the back page of the book review section has an article about how american neo-conservatives are trying to claim that winston churchill was an early neo-con. their embrace of churchill is typical of the neo-conservative approach to the middle-east.
in the u.s., the name winston churchill evokes a principled stand against fascism and inspiring "finest hour" speeches. but in the middle-east churchill's record is not so heroic. he was an unabashed imperialist. in the 1920s he struggled to maintain british domination of what is now iraq, and was one of the people responsible for cobbling together the kurds, sunni arabs and shia arabs into the unlikely and disfunctional iraq that still plagues us today. as colonial minister, churchill faced an increasing popular anti-british insurgency that ultimately led to a british defeat and inspires some of the modern iraqi insurgents. see Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq.
churchill also screwed up iran. in the early 1950s, churchill's return to the prime minister's office led to the british and american-backed coup against mohammed mossedegh. during the election campaign churchill railed against then sitting PM clement attlee for failing to confront mossedegh firmly enough. after churchill recaptured the prime minister position in 1951, he tried to convince the u.s. to overthrow the iranian government in a coup. the truman administration refused to go along with the plan, and stayed neutral in the british and iranian dispute over rights to persian oil fields. but after eisenhower's election in 1952, churchill's view prevailed and the CIA overthrew mossedegh in 1953. the move was hailed as a success at the time, but in the long run america's responsibility for return of the brutal shah of iran has grown to almost mythic proportions in the middle-east and was the initial spark to the anti-americanism that runs rampant in the region today. see All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
in this context, the neo-con's desire to emulate churchill is like a tragic comedy. they know virtually nothing about the history or political culture of the middle-east, but refuse to acknowledge it. then they blunder spectacularly when they import european models into a very different context, utterly ignorant of the very different meaning those models have in a different region of the world. for example, for americans the word "occupation" evokes the post-war occupation of germany in europe, a benevolent force of democratization. in the mind of the average middle-easterner, on the other hand, the term evokes the far less benevolent history of the early 20th century ottoman attempts to suppress arab nationalism, the british and french colonial period between the world wars and the israelis treatmest on palestinians since 1948. there is no benevolent implications in the term when it is used by arabs
it's the same thing with churchill. to us, he represents freedom and democracy. but in the middle-east he represents almost the opposite. he is associated instead with brutal colonialism and the suppression of indigenous democratic ambitions. for neo-cons to proudly point to churchill as they argue for their next middle-eastern adventure is as dangerous and tragic as george bush calling american efforts against terrorism a "crusade" in the days following 9-11. it only makes sense if you know little of the history of the middle-east or unwilling to acknowledge that our symbols do not mean the same thing everywhere you carry them
(note: minor edits)
