I have a chapter from The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia). The books describes in detail the campaign in Arabia and Syria lead by Lawrence. I have read many books by men who traveled in the deserts of Arabia and Africa, and this is the absolute gem of them all. No book on this topic has fired my imagination like this. The detail of suffering, travel by camel all over the desert, survival and near starvation, and finally, the taking of Akaba at the head of the eastern branch of the Red Sea.
In the photo at left Emir Faisal's party at Versailles, during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Left to right: Rustum Haidar, Nuri as-Said, Prince Faisal (front), Captain Pisani (rear), Lawrence, Faisal's servant (name unknown), Captain Hassan Khadri
Lawrence, in this chapter, is describing Syria. He was a master at calming feuds and bitterness between various people to unite them against the common enemy, the Turks. His companion, Feisal, was also a master in Arab diplomacy. Together, this chapter shows how they analyzed Syria.
What I want you to see is the unbelievable artistry of President Assad of Syria in holding this nation together, the absolutely hopeless task of ANY foreign army to unite Syria, and the wretched and obscene assumption that the USA will do as better job of caring for Syria than Assad.
Lawrence includes Palestine in this description because Israel did not yet exist and was part of Syria.
THIS LINK WILL TAKE YOU TO CHAPTER 58 OF TE LAWRENCE'S BOOK
If this seems interesting, you have no idea what fun you will have if you read the whole book. Suspense, masterful asymmetrical warfare, and British humor and understatement blend to make a read hard to put down.
_______________________________
Alastair Sloan, a UK journalist, writes in Al Jazeera:
Alastair Sloan
May 19, 2015
Alastair Sloan is a London-based journalist. He focuses on injustice and human rights in the UK, and international affairs including human rights, the arms trade, censorship, political unrest and dictatorships.
In the photo Lawrence is in Arab garb which he wore during his campaigns with the Arabs. He also reported back to his headquarters in this outfit in Cairo, and the British Military staff were totally confused, greatly admiring his accomplishments, while being put off by the Arab outfit.
Today marks 80 years since the death of T E Lawrence, the wartime hero, renegade diplomat and reputable scholar. Lawrence had spent much of his life in motion, coursing across the Arab world, and it was in motion that he died - indulging his passion for motorbikes on an English country lane.
Lawrence's heroics during the World War I, during which he galvanised an impromptu bedouin army against the dying Ottoman Empire, were met with public adulation back home. Hoping that full independence was to be the prize for Arab loyalty in the war, he lobbied hard for France and the UK to relinquish their grip on the region, and in particular to overturn the Sykes-Picot agreement.
His enthusiastic overtures were rejected blankly. His former friends-in-arms had been betrayed, Lawrence felt, and he took the disappointment personally and bitterly to heart.
Lawrence was naive. While he saw the Arabs as friends, his bosses in London viewed them as tools - they had throughout the war, they did so afterwards - and arguably they still do today.
Lawrence's heroics during the World War I, during which he galvanised an impromptu bedouin army against the dying Ottoman Empire, were met with public adulation back home. Hoping that full independence was to be the prize for Arab loyalty in the war, he lobbied hard for France and the UK to relinquish their grip on the region, and in particular to overturn the Sykes-Picot agreement.
His enthusiastic overtures were rejected blankly. His former friends-in-arms had been betrayed, Lawrence felt, and he took the disappointment personally and bitterly to heart.
Lawrence was naive. While he saw the Arabs as friends, his bosses in London viewed them as tools - they had throughout the war, they did so afterwards - and arguably they still do today.
Naivete
The naivete of T E Lawrence lives on. Dozens of intelligent newspaper columnists, scholars and think-tankers - writing across all sides of the political spectrum, and many of whom I know and respect - still buy-in to the humanitarian intervention doctrine. There is no doubt that the Oxford-educated and highly intellectual Lawrence would also have been.
This widespread naivete among the Western intelligentsia stretches back decades. The Truman Doctrine, first enunciated in 1947, historically reversed US aversion to foreign regime change - stating that the US sought "to assist free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures".
A noble aim which was widely supported in the media; the doctrine was nothing more than a marketing illusion, cynically encasing self-interest in humanitarian rhetoric. An exemplar early expression was the CIA installing and actively supporting the totalitarian Shah of oil-rich Iran in 1953 - who was hardly a human rights hero.
The underpinning of US strategy in the Middle East then slowly evolved into the 1980 Carter Doctrine, which shed any illusions of humanitarian instinct and just focused on what the US was really interested in.
"An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America," said President Jimmy Carter, "and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
While US support for the oil-rich Gulf still provides the general backdrop to today's Middle East - the neo-conservative ideological climax in the early 2000s cynically reprised the Truman Doctrine's illusory language of humanitarian intervention.
The best example of this was the 2003 invasion of Iraq; it is now well documented that the most likely reason for intervention was not humanitarian instinct, but to prevent Saddam Hussein from savagely attacking global oil prices. Still, newspaper columnists, think-tankers and politicians lauded the plan, some honestly deceived. Like Lawrence, they were naive.
Psalms 4:1 Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness: thou hast enlarged me when I was in distress; have mercy upon me, and hear my prayer.
2 O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? Selah.
3 But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.
4 Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.
5 Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.
6 There be many that say, Who will shew us any good? LORD, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us.
7 Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their corn and their wine increased.
8 I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety.
The naivete of T E Lawrence lives on. Dozens of intelligent newspaper columnists, scholars and think-tankers - writing across all sides of the political spectrum, and many of whom I know and respect - still buy-in to the humanitarian intervention doctrine. There is no doubt that the Oxford-educated and highly intellectual Lawrence would also have been.
This widespread naivete among the Western intelligentsia stretches back decades. The Truman Doctrine, first enunciated in 1947, historically reversed US aversion to foreign regime change - stating that the US sought "to assist free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures".
A noble aim which was widely supported in the media; the doctrine was nothing more than a marketing illusion, cynically encasing self-interest in humanitarian rhetoric. An exemplar early expression was the CIA installing and actively supporting the totalitarian Shah of oil-rich Iran in 1953 - who was hardly a human rights hero.
The underpinning of US strategy in the Middle East then slowly evolved into the 1980 Carter Doctrine, which shed any illusions of humanitarian instinct and just focused on what the US was really interested in.
"An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America," said President Jimmy Carter, "and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
While US support for the oil-rich Gulf still provides the general backdrop to today's Middle East - the neo-conservative ideological climax in the early 2000s cynically reprised the Truman Doctrine's illusory language of humanitarian intervention.
The best example of this was the 2003 invasion of Iraq; it is now well documented that the most likely reason for intervention was not humanitarian instinct, but to prevent Saddam Hussein from savagely attacking global oil prices. Still, newspaper columnists, think-tankers and politicians lauded the plan, some honestly deceived. Like Lawrence, they were naive.
Humanitarian rationale
ISIL is a similar story. There is, of course, a humanitarian rationale, to save ethnic minority groups from hell-bound murderers. And there's no doubt that someone (but not necessarily the imperious West) should save them. Yet when you unpick the "humanitarian need" arguments presented by the US last summer, and enthusiastically echoed by the establishment media, the cleverly constructed illusion becomes clear.
Much of the government's messaging to justify the new military action was focused around the 40,000 Yazidis surrounded on Mount Sinjar by ISIL, and facing "imminent genocide". What the US public weren't widely told is that even as the threat of imminent Yazidi genocide was being bandied about by Washington, a broadly successful rescue mission had already been mounted by Kurdish fighters. The public were told that if Americans didn't intervene, Yazidis would die. This was a lie.
What the US public also weren't told was that 400km southwest of Sinjar, 15,000 Shia Turkmen were also completely surrounded by ISIL, in the city of Amerli - and had been since June. Like the Yazidis, the Shia were considered sub-human apostates by ISIL.
Fighters had completely cut off water and electricity to the city. There was just one doctor for the entire population (who was eventually killed). Men, women, and children were dying of malnutrition, diarrhoea and horrifyingly painful stomach ulcers. This was a clear-cut case of imminent, if not active, genocide. Yet the US government remained completely silent on the issue.
Why? The disconnect is easily explained. Mount Sinjar was promoted above the many other imminent genocides in Iraq, and the region, because it is far closer to the crucial oil refineries of northern Iraq and Syria, and in particular the crucial
Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline - which is now running at a quarter of its capacity thanks to constant ISIL sabotage.
Oil interests are once again the more pressing concern of the US administration, with the humanitarian angle simply a marketing decoy for the public. Sadly - countless latter day T E Lawrence newspaper columnists and earnest politicians have bought into and actively promoted the deception.
Lawrence was a great man - he came to the Middle East, was taken by its wonderful people, and with honest intentions attempted to save them. But he underestimated the cold, calculating cynicism of the colonial establishment. Today, it is as it was then. It is not that the West wants to save the Middle East. It is that the West wants the Middle East.
Alastair Sloan is a London-based journalist. He focuses on injustice and human rights in the UK, and international affairs including human rights, the arms trade, censorship, political unrest and dictatorships.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
ISIL is a similar story. There is, of course, a humanitarian rationale, to save ethnic minority groups from hell-bound murderers. And there's no doubt that someone (but not necessarily the imperious West) should save them. Yet when you unpick the "humanitarian need" arguments presented by the US last summer, and enthusiastically echoed by the establishment media, the cleverly constructed illusion becomes clear.
Much of the government's messaging to justify the new military action was focused around the 40,000 Yazidis surrounded on Mount Sinjar by ISIL, and facing "imminent genocide". What the US public weren't widely told is that even as the threat of imminent Yazidi genocide was being bandied about by Washington, a broadly successful rescue mission had already been mounted by Kurdish fighters. The public were told that if Americans didn't intervene, Yazidis would die. This was a lie.
What the US public also weren't told was that 400km southwest of Sinjar, 15,000 Shia Turkmen were also completely surrounded by ISIL, in the city of Amerli - and had been since June. Like the Yazidis, the Shia were considered sub-human apostates by ISIL.
Fighters had completely cut off water and electricity to the city. There was just one doctor for the entire population (who was eventually killed). Men, women, and children were dying of malnutrition, diarrhoea and horrifyingly painful stomach ulcers. This was a clear-cut case of imminent, if not active, genocide. Yet the US government remained completely silent on the issue.
Why? The disconnect is easily explained. Mount Sinjar was promoted above the many other imminent genocides in Iraq, and the region, because it is far closer to the crucial oil refineries of northern Iraq and Syria, and in particular the crucial
Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline - which is now running at a quarter of its capacity thanks to constant ISIL sabotage.
Oil interests are once again the more pressing concern of the US administration, with the humanitarian angle simply a marketing decoy for the public. Sadly - countless latter day T E Lawrence newspaper columnists and earnest politicians have bought into and actively promoted the deception.
Lawrence was a great man - he came to the Middle East, was taken by its wonderful people, and with honest intentions attempted to save them. But he underestimated the cold, calculating cynicism of the colonial establishment. Today, it is as it was then. It is not that the West wants to save the Middle East. It is that the West wants the Middle East.
Alastair Sloan is a London-based journalist. He focuses on injustice and human rights in the UK, and international affairs including human rights, the arms trade, censorship, political unrest and dictatorships.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
____________________________________
The war by the USA, and Russia, in the Middle East has nothing to do with making America safe, nor does it have a bit of motivation to leave Middle Eastern nations with democracy.
The USA, its President, the Pentagon, the Congress and every soldier down to private, are in the Middle East to bring death, depopulation, destruction, and mental despair to the people of the Middle East. The USA wants every Arab in the Middle East enslaved to America.
Why?
Answer: The USA wants to own the Middle East, not just the oil. We are building an empire, and we are killing, or dislocating, as many of the population as possible. There is no such thing as a hero in this kind of war. It is genocide, it is cruel, and every soldier over there needs to be told he is a brute. He is doing no good. He is a war criminal.
For this reason, God will destroy the USA, and every true Bible believer will agree with God. He is just, and he hears the cry coming up of the innocent babies and mothers who have been massacred under the new speak of "collateral damage."
We need to understand that the White Race has always been the one to go forth, discover, and destroy so that they could have an empire. You never heard of Kenya or Bangladesh building an empire. In fact, you cannot prove that China wants an empire. You cannot prove that any South American nation wants a world empire. No, it is the White Anglo Saxon peoples whom the world fears most. When we arrive, death is coming.
It will be said that such words as this are unpatriotic. I am not a patriot. I am a Bible believer, and I call things in the light of the revelation of the Word of God. Father Noah said that Japhath would be enlarged. The way Japhath (the White Race) is enlarging itself now is treacherous, and God has not pleasure in the White and BLACK White Trash in Washington DC.
What can we look forward to in America?
Answer: Judgment, doom, and gloom. Only a Bible believer can put this in perspective and see any good coming. And, all Bible believers have been defined as "potential terrorists" by Homeland Security.
America is kicking sand in God's face.
TO YOU BIBLE BELIEVERS- THIS IS THE ONLY HOPE
2 O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? Selah.
3 But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.
4 Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.
5 Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.
6 There be many that say, Who will shew us any good? LORD, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us.
7 Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their corn and their wine increased.
8 I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety.
If you like this article, copy it to a file. I may soon be dumped off of this service for taking a Bible based stand on issues.
