Category: American history

Book Review– Iraq After America: Strongmen, Sectarians, Resistance by Joel Rayburn

Posted on by alexandernevsky

By Steven Knorr

Joel Rayburn is a former Army Colonel and intelligence officer. In Iraq After America, he examines the challenges Iraq has faced since American troop withdrawals in 2011. In order to resolve Iraqi instability, three fundamental issues that have long plagued Iraq must be addressed. The principle issues, according to Rayburn, are political authoritarianism, sectarian violence, and ongoing insurgency. While the title implies the state of Iraq after the recent war (2003-2011), the author goes into detail about the historical origins of the conflicts within the country today. It is because of these deep-rooted divisions Iraq has failed to achieve stability.Rayburn is critical of US foreign policy, arguing that the American approach to war since Korea has been self-obstructive.[1] Too many conflicts, in his view, have been undertaken without a winning strategy. Moreover, political leaders have blindly hoped for things to “turn up” that would allow for troop withdrawal.[2] Quick victory, though possible, could come at a cost that would be morally reprehensible. This means wars drag on and public support of the war wanes. Rayburn believes that these longer wars are more destructive than a war that could be ended quickly. To Rayburn, Iraq was a job left unfinished which has lead to the instability of the region since 2011. With the rise of ISIS after US troop withdrawals, it is hard to dispute these points. However, the decisively resolved conflicts in Panama, Granada, and the Balkans might refute a broad application of Rayburn’s assessment of US foreign policy.

The book discusses in detail the legacy of political authoritarianism in Iraq. In particular, Nouri al-Maliki is discussed, the former prime minister who grew from a weak premier into a political strongman. The root of Maliki authoritative power goes back five decades during the struggle between Shia Islamists and Iraqi Baathists. The Shia Dawa party was crushed by Saddam’s regime but would reemerge when Ayad Allawi was appointed interim Prime Minster of Iraq in 2004. Rayburn argues that under Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi state reversed the work of coalition on establishing a decentralized democracy. After the 2010 elections Maliki was able to return to power despite losing the election, a clear indicator of a slide back to authoritarianism. In this and other respects, Maliki’s leadership was incredibly damaging to fragile Iraqi democracy, and Maliki and his Dawa faction were able to consolidate a considerable amount of power.

In the middle chapters, Rayburn argues that the violent sectarian divisions within Iraq are not natural and were hinted at prior to the conflict[3]. Much sectarianism was manufactured by outside factions with their own interests, including Shia Iran-allied exiles returning to Iraq. These Shia factions were determined to wreak havoc on former Baathist party members and Sunnis who persecuted the Iraqi Shia party from the 1970s through 90s. The religious rivalries within Iraqi society dominated post-invasion politics. In 2005, the citizens of Baghdad were displaced and separated into sectarian enclaves throughout the city. This lead to the religious cleansing of neighborhoods as Shia poured out of the slums of Baghdad into wealthier Sunni neighborhoods. The sectarian violence escalated into a full-blown civil war that took place from 2005-2008.

Because sectarianism has seeped into every aspect of Iraqi society, strongmen within Iraqi politics and the Shia resistance movement will continue to prevent Iraq from progressing into a functional, unified state. The situation could be compared to Yugoslavia, as a deeply divided country fractured by religious and political interests. While Iraq is divided up into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish enclaves, the best solution forward is a unified, singular Iraq. Violence would only escalate if sectarian enclaves were to break apart; this would also be catastrophic for regional stability. Rayburn acknowledges that keeping Iraq unified will be extremely difficult, because of internal divisions and outside interference. Little effort is placed on governing Sunni regions, and Iran continues to exert a destabilizing influence.

Sectarianism leads to insurgency, the ultimate plague of Iraq. Rayburn asserts that the Islamic State was not a surprise to the insiders or those who were paying attention[4]. Even if ISIS is defeated, with the continuation of sectarianism another spinoff insurgency will likely emerge. Here Rayburn is critical of the United States for its support of Maliki. The US supported Maliki because of his effectiveness against Al-Qaeda type terrorism. However, weapons given to the government made their way to Maliki’s political rivals and in turn into the hands of ISIS. Rayburn views the war on against ISIS as a part of a larger battle between Sunnis and Shias within Iraq[5]. Without the US guiding Iraq towards constructive policies that ease sectarianism, the current Iraqi regime will continue to be complacent regarding reconciliation with Sunni Iraqis.

Because of the broader battle between Shias, Sunnis, and even Kurds it is difficult to imagine conflict going away even after the defeat of ISIS. Rayburn makes very valid points regarding the Iraqi government and their unwillingness to address the divisions at hand. He convincingly demonstrates that the Iraqi government approach to governing will continue to damage Iraqi society.

Sources

[1] Rayburn, Joel. Iraq after America: Strongmen, Sectarians, Resistance (The Great Unraveling: the Remaking of the Middle East: Hoover Institution Press Publication; No. 643) . Hoover Institution Press. Kindle Edition.

[2] Ibid, location 113

[3] Ibid, Page 73

[4] Ibid, Page 121

[5] Ibid, Page 260

You can purchase Rayburn’s book on Amazon.

Legitimization of Conquest

Posted on by NR

Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’s Conquest of the New World, 1492-1640 by Patricia Seed

By Steven Knorr

As European powers expanded into the Americas, they used ceremony and ritual to cement their control over newly conquered lands. Perception of colonial ownership differed between the Portuguese, English, French and Spanish.

Ceremonies of Possession by Patricia Seed is a book that explains the rituals and ceremonies European colonizers performed when laying foundation for political authority over the New World between 1492 and 1640. Seed demonstrates that the Europeans did not behave as a monolith, but that each had their own customs and practices when establishing their overseas empires. According to Seed, the symbolic acts taken by the Europeans were based upon familiar gestures, actions, movements or speeches that they already understood[1]. Throughout the book she demonstrates how European legal codes can differentiate how legal possession can be interpreted differently.

Seed begins this discussion with the Portuguese claiming dominion over places they discovered.[2] To the Portuguese, simply discovering land meant they held dominion over it[3]. To the English however, to hold dominion over a territory meant there had to be an intent to stay by establishing houses and boundaries. Queen Elizabeth of England believed that the Portuguese had no dominion over places they simply had found[4]. The English established boundaries by putting up fences and hedges and building gardens. Full-time use of land was an important indicator of property to the English. For this reason, they were able to more easily disregard land usage by the Native Americans, as Native Americans only used theirs on a semi-permanent basis, according to the English laws.

Continue reading “Legitimization of Conquest” →

Creoles in Louisiana History

Posted on by NR

Since their origins in the early 1700s, the Creole people of Louisiana have forged a unique identity for themselves in the American Southeast. 

by Steven Knorr

The world Creole has held many different meanings throughout its history of use. People called Creoles in the Americas adapted to the Louisiana Purchase and came to create a culture and identity of their own in the Southern United States. The word Creole is unique among American nomenclature, referring to a specific group of people with French ancestry in the South and in the Caribbean. The term is not applied to French Canadians, though sometimes the term can be used to refer to Spanish speaking people of mixed racial origin. While today many whites with French ancestry are known as Cajun in the Deep South, people of mixed-racial ancestry with French heritage often exclusively refer to themselves as Creole. The word Creole itself comes from the Portuguese word crioulo which means someone one who was raised in a house, especially a servant. This word was adopted by other European languages and by the 1500s the word crioulo (or the Spanish criollo) would specifically refer to someone “native to the colonies.”

louisiana_creole_flag_2014-02-01_18-35
The Creole flag was designed in 1987, and represents the mixed heritage found in Creole culture. French language and tradition (top left), combined with west African ancestry (tri-colors of Senegal and Mali), with Spanish colonialism (Tower of Castile, lower right).

Origins of the Creole People

Louisiana was a difficult place for settlers in the 18th century. French exploration of the Mississippi delta was conducted by La Salle, who in 1682 proclaimed the region south of what is now Memphis Louisiane in honor of Louis XIV. French settlement first began with the creation of Fort Maurepas (modern Biloxi, Mississippi), and the region was soon given colonial governance. In 1722, four years after its founding, the city of New Orleans became the capital of French Louisiana. The governor general ruled both Upper Louisiana (Haute-Louisiane), the modern Midwest, and Lower Louisiana (Basse-Louisiane), the Mississippi drainage basin in what is now Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. Settlers came from France, Canada, and the French West Indies.

Continue reading “Creoles in Louisiana History” →

Classical Influence in American Government

Posted on by NR

Nick Richwagen, October 2016

Ancient Greek Political Thought and the model of Roman Government Influenced America’s Foundations

Note (2020): this article was based off a paper written ten years ago, and has been revised to fit the format of the website. Since its publication here, it has proven to be the most popular page on our site with multiple links to primary and secondary education resources. Language elements have been updated from time to time. For all students, I would encourage you to engage with the resources cited and provided at the bottom of the text.

Introduction

The founding fathers of the United States drew upon two main streams in the designing of American government: (1) Enlightenment philosophy and (2) the Ancient (Classical) world of Greece and Rome. Enlightenment era (18th century) philosophy was important, particularly the ideas of Montesquieu, Rousseau, and John Locke. The founders also looked towards the heritage of the Ancient world. This was a natural development, because Greco-Roman history and literature was considered an essential part of education in the American colonies. Philosophers from classical Greece proposed the separation of powers in government, an idea that the American founders adopted for their new nation. In addition, The Roman Republic  (509-27 BC) served as a direct model of government for the writers of the constitution.  In short, Greek and Roman political thought was critical in shaping the government of the United States.

Content Sections:

I. Plato’s Mixed Government

II. Aristotle: Separation of Powers

III: Polybius and the Roman Republic

IV: Classical Education and Influence in Revolutionary America

V: American Mixed Republican Government

Continue reading “Classical Influence in American Government” →