Continuing my post on Wednesday about Lawrence of Arabia and its relevance to today’s conflict in Iraq:

Lawrence recognizes the disunity among the Arabs, and attempts — ultimately vainly — to bring the tribes together. “So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe,” he tells Ali, “so long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel.” The division is real, but what right does a condescending foreigner have to voice it? Feisal, the Arabian ruler who seems to inspire the greatest loyalty among the fractious tribes, reminds Lawrence that Arabia was once great. “In the Arab city of Cordoba, there were two miles of public lighting in the streets when London was a village … nine centuries ago.” It is a theme that scholars of the Middle East have dusted off, amid some controversy, to explain the festering anger among today’s population: Once the Arabs were great, so now the poverty and oppression of their people are especially difficult hardships to bear, calling them to arms against the perceived aggressors.

Then as now, the ally is quickly becoming the enemy, because of a perception of ulterior motives. In the film, the British insist that “British and Arab interests are one and the same,” and yet they show with their very actions the clear limits of their concern for Arab welfare. The British will not give the Arabs any artillery, for example, because “you give them artillery and you’ve made them independent,” one British official points out. The royal navy is holed up protecting the Suez Canal in Egypt, instead of joining the Arabian forces in their fight against the Turks, because the canal is an “essential British interest” — albeit of “little consequence” to the Arabs. Finally, there is the betrayal of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret understanding between France and Britain to carve up the former Ottoman lands after the war’s end, which gives the lie to all the glad affirmations of independence for the Arabs. “General, you have lied most bravely, but not convincingly,” Feisal tells the British commander after his protestations that no such agreement exists. With such a history of Western duplicity, it is no wonder that the Iraqis view the U.S. occupation with skepticism, especially since the Bush administration has yet to take the simple, good-faith step of disavowing any permanent military bases in Iraq.

(You may point out that the American government does not have the same interest as the British or French in establishing Middle Eastern colonies, but before you do you may want to read Chalmer Johnson’s insightful book on American foreign policy, The Sorrows of Empire, which focuses on the U.S. military’s peculiar, telling obsession with military bases.)

The revolt that happened in the Arabian desert a century earlier may offer lessons to us today, as America attempts to win the heart of another Middle Eastern land in search of freedom. The mantra today, once again, is for the Iraqis to have the discipline of democracy — to quell their age-old tribal animosities, to come together in the ecumenical spirit of nation-building. But that inevitably clashes with the Arab people’s shrewd understanding of power and politics, as this exchange between Feisal, Lawrence, and another British officer, Colonel Harry Brighton, makes clear:

Brighton: Dreaming won’t get you to Damascus, but discipline will. Look, Great Britain is a small country, much smaller than yours … It’s small, but it’s great. And why?

Feisal: Because it has guns.

Brighton: Because it has discipline.
                  
Lawrence: Because it has a navy. Because of this, the English go where they please … and strike where they please. This makes them great.

The dialogue is fiction, of course. (For a discussion of aspects of the film that are not historically accurate, read this.) But the man Lawrence did exist, and to this day he is revered in the Middle East for supporting Arab independence from both Ottoman and European rule. Lawrence became a hero not just because of his leadership and courage, but also because he believed — when many did not — that the Arab people were worthy of freedom, and had the right to choose their own destiny. In our search for a favorable conclusion to the American intervention in Iraq, we could surely use more leaders like him.

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen