The New York Times offered a surprisingly thoughtful glimpse into Iraq's Imperial past in a recent article. Back in the days of Empire, Britain decided on Iraq's borders. It was quite usual in those days for agents of the crown to parcel off things in this manner and sprout new countries with carefully hand-picked rulers. The law of unintended consequences oft holds true, and Iraq does seem to be the poster child for this. It's sobering to think of soldiers fighting and dying there a hundred years ago for reasons and justifications eerily similar to those given today.

If you have time, I invite you to check out the story's main link - the 'Gertrude Bell Project'. I certainly never heard her name before this story, but she seems to resonate through her diaries and papers, which contain hundreds of tidbits on the attitudes and politics of the times - not to mention being a joy to read just for her turn of phrase. As she commented in 1919, regarding British presence in India 'If India were not so much divided, Hindus against Islam, native princes against Nationalists, it would be a much graver matter, indeed if India had the homogeneous population of Egypt, we could not hold on at all.' (This was the old 'divide and conquer' rule; if you're invading a country, make sure they hate someone else more than they hate you, and then when they're both worn out, you take the spoils).

The ghosts of Empire, those men and women drawing lines in the sand and deciding the course of history, still have the power to reach across the years and affect us today. So the next time someone asks 'Why is Iraq such a mess?' - you can always blame the British Empire...

The current situation in the Middle East (and around the world) does not seem quite so crazy and convoluted with a limited understanding of history. Especially the history of the 20th century. Well said in your blog.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)