tance to allow the citizens of the Middle East, specifically Iraq, the freedom of complete democratic self-rule. Wilson believed the region incapable of true democratic self-rule according to Western standards, while Bell and Lawrence both understood that self-rule needed to truly happen under Middle Eastern terms (Meyer, 2005).
One of the major motives behind denial of self-rule was the desire for oil as well as control of the Middle East region. As Meyer points out, the British immediately sealed off the oil fields after they began gushing, as if they were British territory. When Britain did allow self-rule, it was only with certain British supported leaders allowed in office, yet those leaders were chosen for their loyalty to Britain, and not for their desire to rule fairly. By 1958, after the British had mostly pulled out, different religious sects and factions were so suspicious of one another that the rulers were deposed and civil war followed, leading the way to the reign of the Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein (Meyer, 2005).
In reviewing the above article and comparing it to the current situation in Iraq with the United States, it can be easy to see why the author draws a parallel, or similar conclusions between the two situations. Not everyone agrees with the author that the United States is headed for the same disastrous mistakes in Iraq that happened to the British, however, and below are some opposing opinions that disagree with Meyer.
One of the points Meyer's passes over is that the United States initially went into Iraq for reasons different from Great Britain. Where Great Britain had entered at the end World War I as a way of taking control of a region that may have been pro-German and then stayed to rebuild, eventually dropping out entirely, the United States supposedly to prevent a war. Sources in the United States believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that could be used by terrorist...