Some unpolished thoughts on the Middle East

Yesterday Father Orthoduck talked about the Marshall Plan and suggested that it may have some things to say to us about Iraq and Afghanistan. Father Orthoduck also suggested that some knowledge of history might be helpful in order to be able to understand why citizens of the Middle East might be less than excited about our presence in Iraq, even though they agree with our invasion of Afghanistan. Let’s start first with a look at the recent history of the Middle East.

Have you ever heard about the British Mandate of Palestine? It was, “a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine formally approved by the League of Nations in June 1922, based on a draft by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War. The mandate formalized British rule in Palestine from 1917-1948. The boundaries of two new states were laid down within the territory of the Mandate, Palestine and Transjordan.” Now, this may surprise you, but the United States at that time was against the mandate, in part because it seemed to simply be a legal way to disguise the spoils of war (World War I) among the European powers. More than that, the High Commissioner for the mandate refused to recognize the rights of non-Orthodox Jews and of Protestant Christians. Worse, the High Commissioner continued the millet system of the Ottoman Empire. Thus the USA Senate refused to ratify the Covenant of the League of Nations.

But, more than that, France held Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, and French Morocco as colonies. Spain held Spanish Morocco. Italy held Ethiopia. Britain further held Egypt. In other words, the Middle East was divided among the (white) European powers. Algeria only became fully independent in 1962. Father Orthoduck was already 10 1/2 years old then. Morocco became independent in 1956, and so on. As Americans, we fail to realize that the Middle East is full of people who can remember being occupied by the European powers. For these people, it is NOT old history, it is part of their personal memories.

Can you understand why they might have a knee-jerk reaction to the invasion of a Middle Eastern country by a “white” country? By and large the Middle East understood our invasion of Afghanistan because it was a clear case of retaliation against your enemy. But, there was no clear aggression by Saddam against the United States. We might not have liked him, and he certainly was violating human rights. But, you need to place yourself in their shoes. Many of the Middle Eastern states are run by autocratic and authoritarian regimes. While Saddam was extreme by Middle Eastern standards, he was not completely outside the way their various governments run themselves. But worse, almost all Middle Easterners of the age of babyboomers (or older) have personal memories of being controlled by an European power.

But, we might have yet pulled it off had we found weapons of mass destruction or proof that Saddam was planning to directly engage in terrorist acts in the USA. But, he was not. There were no weapons of mass destruction found and to this day there is no evidence that he was involved in any direct attacks on the USA. So, to the typical Middle East citizen, it looks merely like another instance of the historical interference of the European/First World powers into the Middle East. Can you now understand why the typical Middle East citizen might then look at anyone who violently opposes the USA as a freedom fighter rather than a terrorist? In fact, as Father Orthoduck pointed out Al Qaeda had an incredible opportunity to become heroes. Thank God that they made the same type of mistakes as C.S. Lewis points out in his book That Hideous Strength. Evil always overstretches itself.

Had it not been for the stupidity of Al Qaeda, we might be facing a more difficult situation than the one we are facing. That is not to say that we have taken the smartest steps that we could have, particularly given the history of the post-WWII period. But, the prior history of the region gives a quite plausible reason why Middle Eastern Muslims were slow to speak out against the jihadists. It was not always because they were evil Muslims who had it in for Christians. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you have nice thoughts about people who resembled the people whom you remembered as being your occupiers when you were a child, or that your parents or grandparents had told you about?

And, so, on the one hand, it took longer than it should have for a fatwa to be proclaimed against the jihadists. But, that can be explained in part, but only in part, by the prior history. Nevertheless, we have yet to look at ourselves and some possible approaches to the Middle East.

===MORE TO COME===