A nationalist or pan-Arab movement among the various religious sects in Iraq had slowly been growing before the American invasion in 2003, said Peter Sluglett, a history professor at the U.
“People gradually came to feel more conscious of their identity as ‘Iraqis’ than as ‘Sunnis’ and ‘Shi’as,'” said Sluglett during a roundtable discussion on campus Saturday as part of the annual Middle East and Central Asia Politics, Economics and Society Conference.
The movement began around 1914 when Shi’ite leadership originally started to align themselves with more of an anti-imperialist movement against the British. They rallied behind the Ottoman cause during the start of World War I and the Sunni elite readily embraced the ideology of Arab nationalism, Sluglet said.
This made the United States policy concerning Iraq a fallible one as it effectively began to break up the pan-Arab nationalism that steadily increased following World War II and the Revolution of 1958, he said.
The growing national force, however, began to waver after 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, he said.
“When the American invasion began, the occupation and the insensitive way it was carried out effectively revived what had by then become a largely dormant form of sectarianism (split in religious sects),” Sluglett said.
Sluglett, along with Eric Hooglund, a professor from Bates College, and Robert Olsen, a professor from the University of Kentucky, discussed current issues surrounding the relationship between Iraq and the United States and what the likely outcome of this situation will be in 10 years.
Hooglund briefly discussed the neo-conservative bureaucracy that was implemented when George Bush became president in 2001.
“Six months after 9/11 there were plans to go into Iraq — a major shift is now needed in U.S. policy,” he said.
Hooglund, Olsen and Sluglett answered questions from the audience about their opinions on the future of U.S. commitment in Iraq.
When asked what Americans should do to fix the situation concerning the upcoming elections, Olsen said, “The most positive thing that could happen would be for the American people to go up to the presidential candidate and actually ask questions about those problems.”