ISIS: The Spoils of the “Great Loot” in the Middle East

[malaise]

http://fpif.org/isis-spoils-great-loot-middle-east/


A 19th-century cartoon skewers British imperialism in the Middle East. The current tumult in the region today is a direct result of the arbitrary boundaries and divide-and-rule tactics employed by the imperial British and French. (Image: Middle East Cartoon History)
<snip>
Adding yet more warfare to the current crisis in the Middle East will perpetuate exactly what the imperial powers set out to do: tear an entire region of the world asunder.
It was a curious comment by the oddball but unarguably brilliant British agent and scholar, Thomas Edward Lawrence. The time was World War I, and England and France were locked in a death match with the Triple Alliance, of which Ottoman Turkey was a prominent member. But it was nonetheless true, and no less now than then. In the Middle East, to paraphrase William Faulkner, history is not the past; it’s the present.

In his 1915 letter, Lawrence was describing French machinations over Syria, but he could just as well have been commenting on England’s designs in the region, which Allied leaders in World War I came to call “The Great Loot”—the imperial vivisection of the Middle East.

As Iraq tumbles into a yet another civil war, it is important to remember how all this came about, and why adding yet more warfare to the current crisis will perpetuate exactly what the “Great Loot” set out to do: tear an entire region of the world asunder.

Divide and Conquer

There is a scorecard here filled with names, but they are not just George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice—though the latter helped mightily to fuel the latest explosion.

They are names most people have never heard of, like Sixth Baronet of Sledmere Mark Sykes and French diplomat Francois Georges-Picot. In 1915, these two mid-level diplomats created a secret plan to divvy up the Middle East. Almost a century later that imperial map not only defines the region and most of the players, but continues to spin out tragedy after tragedy, like some grotesque, historical Groundhog Day.

In 1915, the imperial powers’ major goal in the Middle East was to smother any expression of Arab nationalism and prevent any unified resistance to the designs of Paris and London. France wanted Greater Syria, Britain control of the land bridges to India. The competition was so intense that even while hundreds of thousands of French and British troops were dying on the Western Front, their secret services were blackguarding one another from Samarra to Medina, maneuvering for position for when the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed.
------------------------------
None of this looting has anything to do with religion - it's about stealing resources - it has always been about stealing resources.

[The Magistrate]

1. Not A Bad Piece, Ma'am, Not At All

It emphasizes the 'Arab Revolt' a bit too much, and misses the rise of the Wahhabi altogether ( much as the old Arab Bureau in Cairo did at the time ), but not to a degree to spoil it as a decent presentation of things many people really are not aware of, and ought to be.

[msongs]

2. as with most religion based groups, it's always about the $$ nt

[arcane1]

3. Exactly. Religion is merely an identifier and rallying point.

If their land was worthless we would never hear the name "Iraq" on television.

[malaise]

5. Precisely

I'm too old for this crap.

[Fred Sanders]

4. Today is the result of yesterday's fascism, politely referred to as colonialism in polite circles.

Letting them work out their boundaries without genocide is pragmatic.

[malaise]

6. You mean after Bushco's genocide in the same country? n/t

[Fred Sanders]

7. That was mowing the grass, I think, a weed was amongst the carefully kept lawn.

Obama has thankfully put away the mower, brought in some Mosquitos.

[leftstreet]

8. "But chaos has always been an ally of imperialism"

DURec

Excellent article, thanks for posting

[malaise]

9. First they create the chaos

then they pretend to be the saviors.

[mia]

16. Barbarians reign, as always.

They have no conscience.

[woo me with science]

32. +10000 The cycle. The con game.

Blood and despair for profit

[Laelth]

10. The author makes 5 good suggestions:

1) stop fueling the Syrian Civil War
2) lean on the Gulf monarchies to end their sectarian jihad against Shiites
3) pressure the Israelis to settle with the Palestinians
4) end the campaign to isolate Iran
5) tell the French to butt out

At least the first three of those sound like good ideas to me. I am not sure about the fourth. The fifth might be problematic too, but I appreciated the historical content of the essay.

On the other hand, nothing the author wrote proves that every use of military force makes the situation in the ME worse. That's absurd on its face. We wouldn't have a military if it weren't useful on occasion. Certainly, not every use of military force is wise, but neither is every use of military force unwise.

The author's over-generalized and hyperbolic argument spoils what might otherwise have been an excellent essay.

-Laelth

[malaise]

13. I agree with the author

Military force has never made anything better in the ME - certainly not for the people in the ME. It has enriched Westerners and their allies/puppets.

[Laelth]

14. Mostly, that's quite true.

That doesn't necessarily mean that defending the Kurds would be equally exploitative and counter-productive.

-Laelth

[sabrina 1]

39. We have never defended the Kurds, we have USED the Kurds when convenient, to defend our ASSETS. And

we are doing it again. There always has to be a 'hook' for public consumption in order not to have so much opposition to one of our Imperial ventures, that it becomes untenable. This time it's the Kurds, last time it was to 'rescue the Iraqi people from Saddam's torture chambers, the babies in the ovens etc.

Nothing changes when it comes to the ME and by now, no one should take anything that involves 'Air Strikes', which sounds so benign, unless you're under them, as anything other than what they are. We have a history of being allied with some of history's most notorious bad guys. And we're still doing so. See Bahrain, Uzbekistan, formerly, Saddam, Noriega and Pinochet among others.

Our FP is NOT altruistic no matter how the media presents it 'we are obligated to go in and rescue those innocent civilians'. See Libya, then look at it now and ask yourself 'how again did we rescue innocent civilians'? We left, after helping to create more carnage than would have otherwise happened, AFTER we thought we had secured the oil. And the civilians continued to die, mostly at the hands of those we armed and USED and then could not, or didn't bother to, disarm. Some of them the very people we were told were our worst enemies for ten years.

In Palestine, when civilians were being slaughtered, WE supported the agressers even to the point of holding a vote in the Senate to prove it which passed with 100% support. Was there a difference between those civilians and the civilians we are now so concerned about?

There is no consistency to the stories we get as to why we are off to another war. We ignore the slaughters of civilians, see Libya again, when there is nothing more to gain by using them as an excuse. And we use them to get support from decent people who genuinely are deeply moved by the plight of those people, wherever the latest 'adventure' is occurring.

Take Iraq. For over two years the violence across the country has been horrendous. It appears we no longer felt obligated to rescue THOSE civilians even though WE CAUSED their situation. Why though was it ignored, at least publicly? Why was the information that Maliki's policies were causing an uprising that could lead to a full blown civil war ignored? Why was it allowed to escalate to the point where now we claim we are needed there. Where did this powerful group, supposedly, Isis suddenly come from?

I believe nothing when it comes to our Imperial FP. Not any more.

[KoKo]

23. Tough Times with MSM Manipulation and Control often require

a bit of hyperbole to "cut through the crap." Otherwise..your points pulled out are interesting. The French have enough history there that if they wished to....they could be a big part in brokering an agreement. They are often stronger than the Brits these days because of their involvement in Algeria and their constant help to us that gets less coverage than the Blair/Bush pact. imho.

[grahamhgreen]

33. Certainly OUR military actions have only made the situation worse.

[Baclava]

11. The CIA created ISIS to fight the Syrians by the Bilderberg group that's running the whole operation

well, that's what I heard

[VA_Jill]

12. My son has served two tours in Iraq

The first time he was in Kurd country. He has great respect for the Kurds and firmly believes that before this is all over they *will* have their own country. He didn't go to college but is a great reader of history and understands exactly how many modern "nations" were constructed. Unlike some people, he doesn't think the dissolution of Iraq as it currently is put together would be necessarily a bad thing, since it was an artificial construct to begin with.

[NCarolinawoman]

41. Thanks. That is interesting.

Hope your son stays safe and away from the current goings on.

[octoberlib]

15. Yep. Ever notice how we're

only interested in "spreading Democracy" in countries with abundant natural resources?

[malaise]

17. Isn't that the truth?

[woo me with science]

28. +100000

[JEB]

18. Got enough oil and we'll spread democracy

up your front side and down your back side. Freedom isn't free glug glug.

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. Excellent piece, Malaise. And a good site at the link.

How can anyone support war when THIS is what it is always about:
"The competition was so intense that even while hundreds of thousands of French and British troops were dying on the Western Front,
their secret services were blackguarding one another from Samarra to Medina, maneuvering for position for when the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed."


rec.

[malaise]

21. And they just had grand celebrations to remember all the war dead

Sometimes I think I should laugh rather than cry and then I remember the dead and injured.

[dixiegrrrrl]

24. Remembering the dead is important, but

so is remembering the monsters who started the wars.

Can you imagine what a War Remembrance would look like if we addressed the war creators?
What if we had an annual War Criminal remembrance?
I think it is past time, don't you?

[malaise]

25. What if we had an annual War Criminal remembrance

Yeeeeeeeeeeeees! I'd support that

[Uncle Joe]

20. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, malaise.

[KoKo]

22. Great Post! Recommend...

[woo me with science]

26. K&R Important post. We've GOT to learn to shift the discussion

from reactivity to the latest humanitarian crisis that the US helped create, to an observation of the patterns, the cycle of warmongering and profit, and the role of the Military Indu$$$try and corporation$$$$$$.


The U.S. has been at war with Iraq for twenty-four years.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025355401

We are bombing our own guns.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025359142

[malaise]

27. Precisely

The pattern continues - with a new bogus narrative

[woo me with science]

29. You know what I would love to see from a political party

...and how I wish it could be the Democrats...

We need a party that connects the dots. Because every single major problem facing this country now can be traced to the same damned thing: the funneling of money from bottom to top by any means...the looting and the disaster capitalism.

Spend a week blanketing the country with ads about the MIC cycle of warmongering and profit.

Then do a week on corporate education and how it is a profiteering scam by capitalists.

Then spend a week on austerity and tax policy, and how our system has been restructured to funnel dollars to the top.

Show the actual con game, in every single area.

TEACH the country to look beyond the separate propagandizing of every crisis, in order to see the larger pattern of how this country is being looted.

Thanks for this post.

[malaise]

30. The sad truth is that they are all part of the con game

and any attempt to abandon it will be their destruction.
It is only the masses of our populations who can demand change and the vast majority no longer give a shite.

[woo me with science]

35. Yeah...

[polly7]

31. How ISIS Finally Became Obama’s Enemy

By Shamus Cooke

These terror groups were encouraged to grow exponentially in their fight against al-Assad, with Obama knowing full well that Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allied Gulf States were sending mountains of money, guns, and fighters to the jihadists. There was simply was no one else effectively fighting al-Assad, a dynamic that has artificially lengthened a war that would have ended years ago, while creating the environment that ISIS thrived in. Much of the money and guns that Obama shipped to the “moderate” Islamists rebels of course found its way into the hands of the jihadists, since thousands of moderates have since joined ISIS.

Obama’s lack of concern for the ISIS invasion of Iraq was ideologically linked to his inaction in Syria: Obama wants regime change in both nations, and is using ISIS as a de facto ally in both cases. This became quickly obvious with Obama’s response to the ISIS invasion of Iraq; he simply criticized the Iraqi government for not being more inclusive; meanwhile ISIS butchered its way through giant regions of Iraq and subjected the survivors to a more brutal totalitarianism than the U.S.-allied dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.

But then ISIS went too far. The red line that ISIS finally crossed was their attack against the U.S. allied Iraqi Kurds. The Kurds govern their own oil-rich autonomous zone in Iraq, and have been steadfast U.S. supporters. The New York Times talks openly about the real, non-humanitarian motive of Obama attacking ISIS:

There you have it. The thousands who have been slaughtered by ISIS in Syria and other parts of Iraq weren’t “worth defending,” but the Kurds are different, since their leaders are U.S. allies. This sums up U.S. foreign policy in a nutshell, which has absolutely nothing to do with “humanitarianism.” Gazans are allowed to be slaughtered, Syrian’s massacred, and half of Iraq torn to shreds while Obama has busied himself with making threats to Russia.

http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/how-isis-finally-became-obamas-enemy/

[suffragette]

34. We keep hacking away at the Hydra and creating more heads

What always gets minimized in that story is that in the end the poison Hercules unleashed, after finally slaying the Hydra, killed him.

Thank you so much for bringing this important historical perspective about the area and motives of countries involved here, sis.

[malaise]

36. in the end the poison Hercules unleashed, after finally slaying the Hydra, killed him.

Today's poison is nukes. That will kill all of us.
You're welcome suffragette

[suffragette]

37. Yes, and all the weapons we and other nations have flooded into the area

Inevitably, they have ended in the hands of those who are the new heads of the Hydra and they are using them to horrific effect.

And more keeps pouring in.

Also, since many of these new Hydra heads are from western nations, there is now a rise in articles about them likely spreading the terror back to their home nations, in Europe and here. It reminds me of the memo about Bin Laden being determined to strike, even the timing of it.

We all, here and here, keep paying the cost of imperialism and PNAC machinations, while a few increase their bank accounts with the blood money from this.

And the people who have been saying we need to shift our response to change the outcome keep getting ignored.

[betterdemsonly]

38. Wish Obama would hire people from fpif to field his foreign policy team

Rather than Hillary and the PNAC. Stephen Coen would have been a good Foreign policy pick too.

[spanone]

40. k&r...