli militias were able to hold off most invading forces until the UN declared a one month ceasefire, during which Israeli formed its official army, the Israel Defense Forces.
After several more months of war, an official ceasefire was declared in 1949 and temporary borders known as the Green Line were instituted. Somehow, through all this invading and fighting, Israel had secured 23.5% more of the land. Meanwhile, Jordan secured what would become known as the West Bank and Egypt took control of a small piece of land on the coast known as the Gaza Strip.
Arabs living on the newly acquired Israeli land fled or were expelled to Palestine, leaving 711,000 displaced Palestinian refugees. All the Jews still living on the Gaza Strip or the West Bank fled to Israel, doubling the population.
Scuffles continued until 1967, when Egypt expelled UN Peacekeeping Forces from the Gaza Strip. Egypt proceeded to close the strategic Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships and amass large numbers of tanks and aircraft on Israel’s borders. Israel deemed this cause to preemptively attack Egypt, and in the ensuing Six-Day War Israel defeated Egypt and its allies, territorially conquering the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Minor fighting continued until 1979, when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty (as a result of the Camp David Accords). The peace between Israel and Egypt did little to lessen the tensions in the region. Israel continues to fight with Palestine and Lebanon, while Iran refuses to recognize their right to exist
Whew, that was a lot of information in one blog. I think I’m in way over my head. When I started this thing I figured I’d get through the entire Middle East in one post. I was way off. But no worries, I’ll keep writing if you’ll bear with me. Deal? Back on Monday with more on the lesser known Middle East.
Thanks for reading.
Afghanistan: Afghanistan was ruled (for the most part) by a series of kings until 1978 (when what I call the “modern history” of Afghanistan started). In 1978 the communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan launched a coup known as the Great Saur Revolution and overthrew the government. As a part of the cold war strategy Jimmy Carter responded by covertly training and funding anti-government “Mujahideen” (same Arabic root as “Jihad”) forces made up of Muslims opposed to the official atheism of communist regimes.
The Soviet Union, citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries, retaliated by sending between 110,000 and 150,000 troops to bolster the 100,000 pro-communist Afghan troops already present. Many Afghanis saw this as an occupation, and over 5 million fled to Pakistan. The Mujahideen forces fought the Soviet occupation until 1989, killing over 15,000 Soviet Soldiers. In 1989 the Soviets pulled out, facing international pressure and this unexpected loss of life.
As an interesting side note, Osama Bin Laden was trained by the U.S. during this period, and was regarded as a hero for his efforts against the Soviet occupation.
Once the Soviet’s pulled out, the world lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country. The communist government fell as it lost ground to guerilla forces, the majority of intellectuals and elites had already fled the country, and a power vacuum emerged. Various Mujahideen factions continued to fight amongst themselves and the country was soon ruled by assorted warlords.
This was until the Taliban emerged. This political-religious force seized Kabul in 1996, and by 2000 controlled 95% of the country, imposing strict Islamic law and harboring the Al-Qaeda network. Under Taliban rule many Afghanis experienced restrictions on their freedoms and violations of their rights. Women weren’t allowed to get jobs, girls were banned from school, communist opposition was eradicated, and criminals faced harsh punishments.
Following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. launched “Operation Enduring Freedom” (I wonder how I could get the job of naming these things). The mission of this operation was two-fold: destroy the Al-Qaeda network and overthrow the Taliban government that supported it.
I’m guessing you know the rest.
Israel: It would be foolish to try and explain to you then entire history of Israel. Read the Bible. If you are familiar with the Bible, you know that Israel was founded as the Promised Land for the Jews, was conquered by a number of different nations throughout its years, and the Jewish population in the region dwindled due to mass expulsions. Finally, in 1517, Israel landed in the hands of the Ottoman Empire, where it remained for many years.
Like I did with Afghanistan, I’ll begin where, in my opinion, the “modern history” of Israel starts. During the early 20th century waves of Jewish immigrants began returning to Israel, facing persecution abroad. Tensions rose between the Arabs living there and Jews, believing that were returning to the land that was rightfully theirs. As the violence between the groups increased mandates were issued to resolve the disputes, but all were unsuccessful at appeasing either side.
In 1947, in the wake of the Holocaust, the UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan, dividing the territory into two separate states, Israel and Palestine. The Jews were given 55% of the land, and the Arabs were given 45%. (Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_Palestine.png for a map of the partition) While the Jews tentatively accepted the plan, the Arab League flat out rejected it and ordered a violent three day strike against Jewish civilians. Underground Jewish militias responded in kind, starting a civil war known as the 1948 War of Independence.
Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon all joined forces against Israel and began invading. Remarkably, Israeli militias were able to hold off most invading forces until the UN declared a one month ceasefire, during which Israeli formed its official army, the Israel Defense Forces.
After several more months of war, an official ceasefire was declared in 1949 and temporary borders known as the Green Line were instituted. Somehow, through all this invading and fighting, Israel had secured 23.5% more of the land. Meanwhile, Jordan secured what would become known as the West Bank and Egypt took control of a small piece of land on the coast known as the Gaza Strip.
Arabs living on the newly acquired Israeli land fled or were expelled to Palestine, leaving 711,000 displaced Palestinian refugees. All the Jews still living on the Gaza Strip or the West Bank fled to Israel, doubling the population.
Scuffles continued until 1967, when Egypt expelled UN Peacekeeping Forces from the Gaza Strip. Egypt proceeded to close the strategic Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships and amass large numbers of tanks and aircraft on Israel’s borders. Israel deemed this cause to preemptively attack Egypt, and in the ensuing Six-Day War Israel defeated Egypt and its allies, territorially conquering the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Minor fighting continued until 1979, when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty (as a result of the Camp David Accords). The peace between Israel and Egypt did little to lessen the tensions in the region. Israel continues to fight with Palestine and Lebanon, while Iran refuses to recognize their right to exist
Whew, that was a lot of information in one blog. I think I’m in way over my head. When I started this thing I figured I’d get through the entire Middle East in one post. I was way off. But no worries, I’ll keep writing if you’ll bear with me. Deal? Back on Monday with more on the lesser known Middle East.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 6
One of the primary missions of our current soiree in Iraq was the capture of Saddam Hussein, a man that, though loved by many Iraqis (explanation…anyone?), was widely regarded in the international community as tyrannical, brutal, and unstable. Here’s my issue: aside from further debilitating the economy of his country (which is not an international offense), he was relatively inactive in the years between the gulf war and our current “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” We have accused him of possessing weapons of mass destruction (I wish the government would come clean and admit that we knew he had WMDs because we sold them to him), but no one can explain where these stockpiles of weapons went (good job U.S. intelligence). A one-ton bomb is not like a house key, it can’t be hidden under the doormat. Maybe they joined Iraq’s Air Force in Iran.
WMDs aside, the worst of Saddam’s atrocities came before the Gulf War, during the Iran- Iraq War, the Anfal campaign, and the invasion of Kuwait. So why was he not captured and tried for war crimes after Iraq was defeated in the Gulf War? Why did Bush Sr. leave Saddam to rule Iraq so that his bumbling son could fumble the job 10 years later? These are questions that have haunted political and military strategists for years, and questions that I now intend to tackle.
Leaving So Soon?
Militarily speaking, any rational thinker would assume that the logical conclusion of the Gulf War would be to disable the dangerous Iraqi Army and remove the despotic Saddam Hussein from power. Unfortunately there were more than military matters to consider.
Many members of the coalition questioned whether the total defeat of Iraq was the smart play. Iraq’s military might was, after all, the only thing that kept Iran from taking complete control of the region and installing potentially radical Islamic Republics during the ‘80s. They thought maybe it would be a good idea to leave Iraq intact, with at least the illusion of strength. Saddam Hussein was still seen as a hero by many Middle Eastern countries (such as Palestine, Jordan) for holding off Iran. It was feared that capturing Saddam would antagonize otherwise pro-western Islamic countries. Finally, for religious reasons Arabs feel a certain level of camaraderie with one another, even when fighting each other on the battle field. It was acknowledged that for this reason Iraq would be extraordinarily difficult to morally crush (a piece of pertinent information that flew way over Bush Jr.’s head).
So let’s make a political assessment. From a political standpoint it’s difficult to point the finger at George Bush and question his decision to leave Saddam in power. There were several valid arguments that such a conclusion would in fact be better for the region. As I’ve stated, Saddam was relatively tame in the years following the Gulf War (and I say relative when I compare it to his behavior before the war) and the only thing he can conclusively be accused of in these years is oppressing his people and destroying the economy. Certainly deplorable, but not punishable by an international tribunal (if these offenses were considered crimes, there’d be many more international trials. Think most of Africa, North Korea, to some extent China, a good part of Latin and South America).
But if there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years, it’s that there’s a major gap between political thinking and logical thinking. The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein was guilty of war crimes; the international community knew this and should have been held responsible to serve the interests of justice and punish him accordingly. But they failed because of diplomatic intrigue. This is the worst kind of politics.
We’re drawing ever closer to the conclusion of our (Very) Brief History of the Middle East. Are you feeling more informed about the world around us? I hope so. I’ll be back tomorrow.
Thanks for reading.
WMDs aside, the worst of Saddam’s atrocities came before the Gulf War, during the Iran- Iraq War, the Anfal campaign, and the invasion of Kuwait. So why was he not captured and tried for war crimes after Iraq was defeated in the Gulf War? Why did Bush Sr. leave Saddam to rule Iraq so that his bumbling son could fumble the job 10 years later? These are questions that have haunted political and military strategists for years, and questions that I now intend to tackle.
Leaving So Soon?
Militarily speaking, any rational thinker would assume that the logical conclusion of the Gulf War would be to disable the dangerous Iraqi Army and remove the despotic Saddam Hussein from power. Unfortunately there were more than military matters to consider.
Many members of the coalition questioned whether the total defeat of Iraq was the smart play. Iraq’s military might was, after all, the only thing that kept Iran from taking complete control of the region and installing potentially radical Islamic Republics during the ‘80s. They thought maybe it would be a good idea to leave Iraq intact, with at least the illusion of strength. Saddam Hussein was still seen as a hero by many Middle Eastern countries (such as Palestine, Jordan) for holding off Iran. It was feared that capturing Saddam would antagonize otherwise pro-western Islamic countries. Finally, for religious reasons Arabs feel a certain level of camaraderie with one another, even when fighting each other on the battle field. It was acknowledged that for this reason Iraq would be extraordinarily difficult to morally crush (a piece of pertinent information that flew way over Bush Jr.’s head).
So let’s make a political assessment. From a political standpoint it’s difficult to point the finger at George Bush and question his decision to leave Saddam in power. There were several valid arguments that such a conclusion would in fact be better for the region. As I’ve stated, Saddam was relatively tame in the years following the Gulf War (and I say relative when I compare it to his behavior before the war) and the only thing he can conclusively be accused of in these years is oppressing his people and destroying the economy. Certainly deplorable, but not punishable by an international tribunal (if these offenses were considered crimes, there’d be many more international trials. Think most of Africa, North Korea, to some extent China, a good part of Latin and South America).
But if there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years, it’s that there’s a major gap between political thinking and logical thinking. The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein was guilty of war crimes; the international community knew this and should have been held responsible to serve the interests of justice and punish him accordingly. But they failed because of diplomatic intrigue. This is the worst kind of politics.
We’re drawing ever closer to the conclusion of our (Very) Brief History of the Middle East. Are you feeling more informed about the world around us? I hope so. I’ll be back tomorrow.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 5
Alright, after yesterday’s (considerably important) tangent, we’re back to where we left off with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War. Let’s start with the reasoning behind the invasion, and then we’ll get into the war itself.
The Causes
1) Military Strength: From the time Saddam Hussein assumed the “presidency” of Iraq he was hell-bent on making the nation a military powerhouse, and the armed forces consumed as much as 35% of every dollar earned. In the early ‘80s he began investing heavily in nuclear, chemical and biological technology (so much so that Israel attacked in ’81 to set back the weapons development program). This, coupled with extensive military experience stemming from the war with Iran, made Iraq’s military arm formidable and turned Iraq into the dominant presence in the Middle East. But maintaining this force was expensive, and this leads to factor two.
2) Economic Pressures: The cost of the Iran-Iraq war and the cost of maintaining the army Saddam built during this war forced Iraq to borrow extensively from its oil-producing Middle East neighbors (the U.S. was also a major lender), leaving Iraq heavily burdened with debt. The already existing debt, combined with continued military investments, resulted in a 40% inflation rate and a stagnant standard of living (and you better believe the people of Iraq – you know, the ones who “elected” “president” Hussein – were becoming restless). Iraq had oil of its own, but this didn’t produce enough revenues to meet their spending habits. To make matters worse, Kuwait and the other oil states began to lower oil rates and increase production beyond the agreed upon levels. This forced Iraq to follow suit or risk losing even more revenue. Basically, Saddam was on the verge of a national crisis and needed a quick fix. The solution was clear, because…
3) Saddam flat out did not like Kuwait: Kuwait made an easy target for Saddam. It had been a British Protectorate and when it was granted independence the borders were created somewhat arbitrarily (they’re not easily defensible and the population is not inherently cohesive). It is small (1.9 million people) and its military was virtually non-existent. It didn’t help that they had been somewhat of an irritant to Saddam for years. In addition to lowering the price of oil, Kuwait had had the audacity to require Saddam to pay back the money he borrowed during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam claimed he had saved the region from Iran and deserved special considerations (cancelling the debt.) Kuwait disagreed. Saddam also accused Kuwait of drilling diagonally across the border to tap into Iraq’s oil reserves.
It’s Go Time
In late July of 1990 Iraq started building up its forces along the Iraq-Kuwait border, and on Aug 2 three Iraqi divisions of the elite Republican Guard crossed the border to be met by…oh wait, Kuwait’s army didn’t exist. They reached the capitol four hours later, declared the annexation of Kuwait (justifying it on the grounds that Kuwait was once a part of Iraq and should be again), and waited for the world’s reaction.
Naturally, the rest of the world responded with shock and alarm. With Kuwait, Saddam controlled 20% of the world’s oil. Iraq also started amassing troops on the Kuwait-Saudi Arabia border (Saddam also had a list of grievances with the Saudis, including border disputes, Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the U.S., and the $26 billion that Saddam owed them). It was not in the best interest of Saudi Arabia, or the rest of the world (Saudi Arabia possessed an additional 20% of the world’s oil), to have a powerful Iraqi army threatening attack and many believe the reaction by the U.S. and the coalition force had as much to do with this as it did with the liberation of Kuwait.
The U.S. immediately deployed troops to Saudi Arabia in “Operation Desert Shield.” Iraq had committed many atrocities of war in the invasion of Kuwait, and it could be safely assumed that this would continue. CIA intelligence also suggested that Iraq was on the verge of developing nuclear capability. It was already known that they possessed chemical and biological technology (no kidding, glad we kept our copy of the receipt).
The world was spurred into action. In the first decision it had made since it’s inception in 1945, the UN authorized the use of allied force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. 660,000 troops from 34 countries were sent to the region (the U.S. represented 74%) as quickly as possible. Strategists felt that if Saddam deployed his troops to Saudi Arabia before a proper defense could be assembled, there would be little to stop him. As it was, he hesitated, and this proved costly. By the time he acted the coalition forces had been deployed.
His troops were quickly forced out of Kuwait and in January of 1991 Bush, advised by Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, decided to go on the offensive and take the war to Iraq in “Operation Desert Storm.”
The war in Iraq kicked off with a major air offensive (anyone else remember watching “Operation Shock and Awe?”) that destroyed Iraq’s ability to defend against future air assaults by destroying radar installations, command and control centers, air bases and hangars. Iraq responded with an unsuccessful air raid of their own (F-1 Mirage fighters sent to bomb a Saudi oil refinery were shot down by the Saudi Air Force) and by shielding targets with human hostages. When these strategies failed, the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran in hopes that their jets would one day be returned (they never were…idiots.)
The ground campaign kicked off in February and coalition forces cut off Iraq’s one avenue of retreat, a four-lane highway that would become known as the “Highway of Death.” Bush and Powell determined that the objectives had nearly been met, and remaining Iraqi forces were allowed to retreat as negotiations were held.
I realize that a blog is truly inadequate to discuss the causes and events of a war as complex as this. I hope that I gave a useful synopsis, and maybe piqued your interest to research a little further (if you find anything I missed, please post a comment).
Tomorrow I’ll take a look at a question that has plagued researchers and strategists since the resolution of “Operation Desert Storm:” Did we pull out too soon?
Thanks for Reading.
The Causes
1) Military Strength: From the time Saddam Hussein assumed the “presidency” of Iraq he was hell-bent on making the nation a military powerhouse, and the armed forces consumed as much as 35% of every dollar earned. In the early ‘80s he began investing heavily in nuclear, chemical and biological technology (so much so that Israel attacked in ’81 to set back the weapons development program). This, coupled with extensive military experience stemming from the war with Iran, made Iraq’s military arm formidable and turned Iraq into the dominant presence in the Middle East. But maintaining this force was expensive, and this leads to factor two.
2) Economic Pressures: The cost of the Iran-Iraq war and the cost of maintaining the army Saddam built during this war forced Iraq to borrow extensively from its oil-producing Middle East neighbors (the U.S. was also a major lender), leaving Iraq heavily burdened with debt. The already existing debt, combined with continued military investments, resulted in a 40% inflation rate and a stagnant standard of living (and you better believe the people of Iraq – you know, the ones who “elected” “president” Hussein – were becoming restless). Iraq had oil of its own, but this didn’t produce enough revenues to meet their spending habits. To make matters worse, Kuwait and the other oil states began to lower oil rates and increase production beyond the agreed upon levels. This forced Iraq to follow suit or risk losing even more revenue. Basically, Saddam was on the verge of a national crisis and needed a quick fix. The solution was clear, because…
3) Saddam flat out did not like Kuwait: Kuwait made an easy target for Saddam. It had been a British Protectorate and when it was granted independence the borders were created somewhat arbitrarily (they’re not easily defensible and the population is not inherently cohesive). It is small (1.9 million people) and its military was virtually non-existent. It didn’t help that they had been somewhat of an irritant to Saddam for years. In addition to lowering the price of oil, Kuwait had had the audacity to require Saddam to pay back the money he borrowed during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam claimed he had saved the region from Iran and deserved special considerations (cancelling the debt.) Kuwait disagreed. Saddam also accused Kuwait of drilling diagonally across the border to tap into Iraq’s oil reserves.
It’s Go Time
In late July of 1990 Iraq started building up its forces along the Iraq-Kuwait border, and on Aug 2 three Iraqi divisions of the elite Republican Guard crossed the border to be met by…oh wait, Kuwait’s army didn’t exist. They reached the capitol four hours later, declared the annexation of Kuwait (justifying it on the grounds that Kuwait was once a part of Iraq and should be again), and waited for the world’s reaction.
Naturally, the rest of the world responded with shock and alarm. With Kuwait, Saddam controlled 20% of the world’s oil. Iraq also started amassing troops on the Kuwait-Saudi Arabia border (Saddam also had a list of grievances with the Saudis, including border disputes, Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the U.S., and the $26 billion that Saddam owed them). It was not in the best interest of Saudi Arabia, or the rest of the world (Saudi Arabia possessed an additional 20% of the world’s oil), to have a powerful Iraqi army threatening attack and many believe the reaction by the U.S. and the coalition force had as much to do with this as it did with the liberation of Kuwait.
The U.S. immediately deployed troops to Saudi Arabia in “Operation Desert Shield.” Iraq had committed many atrocities of war in the invasion of Kuwait, and it could be safely assumed that this would continue. CIA intelligence also suggested that Iraq was on the verge of developing nuclear capability. It was already known that they possessed chemical and biological technology (no kidding, glad we kept our copy of the receipt).
The world was spurred into action. In the first decision it had made since it’s inception in 1945, the UN authorized the use of allied force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. 660,000 troops from 34 countries were sent to the region (the U.S. represented 74%) as quickly as possible. Strategists felt that if Saddam deployed his troops to Saudi Arabia before a proper defense could be assembled, there would be little to stop him. As it was, he hesitated, and this proved costly. By the time he acted the coalition forces had been deployed.
His troops were quickly forced out of Kuwait and in January of 1991 Bush, advised by Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, decided to go on the offensive and take the war to Iraq in “Operation Desert Storm.”
The war in Iraq kicked off with a major air offensive (anyone else remember watching “Operation Shock and Awe?”) that destroyed Iraq’s ability to defend against future air assaults by destroying radar installations, command and control centers, air bases and hangars. Iraq responded with an unsuccessful air raid of their own (F-1 Mirage fighters sent to bomb a Saudi oil refinery were shot down by the Saudi Air Force) and by shielding targets with human hostages. When these strategies failed, the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran in hopes that their jets would one day be returned (they never were…idiots.)
The ground campaign kicked off in February and coalition forces cut off Iraq’s one avenue of retreat, a four-lane highway that would become known as the “Highway of Death.” Bush and Powell determined that the objectives had nearly been met, and remaining Iraqi forces were allowed to retreat as negotiations were held.
I realize that a blog is truly inadequate to discuss the causes and events of a war as complex as this. I hope that I gave a useful synopsis, and maybe piqued your interest to research a little further (if you find anything I missed, please post a comment).
Tomorrow I’ll take a look at a question that has plagued researchers and strategists since the resolution of “Operation Desert Storm:” Did we pull out too soon?
Thanks for Reading.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
In Memoriam
In light of yesterday’s tragedy at Virginia Tech I’ve decided to postpone the newest installment of “A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East” until tomorrow. I’d like to invite you all instead to take some time to reflect. Maybe say a prayer, maybe observe a moment of silence; pay your respects to the victims and their loved ones, everyone affected by this horrible incident. Don’t ignore their pain as too far removed from us to impact our lives. As children of God, their suffering is ours.
Elegy
A prayer for the departed,
For those taken too soon,
Let us forever remember you.
We weep for small indecencies,
Melodies in minor keys.
But of this loss, what to say?
So much heartbreak, so much pain.
We kneel, wrapped in shattered silence,
Grieve, remind ourselves to breathe
As we whisper tragic elegies.
Elegy
A prayer for the departed,
For those taken too soon,
Let us forever remember you.
We weep for small indecencies,
Melodies in minor keys.
But of this loss, what to say?
So much heartbreak, so much pain.
We kneel, wrapped in shattered silence,
Grieve, remind ourselves to breathe
As we whisper tragic elegies.
Monday, April 16, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 4
I left off on Friday with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. I’ll get back into that, but first I’m going to backtrack a few years to a significant event that I previously overlooked.
The Anfal Campaign
Before I get into the details, the Anfal (The Spoils) Campaign was a genocidal and gendercidal effort by Saddam’s regime to wipe out battle-age men in the Kurdistan region. Now on to the specifics.
I found this description of the Kurds most concise: “The Kurds are considered the world's largest nation without a state of their own. Numbering approximately 20-25 million people, their traditional territory is divided among the modern states of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, with a small number in the states of the former Soviet Union. Just over four million of these Kurds live in Iraq, constituting about 23 percent of the population.” (http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html)
The trouble between Kurdistan and Saddam’s Ba’ath Party started in 1970, when the regime began evicting Kurdish farmers and replacing them with Iraqis from the south, guarded by government troops. In 1974 the Kurdish Democratic Party revolted and a full-scale war ensued. The KDP lost and 130,000 Kurds fled to Iran. In 1975 tens of thousands of Kurdish villagers remaining in Iraq were forcibly removed from their homes and relocated to the harsh desert of southern Iraq. It was these villagers that fell victim to the Ba’ath Party’s first gendercidal campaign.
In 1983 all 8,000 relocated male villagers were taken by government troops, never to be seen or heard from again. Diplomatic attempts to discover the fate of the men (including those by European nations) were met with silence. Rumors circulate that the group was used to test the effects of various chemical agents. In 1993 Hussein finally hinted at the fate of the men: “They betrayed the country and they betrayed the covenant, and we meted out a stern punishment to them, and they went to hell.”
The lack of international outrage only served to embolden Hussein and he continued to use chemical raids and mass abductions to terrorize the Kurdish villagers. This came to a horrific conclusion in 1987-88, when the official Anfal campaign took place.
In March of 1987 Hussein’s cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid was appointed secretary-general of the Ba’ath Party’s Northern Region (which included Iraqi Kurdistan). Al-Majid was known as being particularly brutal, even by Ba’ath standards. In June of 1987 Al-Majid issued the directive SF/4008, which calls for the relocation of villagers to detention centers “except for male members, between the ages of 12 and 50 inclusive, who must be detained.” The men were interrogated for useful information, then executed and buried in mass graves.
Conservative estimates figure the number of Kurds killed to be between 60,000-110,000.
If nothing else, this shows that Saddam Hussein was an insane, brutal despot and it is a travesty that the international community turned a blind eye for so many years. How is a man like that allowed to stay in power, how does he dodge war crime convictions and justice for nearly three decades? I’ve spent countless hours trying to develop a personal stance on the death penalty from perspectives of morality, faith, ethics, and justice. I still don’t know where I stand, but if ever a man was deserving…
It makes me think about global conflicts taking place as we speak, most notably the genocide in Darfur. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and his government are currently backing the Arab janjaweed militia, which has killed at least 200,000 villagers as it rapes, slashes and burns its way through the countryside. The international community is reacting diplomatically. Diplomatic retaliation is weak by nature, but efforts to date are so ridiculously pussy-footed (pardon the vernacular) that they are laughable. And President al-Bashir knows it. China is reluctant to issue sanctions because it has extensive economic ties (oil) to Sudan, and for some reason the rest of the world can’t blow its own nose without China’s permission. Since when is China our political guide? More importantly, since when is China our moral guide?
Let's give China no option but to get involved. Threaten to take away the 2008 Beijing Olympics. That’ll get China off their asses. Tell them that al-Bashir needs to be removed from power, the janjaweed militia needs to be disbanded, and Darfur’s villagers must be allowed to return to their land without fear, or the 2008 summer Olympics will be held in Minneapolis, MN, and Chinese athletes will not be welcome. Then I guarantee we’ll see some action. Who’s got the balls to make it happen?
Sorry for the tangent.
I apologize, readers. I’ve dumped quite a load on you today (I pray it wasn’t entirely thankless). I think it would be best to hold off on the invasion of Kuwait. It may be too much for one post. Look for it in days to come, as well as the who’s who, the activities of the rest of the Middle East in the ‘90s, etc. When I started this thing I thought it was going to be a three, maybe four part series. I was way off. Oh well.
Thanks for reading.
The Anfal Campaign
Before I get into the details, the Anfal (The Spoils) Campaign was a genocidal and gendercidal effort by Saddam’s regime to wipe out battle-age men in the Kurdistan region. Now on to the specifics.
I found this description of the Kurds most concise: “The Kurds are considered the world's largest nation without a state of their own. Numbering approximately 20-25 million people, their traditional territory is divided among the modern states of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, with a small number in the states of the former Soviet Union. Just over four million of these Kurds live in Iraq, constituting about 23 percent of the population.” (http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html)
The trouble between Kurdistan and Saddam’s Ba’ath Party started in 1970, when the regime began evicting Kurdish farmers and replacing them with Iraqis from the south, guarded by government troops. In 1974 the Kurdish Democratic Party revolted and a full-scale war ensued. The KDP lost and 130,000 Kurds fled to Iran. In 1975 tens of thousands of Kurdish villagers remaining in Iraq were forcibly removed from their homes and relocated to the harsh desert of southern Iraq. It was these villagers that fell victim to the Ba’ath Party’s first gendercidal campaign.
In 1983 all 8,000 relocated male villagers were taken by government troops, never to be seen or heard from again. Diplomatic attempts to discover the fate of the men (including those by European nations) were met with silence. Rumors circulate that the group was used to test the effects of various chemical agents. In 1993 Hussein finally hinted at the fate of the men: “They betrayed the country and they betrayed the covenant, and we meted out a stern punishment to them, and they went to hell.”
The lack of international outrage only served to embolden Hussein and he continued to use chemical raids and mass abductions to terrorize the Kurdish villagers. This came to a horrific conclusion in 1987-88, when the official Anfal campaign took place.
In March of 1987 Hussein’s cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid was appointed secretary-general of the Ba’ath Party’s Northern Region (which included Iraqi Kurdistan). Al-Majid was known as being particularly brutal, even by Ba’ath standards. In June of 1987 Al-Majid issued the directive SF/4008, which calls for the relocation of villagers to detention centers “except for male members, between the ages of 12 and 50 inclusive, who must be detained.” The men were interrogated for useful information, then executed and buried in mass graves.
Conservative estimates figure the number of Kurds killed to be between 60,000-110,000.
If nothing else, this shows that Saddam Hussein was an insane, brutal despot and it is a travesty that the international community turned a blind eye for so many years. How is a man like that allowed to stay in power, how does he dodge war crime convictions and justice for nearly three decades? I’ve spent countless hours trying to develop a personal stance on the death penalty from perspectives of morality, faith, ethics, and justice. I still don’t know where I stand, but if ever a man was deserving…
It makes me think about global conflicts taking place as we speak, most notably the genocide in Darfur. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and his government are currently backing the Arab janjaweed militia, which has killed at least 200,000 villagers as it rapes, slashes and burns its way through the countryside. The international community is reacting diplomatically. Diplomatic retaliation is weak by nature, but efforts to date are so ridiculously pussy-footed (pardon the vernacular) that they are laughable. And President al-Bashir knows it. China is reluctant to issue sanctions because it has extensive economic ties (oil) to Sudan, and for some reason the rest of the world can’t blow its own nose without China’s permission. Since when is China our political guide? More importantly, since when is China our moral guide?
Let's give China no option but to get involved. Threaten to take away the 2008 Beijing Olympics. That’ll get China off their asses. Tell them that al-Bashir needs to be removed from power, the janjaweed militia needs to be disbanded, and Darfur’s villagers must be allowed to return to their land without fear, or the 2008 summer Olympics will be held in Minneapolis, MN, and Chinese athletes will not be welcome. Then I guarantee we’ll see some action. Who’s got the balls to make it happen?
Sorry for the tangent.
I apologize, readers. I’ve dumped quite a load on you today (I pray it wasn’t entirely thankless). I think it would be best to hold off on the invasion of Kuwait. It may be too much for one post. Look for it in days to come, as well as the who’s who, the activities of the rest of the Middle East in the ‘90s, etc. When I started this thing I thought it was going to be a three, maybe four part series. I was way off. Oh well.
Thanks for reading.
Friday, April 13, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 3
I'm back. I hope you've found the posts so far to be informative, insightful, or at least laughably inaccurate. Today let's look at the events post-WWI leading up to the invasion of Kuwait.
The Fall of the Caliphate (WWI), Etc.
I keep throwing the term “Caliphate” around, but don’t know that I’ve adequately explained it, so let me give it a shot. The “Caliphate” is simply the Islamic form of government. They are not advocates of the separation of church and state, and the Caliph, or successor to Muhammad’s authority, is both a political and religious figure. The Sunnis believe this should be an elected official, the Shiites believe it should be an Imam from the Muhammad bloodline.
In the years leading up to WWI (and when I say years I mean years – 15th-20th Centuries) the Caliphate was held by the Ottoman Empire, centered in Istanbul. After the end of WWI (and the fall of the Ottoman Empire) Turkey became a republic and the first president (Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) constitutionally abolished the Caliphate institution.
In the years following the fall of the Caliphate attempts were made to revive the institution, but all were unsuccessful. The nations of the Middle East settled into various forms of monarchy, tyranny, anarchy, oligarchy, democracy, etc. This lasted for decades, with Sunnis and Shiites living in relative peace, though maintaining separate lifestyles and religious practices.
The Iranian Revolution took place in 1979. I touched on this earlier, but will now go a little more in depth. Until 1979 Iran was a monarchy, ruled by a succession of Shahs. The Revolution was a revolt by the urban, educated, middle-class, largely (90%) Shiite majority against corruption, extravagance at the expense of the poor, and the economic and cultural exploitation of Islam by foreigners (ie the west). The revolution didn’t directly call out for a return of the Caliphate, but it did install a Theocratic Constitution (a government informed by Islam).
The majority of leadership in nations surrounding Iran was Sunni (notably Saddam Hussein) and they found the revolution quite alarming. The new Iranian Islamic Republic was calling for an overthrow of monarchies (which most surround nations were in one form or another – Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq for all practical purposes) and an installation of Islamic republics. In 1980 Hussein and Iraq, seeking power and regional dominance, invaded Iran to seize the oil-rich province of Khuzistan and destroy the revolution. By 1982 the Iranians had repelled Iraq with an impressive display of nationalist pride, but the Iranian government insisted on destroying the Iraqi’s, resulting in 6 more years of static warfare and reigniting sectarian conflicts.
As an interesting side note, America supported Iraq during this war, fearing the spread of Islamic republics. We provided Hussein with aid, approved $200 million of arms sales, and gave them biological agents (anthrax). Oops.
In August of 1990 Hussein, as power hungry as ever, ordered his troops to invade Kuwait…to be continued.
I’m going to stop here. Call it a cliffhanger. Basically the years to come are complicated, and I’m tired. I’ll be back with a new post on Monday talking about the Anfal genocide, Operation Desert Storm and the years leading up to our current predicament. I know you’re still wondering about that promised who’s who. The best I can offer are my strongest assurances that it is forthcoming. And I bet you’re curious about what the rest of the Middle East was up to during the ‘90s. Glad you asked, I’ll find out. Do we feel a little bit closer to understanding the world around us?
Thanks for reading.
The Fall of the Caliphate (WWI), Etc.
I keep throwing the term “Caliphate” around, but don’t know that I’ve adequately explained it, so let me give it a shot. The “Caliphate” is simply the Islamic form of government. They are not advocates of the separation of church and state, and the Caliph, or successor to Muhammad’s authority, is both a political and religious figure. The Sunnis believe this should be an elected official, the Shiites believe it should be an Imam from the Muhammad bloodline.
In the years leading up to WWI (and when I say years I mean years – 15th-20th Centuries) the Caliphate was held by the Ottoman Empire, centered in Istanbul. After the end of WWI (and the fall of the Ottoman Empire) Turkey became a republic and the first president (Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) constitutionally abolished the Caliphate institution.
In the years following the fall of the Caliphate attempts were made to revive the institution, but all were unsuccessful. The nations of the Middle East settled into various forms of monarchy, tyranny, anarchy, oligarchy, democracy, etc. This lasted for decades, with Sunnis and Shiites living in relative peace, though maintaining separate lifestyles and religious practices.
The Iranian Revolution took place in 1979. I touched on this earlier, but will now go a little more in depth. Until 1979 Iran was a monarchy, ruled by a succession of Shahs. The Revolution was a revolt by the urban, educated, middle-class, largely (90%) Shiite majority against corruption, extravagance at the expense of the poor, and the economic and cultural exploitation of Islam by foreigners (ie the west). The revolution didn’t directly call out for a return of the Caliphate, but it did install a Theocratic Constitution (a government informed by Islam).
The majority of leadership in nations surrounding Iran was Sunni (notably Saddam Hussein) and they found the revolution quite alarming. The new Iranian Islamic Republic was calling for an overthrow of monarchies (which most surround nations were in one form or another – Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq for all practical purposes) and an installation of Islamic republics. In 1980 Hussein and Iraq, seeking power and regional dominance, invaded Iran to seize the oil-rich province of Khuzistan and destroy the revolution. By 1982 the Iranians had repelled Iraq with an impressive display of nationalist pride, but the Iranian government insisted on destroying the Iraqi’s, resulting in 6 more years of static warfare and reigniting sectarian conflicts.
As an interesting side note, America supported Iraq during this war, fearing the spread of Islamic republics. We provided Hussein with aid, approved $200 million of arms sales, and gave them biological agents (anthrax). Oops.
In August of 1990 Hussein, as power hungry as ever, ordered his troops to invade Kuwait…to be continued.
I’m going to stop here. Call it a cliffhanger. Basically the years to come are complicated, and I’m tired. I’ll be back with a new post on Monday talking about the Anfal genocide, Operation Desert Storm and the years leading up to our current predicament. I know you’re still wondering about that promised who’s who. The best I can offer are my strongest assurances that it is forthcoming. And I bet you’re curious about what the rest of the Middle East was up to during the ‘90s. Glad you asked, I’ll find out. Do we feel a little bit closer to understanding the world around us?
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 2
As promised, I’m back with another Middle East installment. Yesterday I decided that the most logical place to start was with the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, since much of the conflict seems to involve disagreements between these groups. I’ll continue in this vein today by looking at how the violence all began as well as by delving deeper into a major complicating issue.
The Violence
The violence, as best as I can tell, began in 656. Ali and his followers never fully accepted the caliphate, and trouble starts a brewing when the third caliph is assassinated and Ali replaces him (I smell a conspiracy). Ali himself is assassinated in 661, and shortly thereafter his son is killed (retaliation?)
This is when the groups truly emerge as distinct, split sects. They go to war, and the Sunnis emerge victorious. They become the dominant religious (and by extension political) group, praising the strength of the caliphate. The Shiites retreat into developing their beliefs, still following the Imams.
This lasted for years (and I mean years) until 1979 ,when the Iranian Revolution (led by urban middle class liberals) topples the government and creates a theocratic Shiite state. Other Middle East leaders (who are predominantly Sunni), most notably Saddam Hussein, see this as a major threat. The modern struggle, as we know it, has been flaming ever since.
More Division
To further complicate the conflict, both sides believe in a “Mahdi,” which is a guided being responsible for bringing a just global caliphate (leader) into existence, but they disagree strongly about the embodiment of the Mahdi. To understand this, we’ll once again need to dive into history.
Remember that for the Shiites, the Imams that are their supreme religious leaders are believed to be blood descendants of the prophet Muhammad. This means that each Imam is a Mahdi (Imam begets Imam). The complicating issue came in the year 874 when the 11th Imam died. His son, Muhammad al-Mahdi, was believed to be the next Imam appointed by God. At the 11th Imams funeral Muhammad al-Mahdi’s uncle was set to lead the prayers when Muhammad stepped forward and commanded “Move aside, uncle; only an Imam can lead the funeral prayer of an Imam.” When the five-year-old child was finished leading the prayers he vanished.
It is believed the 12th, and current, Imam (he was never replaced) was hidden by God for various reasons, including as a trial for believers and as a time of preparation for the world, and that when all other religions and governments fail the 12th Imam will return.
The Sunnis believe no such thing. They think that the true Mahdi has not yet come into being, and at some future date will emerge.
To put this into context for a predominantly Christian culture, it is comparable to the difference between Christianity and Judaism. Both believe in the same God, but Christians believe that the Messiah has already come in the form of Jesus, and at some future date will return. The Jews believe that a messiah has been promised, but do not believe that the messiah has come yet.
I know I promised a Who’s Who in the Sunni-Shiite world, but I can’t give it all away at once. What would keep you coming back? Believe me, the who’s who is coming (perhaps tomorrow) as well as further analysis on the modern state (post WWI) of Sunni-Shiite relations. I hope you enjoyed, and are closer to understanding the world around us.
Thanks for reading.
The Violence
The violence, as best as I can tell, began in 656. Ali and his followers never fully accepted the caliphate, and trouble starts a brewing when the third caliph is assassinated and Ali replaces him (I smell a conspiracy). Ali himself is assassinated in 661, and shortly thereafter his son is killed (retaliation?)
This is when the groups truly emerge as distinct, split sects. They go to war, and the Sunnis emerge victorious. They become the dominant religious (and by extension political) group, praising the strength of the caliphate. The Shiites retreat into developing their beliefs, still following the Imams.
This lasted for years (and I mean years) until 1979 ,when the Iranian Revolution (led by urban middle class liberals) topples the government and creates a theocratic Shiite state. Other Middle East leaders (who are predominantly Sunni), most notably Saddam Hussein, see this as a major threat. The modern struggle, as we know it, has been flaming ever since.
More Division
To further complicate the conflict, both sides believe in a “Mahdi,” which is a guided being responsible for bringing a just global caliphate (leader) into existence, but they disagree strongly about the embodiment of the Mahdi. To understand this, we’ll once again need to dive into history.
Remember that for the Shiites, the Imams that are their supreme religious leaders are believed to be blood descendants of the prophet Muhammad. This means that each Imam is a Mahdi (Imam begets Imam). The complicating issue came in the year 874 when the 11th Imam died. His son, Muhammad al-Mahdi, was believed to be the next Imam appointed by God. At the 11th Imams funeral Muhammad al-Mahdi’s uncle was set to lead the prayers when Muhammad stepped forward and commanded “Move aside, uncle; only an Imam can lead the funeral prayer of an Imam.” When the five-year-old child was finished leading the prayers he vanished.
It is believed the 12th, and current, Imam (he was never replaced) was hidden by God for various reasons, including as a trial for believers and as a time of preparation for the world, and that when all other religions and governments fail the 12th Imam will return.
The Sunnis believe no such thing. They think that the true Mahdi has not yet come into being, and at some future date will emerge.
To put this into context for a predominantly Christian culture, it is comparable to the difference between Christianity and Judaism. Both believe in the same God, but Christians believe that the Messiah has already come in the form of Jesus, and at some future date will return. The Jews believe that a messiah has been promised, but do not believe that the messiah has come yet.
I know I promised a Who’s Who in the Sunni-Shiite world, but I can’t give it all away at once. What would keep you coming back? Believe me, the who’s who is coming (perhaps tomorrow) as well as further analysis on the modern state (post WWI) of Sunni-Shiite relations. I hope you enjoyed, and are closer to understanding the world around us.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 1
The Middle East is the Russia of our time. We’re currently entangled in an occupation of Iraq, a war on terror in Afghanistan, tense relations with Iran over their nuclear program and the support they are allegedly offering to Iraqi insurgents, tense relations with Syria over the fact that they are a terrorist breeding ground, tense relations with Palestine over their refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist, as well as the fragile make-up of their current political system, which is attempting to split power between the pragmatic Fatah faction and the radical militant Hamas faction, Lebanon, with the support of Iran and Syria, seems to be run by the Hezbollah militants for all practical purposes, Pakistan has no control over it’s borders, letting terrorists pass freely from Afghanistan, Turkey refuses to acknowledge their Armenian genocide, and anyone who disagrees has a very short life expectancy, Saudi Arabia seems to be our best bet at an ally, but even they are starting to take a hardline against the situation in Iraq.
To sum up: We’re in a shit-storm. Anyone bring an umbrella?
The issues in each of these very unique yet intertwined conflicts are extraordinarily complex and I won’t pretend to understand them at any depth, but I am making an effort to be aware and informed. As I uncover facts or stories I find interesting, I’ll do my best to write about them and keep anyone who reads this thing (who am I kidding) up to date.
It seems to me that at the heart of most of the issues plaguing the region are fundamental differences and an apparently irreconcilable tension between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. This seems like as good a place as any to start, so let me do my best (in my limited understanding of Islam) to explain the difference.
The Difference between Sunnis and Shiites
In 632 the prophet Muhammad (the founder of Islam) died. This left his followers with the difficult decision of who was going to maintain the faith. One group (which became know as the Sunnis) felt that the leader of the faith should be the one most likely to keep the tenants of Islam. They chose the prophet’s advisor, Abu Bakr, to lead the religion and recognize the heirs of the caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. The caliphs ruled continuously until the end of WWI (when the Ottoman Empire fell).
The Shiites, on the other hand, believed that the leader of Islam should come directly from Muhammad’s blood line. They chose Ali (who also happened to be the fourth caliph), Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law (don’t ask me). Ali and his successors are known as Imams, and are considered to be descendants of Muhammad.
That's all I've got for you...for now. Tantalizing, isn't it? Believe me, there's plenty more where that came from, but it's better in doses. This is just the initial drip from the wellspring of excitment that is the Middle East, and one small baby step in trying to better understand the world around us.
Come back tomorrow for a little history on how the violence started in the first place, and maybe even a who's who of the major players in the Sunni-Shiite world. We'll figure this thing out together.
Thanks for reading.
To sum up: We’re in a shit-storm. Anyone bring an umbrella?
The issues in each of these very unique yet intertwined conflicts are extraordinarily complex and I won’t pretend to understand them at any depth, but I am making an effort to be aware and informed. As I uncover facts or stories I find interesting, I’ll do my best to write about them and keep anyone who reads this thing (who am I kidding) up to date.
It seems to me that at the heart of most of the issues plaguing the region are fundamental differences and an apparently irreconcilable tension between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. This seems like as good a place as any to start, so let me do my best (in my limited understanding of Islam) to explain the difference.
The Difference between Sunnis and Shiites
In 632 the prophet Muhammad (the founder of Islam) died. This left his followers with the difficult decision of who was going to maintain the faith. One group (which became know as the Sunnis) felt that the leader of the faith should be the one most likely to keep the tenants of Islam. They chose the prophet’s advisor, Abu Bakr, to lead the religion and recognize the heirs of the caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. The caliphs ruled continuously until the end of WWI (when the Ottoman Empire fell).
The Shiites, on the other hand, believed that the leader of Islam should come directly from Muhammad’s blood line. They chose Ali (who also happened to be the fourth caliph), Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law (don’t ask me). Ali and his successors are known as Imams, and are considered to be descendants of Muhammad.
That's all I've got for you...for now. Tantalizing, isn't it? Believe me, there's plenty more where that came from, but it's better in doses. This is just the initial drip from the wellspring of excitment that is the Middle East, and one small baby step in trying to better understand the world around us.
Come back tomorrow for a little history on how the violence started in the first place, and maybe even a who's who of the major players in the Sunni-Shiite world. We'll figure this thing out together.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
I Work in a Cube
"God will not look your over for medals, degrees or diplomas, but for scars."-- Elbert Hubbard
Gets me thinking (apologies). What is it that I live for? I like to believe that I'm a romantic, an adventurer, a risk taker. I like to believe that I'd be willing to throw caution to the wind, to take the bull by the horns, to...other applicable cliche. Trite romance novelisms aside, I like to believe that I would be willing to make sacrifices for the things I believe in, namely love, peace and hope. But would I? Perhaps in the answer to this question lies the secret of true fulfillment, true happiness.
I'm meeting with a financial advisor later this afternoon. He's put together a plan for me to follow that will ensure I have a comfortable retirement. In forty years I can look forward to driving a Cadillac Seville, owning a nice lakeshore property, and dragging myself around with a gold-plated walker. I feel like a sellout.
We live in a culture that, I apologize for being crude, has castrated us (men and women alike). We seek comfort, stability, ease. The American dream is a Ford Taurus and a sweater vest (no offence to anyone with a penchant for either - the Taurus is a reliable automobile and the sweater is a practical article of clothing). I just want to know what the hell happened.
I work in a cube. It has walls, but no ceiling. They put a tree next to it so that if I blur my vision I start to feel like I'm outside. Is this what I was created for? To provide concise technical documentation telling engineers what tests to run so that a major corporation can make enormous amounts of money without getting sued?
This isn't what America's founding fathers fought for, this isn't what mothers and fathers want for sons and daughters, and I have a hard time believing this is what God wants for us. Let's take some risks. We will get hurt, battered, scarred, tired, and we will all most assuredly die, but we will do so knowing that we were, at one point, truly alive.
Gets me thinking (apologies). What is it that I live for? I like to believe that I'm a romantic, an adventurer, a risk taker. I like to believe that I'd be willing to throw caution to the wind, to take the bull by the horns, to...other applicable cliche. Trite romance novelisms aside, I like to believe that I would be willing to make sacrifices for the things I believe in, namely love, peace and hope. But would I? Perhaps in the answer to this question lies the secret of true fulfillment, true happiness.
I'm meeting with a financial advisor later this afternoon. He's put together a plan for me to follow that will ensure I have a comfortable retirement. In forty years I can look forward to driving a Cadillac Seville, owning a nice lakeshore property, and dragging myself around with a gold-plated walker. I feel like a sellout.
We live in a culture that, I apologize for being crude, has castrated us (men and women alike). We seek comfort, stability, ease. The American dream is a Ford Taurus and a sweater vest (no offence to anyone with a penchant for either - the Taurus is a reliable automobile and the sweater is a practical article of clothing). I just want to know what the hell happened.
I work in a cube. It has walls, but no ceiling. They put a tree next to it so that if I blur my vision I start to feel like I'm outside. Is this what I was created for? To provide concise technical documentation telling engineers what tests to run so that a major corporation can make enormous amounts of money without getting sued?
This isn't what America's founding fathers fought for, this isn't what mothers and fathers want for sons and daughters, and I have a hard time believing this is what God wants for us. Let's take some risks. We will get hurt, battered, scarred, tired, and we will all most assuredly die, but we will do so knowing that we were, at one point, truly alive.
Monday, April 9, 2007
My First Blog
I've always believed that to be a blogger one must
A) be computer savvy
B) be qualified to offer an opinion on something...anything
C) be incredibly narcissistic
or
D) any combination of the above
A blogger should at least have a loving, computer literate mother. I didn't think I met any of these prerequisites (note: my mother meets the loving standard, just not the computer literate), and as a result I have been in self-imposed exile from the blogosphere (is that the proper "blogger" term? ) since the inception of the blogger nation.
But good news, folks! I have recently stumbled upon the revelation that I am, in fact, ridiculously narcissistic.
So much so that I believe I'm obligated by moral conscience to impose my views, opinions, rants and ramblings upon anyone unfortunate enough to get in my way.
So much so that I think my slant on faith, politics, current events, culture, movies, music, books, philosophy, the merits of the metric system and an economy based on the barter system are actually relevant to anyone besides myself.
So much so that when I woke up this morning and said to myself "Erik (Erik speaks in the third person when Erik wakes up in the morning - Erik and Oprah agree it is self-empowering), what can you do to make the world a better place?" The Erik staring back at me from the ceiling mirror above my bed replied "Erik, you should start a blog."
So much so that I have been cross-checking my spelling in Word because my fragile ego couldn't accept criticism from the blog that I brought into being.
In the posts to come I will serve up a lot of hogwash and hackneyed b.s. If anyone actually reads this garbage, you may find whatever dish I'm serving up unpalatable, in which case feel free to comment. Nothing would make me happier.
Ladies and gents, welcome to my blog.
Disclaimers:
Much of this post was written in jest.
Erik does not actually believe all, or even the majority of bloggers are "incredibly narcissistic," (Yipes!) even though many have blogs dedicated to writing about themselves...thoughts on paradoxes to come.
Erik does not, in actuality, consider himself "ridiculously narcissistic." Though he did create his own blog.
Erik does not have a ceiling mirror, nor does he refer to himself in the third person when he wakes up in the morning (though for some reason he is in this blog. Must be a blogger thing.) Oprah could not be reached for comment.
Any claims made one way or the other in regards to Erik's narcissism will be jointly filed in an impending libel suit.
And if I abuse the the term "blog-fill in the blank" I apologize. This is still rather exciting.
A) be computer savvy
B) be qualified to offer an opinion on something...anything
C) be incredibly narcissistic
or
D) any combination of the above
A blogger should at least have a loving, computer literate mother. I didn't think I met any of these prerequisites (note: my mother meets the loving standard, just not the computer literate), and as a result I have been in self-imposed exile from the blogosphere (is that the proper "blogger" term? ) since the inception of the blogger nation.
But good news, folks! I have recently stumbled upon the revelation that I am, in fact, ridiculously narcissistic.
So much so that I believe I'm obligated by moral conscience to impose my views, opinions, rants and ramblings upon anyone unfortunate enough to get in my way.
So much so that I think my slant on faith, politics, current events, culture, movies, music, books, philosophy, the merits of the metric system and an economy based on the barter system are actually relevant to anyone besides myself.
So much so that when I woke up this morning and said to myself "Erik (Erik speaks in the third person when Erik wakes up in the morning - Erik and Oprah agree it is self-empowering), what can you do to make the world a better place?" The Erik staring back at me from the ceiling mirror above my bed replied "Erik, you should start a blog."
So much so that I have been cross-checking my spelling in Word because my fragile ego couldn't accept criticism from the blog that I brought into being.
In the posts to come I will serve up a lot of hogwash and hackneyed b.s. If anyone actually reads this garbage, you may find whatever dish I'm serving up unpalatable, in which case feel free to comment. Nothing would make me happier.
Ladies and gents, welcome to my blog.
Disclaimers:
Much of this post was written in jest.
Erik does not actually believe all, or even the majority of bloggers are "incredibly narcissistic," (Yipes!) even though many have blogs dedicated to writing about themselves...thoughts on paradoxes to come.
Erik does not, in actuality, consider himself "ridiculously narcissistic." Though he did create his own blog.
Erik does not have a ceiling mirror, nor does he refer to himself in the third person when he wakes up in the morning (though for some reason he is in this blog. Must be a blogger thing.) Oprah could not be reached for comment.
Any claims made one way or the other in regards to Erik's narcissism will be jointly filed in an impending libel suit.
And if I abuse the the term "blog-fill in the blank" I apologize. This is still rather exciting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
