August 11, 2007

BUT HERE'S THE OPERATIVE QUESTION... (via Gene Brown):

Remembering Partition: The parallels between India '47 and Iraq '07. (Fred Kaplan, Aug. 9, 2007, Slate)

Anyone who believes that U.S. troops can simply and suddenly leave Iraq without risk of unleashing great horror—or who regards religious or ethnic partition as a solution instead of a desperate ploy—should look back at the summer of 1947, when the British Empire packed up and India fulfilled its "tryst with destiny" (as Jawaharlal Nehru described its awakening to independence), only to plunge into a monstrous spree of ethnic cleansing (12 million people uprooted, as many as 1 million murdered) that continues to take its toll today.

As India's independence and Britain's withdrawal seemed inevitable in the wake of World War II, the country's long-suppressed internal fissures began to rumble like a reawakened volcano. Gandhi's followers in the Congress Party campaigned as a secular movement. But Muslims saw it as a cover for Hindu domination, and Gandhi's rival, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, though a secular Muslim, played the religion card to the hilt to attract fundamentalists' favor.

The Muslims demanded an independent state. In their haste to get out, the British complied. They negotiated the establishment of Pakistan, drew the boundaries in a careless manner, and unavoidably created more problems than they solved.

On Aug. 15, when the British pulled out, millions of Hindus on Muslim land and Muslims on Hindu land—and lots of Sikhs on either—were brutalized, raped, or killed. Many packed their belongings and moved, but, unprotected, they were slaughtered along the way. The Indian Army, which had been created by Britain, also divided along religious lines, and, as the New Yorker review notes, "many of the communalized soldiers would join their coreligionists in killing sprees, giving the violence of partition its genocidal cast."

Before long, India and Pakistan went to war over the contested territory of Kashmir. Two more wars followed in as many decades. Another war nearly broke out a mere five years ago.


...how many Pakistanis ands Indians would reverse the partition? Or, for that matter, how many Brits and Americans would reverse our bloody own?

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 11, 2007 9:27 PM
Comments

That is a silly question, just ask the North and South had partition been successful.

Posted by: Perry at August 11, 2007 10:51 PM

It wasn't. They didn't want to be parted.

Posted by: oj at August 12, 2007 6:32 AM

[...]"The day has long passed when an American president can sternly say, "Back off," and make some leader halfway around the world tremble in his shoes. We no longer have the power to make such threats stick, and Ahmadinejad, Karzai, and Maliki know this.

Von Tunzelmann remarks in her book on the Indian summer that the British leaders in 1947 "preferred the illusion of imperial might to the admission of imperial failure"—but, in the end, simply could not afford to perpetuate empire's daydreams. The United States is facing a similar moment. Will it give up illusory domination for still-feasible leadership, or will it push ahead and eventually, inevitably, fold?"

That's the ultimate question raised in the article, following Kaplan's tortuous justification for staying, while holding his nose to retain creditability with the typical Slate reader. Even Murtha is coming around to this position and Clinton will be the next tottering domino to fall. Pelosi may not; someone in the party hierarchy has to stand for the "NeoBolsheviks"

[...]"Iraq was a colonial contrivance from the outset. (For the amazing story of how the British invented Iraq, and messed up the Middle East for all time to boot, see David Fromkin's A Peace To End All Peace.)"[...]

Time to visit Amazon for this one.

Posted by: Genecis at August 12, 2007 10:46 AM

Gen:

If Mugabe were murdered tonight, the trembling boots would return. It doesn't take much to scare the bullies. Look at somebody like Mookie - the US Army starts talking with the Sunni tribes and putting incremental pressure on his goons, and he runs to Iran (twice now).

Posted by: ratbert at August 12, 2007 11:13 AM

". . .[V]ictory which bears no relation to war aims."

To stated war aims, perhaps. The inferred, rather than stated war aims in Iraq are to visit confusion upon the enemy, to hasten the reformation, and to precipitale the Endsieg.

Posted by: Lou Gots at August 12, 2007 11:15 AM
« DO YOU QUALIFY FOR HOGWARTS?: | Main | PROBLEM? IT'S THE SOLUTION: »