--After WWI, under the
conditions imposed by the partitions, new countries were established
with monarchs chosen by the “West.” These actions started
resistance movements against “Western” imperialistic
intervention, creating violence and furthering general stagnation
of the region. The violence continued after “Western” withdrawal
because of internal power struggles in the destabilized region.
Similar to Latin America during the revolutions for independence
from Spain, local dictators replaced appointed puppets. Autocratic
tyrants had no intentions of promoting the interests of the people.
(If the “Young Turks” had had a chance to continue Ottoman reforms,
the Middle East would be a different landscape than it is today. But, the reforms
would end for the empire because of WWI. The British Empire finally got what
it wanted, the Suez Canal and the Mesopotamian (Iraqi) oil fields.)
--Unfortunately, it was highly unlikely that the
backwardness caused by centuries of decline, coupled with a rise to power of
autocratic, self-serving governments (after WWI) (1) would have ever changed
without outside intervention. Fortunately, Iraq in particular, because of its
geological location in the Fertile Crescent, can be an example of regional recovery. With
a democratic system that promotes the middle class, recovery is entirely possible
for Iraq. On the other hand if the coalition forces pull out prematurely, refer
to the following “history chart” of Iraq since WWI to analyze Iraq’s
future.
(1) Author’s Post Scripts |
