tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post7443067072406185102..comments2024-02-22T19:21:40.330-05:00Comments on Muhlberger's World History: Nir Rosen on classic colonial tactics and their consequences in Iraq todayUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-45113725288292383822007-05-18T17:13:00.000-04:002007-05-18T17:13:00.000-04:00I think the significant fact is the attitude take...I think the significant fact is the attitude taken by an English-speaking Iraqi who works for American employers. Read some more of the Inside Iraq blog from the McClatchy staffers.Steve Muhlbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18136005762428407135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-67124463835124658182007-05-18T16:54:00.000-04:002007-05-18T16:54:00.000-04:00Is this url correct? Is the reader supposed to in...Is this url correct? Is the reader supposed to interpret a great significance on the construction of the US Embassy? Its completion somehow implies nefarious intent? This can't be the correct url; it's too thin.Canadian Tar Heelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08296189877750355753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-72799399174904491202007-05-18T14:25:00.000-04:002007-05-18T14:25:00.000-04:00Let's try this tinyurl:http://tinyurl.com/ypw9afLet's try this tinyurl:<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/ypw9afSteve Muhlbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18136005762428407135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-66276176853812685882007-05-18T14:05:00.000-04:002007-05-18T14:05:00.000-04:00Steve,It appears that something got lost in transl...Steve,<BR/><BR/>It appears that something got lost in translation. I’m not sure if I failed to articulate my thoughts well.<BR/><BR/>1) If I might, I’ll take a second kick at the can. Regardless of whether the occupation itself amounts to “colonialism” or “imperialism”, my point related to the your word choice (ie, <I>tactics</I>) due to the inherent connotation. I’m not convinced that American officials, including Bremer, intended to divide Iraq society along ethnic/religious lines as a nefarious means of conquering and pacifying. Instead, I agree with Rosen; it was their ignorance that led these officials to unwittingly reinforce these ethnic/religious divides. And I would accept that this ignorance resembles a "colonial" or "imperial" mindset. <BR/><BR/>(N.B.: While these divisions within Iraqi society previously existed, no matter how subtle, the extent to which American officials exacerbated them in their efforts to ensure ethnic/religious quotas is not yet clear. But Rosen is right to say that they did, in fact, exacerbate these divides.)<BR/><BR/>2) Unfortunately, the url you provided did not take me to any specific post when I copied and pasted it in the web browser. So, I was unable to single out the information you had intended. Could you please provide a link? Or explain what you mean?<BR/><BR/>3) Again, I haven’t yet argued, here, whether the Iraq occupation makes the US a “colonizer” or an “empire”. However, I have previously addressed the issue in <A HREF="http://colbyfile.blogspot.com/2006/07/stigma-american-empire-anti-american.html" REL="nofollow">a post of my own</A>. Frankly, the mere existence of peripheries makes for a banal definition of “imperialism”, and such a definition does not address the real issues that the term has come to stand for – oppression and exploitation.Canadian Tar Heelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08296189877750355753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-67669289724121542032007-05-18T12:07:00.000-04:002007-05-18T12:07:00.000-04:00Thanks for the comment.CTH, you might be more symp...Thanks for the comment.<BR/><BR/>CTH, you might be more sympathetic to my calling this stuff "colonialism" or "imperialism" if you looked at how Britain in particular dealt with the Ottoman Empire, Egypt and Iraq both before and after WWI. This is what is normally called "colonialism" or "imperialism" by scholars now and "empire" by promoters of the process back then.<BR/><BR/>Intent: there was plenty of intent by those who promoted the invasion and occupation. I'd agree that they all did not have the same intent. But some wanted to stay forever at the start, and some still do: see<BR/>this blog entry from an Iraqi staffer for American news-service McClatchy: http://tinyurl.com/273367Steve Muhlbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18136005762428407135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-58654844177446393172007-05-18T09:45:00.000-04:002007-05-18T09:45:00.000-04:00Hi Steve,I’ve read much of Nir Rosen’s material to...Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>I’ve read much of Nir Rosen’s material too, including the article you mention in this post. It’s interesting to see how his views stand in contrast to some of Iraq’s governing elite – eg, Allawi – who suggest a federalist state.<BR/><BR/>With particular respect to your post, I appreciate the urge to compare the Iraqi occupation to colonialism. I can easily see how one might argue that American officials, such as Bremer, demonstrate a perspective similar to one of the classic colonial mindset – ie, division along ethnic/cultural/racial/religious lines. However, the phrase “colonial tactics” implies a degree of intent and calculation on their part to “divide and conquer”, which I don’t think has been present. Rather, I think that Rosen is right in saying that ignorance and incompetence has played a significant role.Canadian Tar Heelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08296189877750355753noreply@blogger.com