Inside Syria: The Backstory of Their Civil War and What the World Can Expect Read Online Free PDF

organized effort to affect the data.
    Given the lack of other broad-based exploration of local views, however, the commission produced an interesting snapshot of publicopinion. The survey reflected the depth of opposition to any colonial rule in the region.
    Seventy-three percent of the people favored “absolute independence” for Syria and Iraq. When forced to choose among colonial powers that might “assist” them until independence, 60 percent chose the United States and 55 percent chose Britain. In a fascinating footnote, the commission admitted, “The high figures given for American and British assistance…are because the people ask first for complete independence.” 12
    Seventy-two percent opposed the creation of a Zionist state in Palestine. The report noted that Zionist leaders, far from planning to live in peace with the Arabs, planned to dispossess the Arabs through land purchases and Jewish immigration: “If the American government decided to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, they are committing the American people to the use of force in that area, since only by force can a Jewish state in Palestine be established or maintained.”
    Despite the overwhelming Arab desire for independence, the commission accepted the colonial myth that the Arabs were not ready for self-governance and needed assistance from an outside power. It then humbly suggested that the United States provide that assistance not only to the Arab Middle East but to the defeated nation of Turkey as well. The commission report stated that the United States has a “special fitness…for the particular task in hand—a fitness growing naturally out of her experience as a great growing democracy, largely freed hitherto from European entanglements.” 13
    Not surprisingly, neither the European colonial powers nor the Arabs accepted this American “special fitness.” The report was highly controversial, and it wasn't made public until 1922. The commission's report, while never considered an important document, reflected part of the upheaval in US ruling circles at the time over how best to expand the US empire.
    The United States had only seriously entered the empire game in 1898 with its colonization of Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines. Some leaders wanted to expand US domination to the Middle East. But in 1919 the United States lacked the military, economic, and politicalheft to establish additional direct colonies. American interests in the region included access to oil for US corporations, freedom for Protestant missionaries to operate in the region, and maintenance of US institutions such as hospitals and schools.
    In words, President Wilson supported “self-determination” for the Middle East. In reality, the United States sought to extend its domination by establishing nominally independent client states under US control, a model it used in Latin America. For example, Wilson favored an independent Syria under the rule of King Faisal, who was pro-Britain and pro–United States.
    But other powerful Americans argued for a different imperialist policy. Henry Cabot Lodge, a conservative Republican and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, became one of Wilson's most famous opponents. Lodge had supported the Spanish-American War and World War I. But he strongly opposed the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, arguing that they would allow European powers too much influence and limit the United States’ ability to pursue its own interests.
    Cabot formed an alliance with isolationist senators who opposed any US intervention in the Middle East or elsewhere. As a result, the United States focused less on Europe and the Middle East and more on the Western Hemisphere. In November 1919, the US Senate voted against joining the League of Nations. The Senate never ratified the Treaty of Versailles. By then the British and French had permanently