This week's post is going to focus in on how much of an influence individuals have on international politics. I believe this is such a complex thing to write about so I'm going to focus in on a two people and contrast between them. The first person is Orde Wingate and the second is John Glubb. Both men were British officers during WWI-WWII and served in the Middle East, particularly in Palestine/Jordan and therefore have ties to the era of the formation of Israel and the immediate consequences after. I believe their impact on the region is considerable and important because although they didn't make the headlines in the news their impact was still considerable.
Orde Wingate was assigned to Palestine from 1936-1941 and was instrumental in training the Palmach and setting those soldiers on the course for creating the modern Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). His loyalty and support for the Israeli cause was unique because even though the British were in Palestine to manage the situation they showed a policy of not taking sides. Wingate's belief in the Jewish cause had long lasting effects because his influence in organizing forces that would later fight for Israeli independence in 1948. He was an individual that didn't show dominant influence but still has latent effects on the international politics of the Middle East in the interwar period.
John Glubb was another British officer assigned to training the Arab Legion and would lay the groundwork for the modern Jordanian Army. He was critical in solidifying Jordan's frontier borders and pushing back Bedouin raiders and tribal uprisings during the mandate period. Glubb also led the Arab Legion into Palestine against the Israelis during the 1948 war. His influence spread across the entire chain of command of the Jordanian Armed Forces, from the King down to the lowest ranking private. Like Wingate, he was fully committed to the Jordanian cause and would wear Arab military clothing instead of his British uniform. Without his guidance and leadership on the battlefield the early history of Jordan may have turned out differently.
Both men are crucial to the international politics of the Levant region because of their leadership abilities. In critical times such as the mandate era and Israeli independence leadership shaped the outcomes of international conflicts. Kings and Prime Ministers may have initiated international events and set them up but individuals on the ground with the soldiers and rebels carrying out these policies made history.
Orde Wingate
John Glubb was another British officer assigned to training the Arab Legion and would lay the groundwork for the modern Jordanian Army. He was critical in solidifying Jordan's frontier borders and pushing back Bedouin raiders and tribal uprisings during the mandate period. Glubb also led the Arab Legion into Palestine against the Israelis during the 1948 war. His influence spread across the entire chain of command of the Jordanian Armed Forces, from the King down to the lowest ranking private. Like Wingate, he was fully committed to the Jordanian cause and would wear Arab military clothing instead of his British uniform. Without his guidance and leadership on the battlefield the early history of Jordan may have turned out differently.
Both men are crucial to the international politics of the Levant region because of their leadership abilities. In critical times such as the mandate era and Israeli independence leadership shaped the outcomes of international conflicts. Kings and Prime Ministers may have initiated international events and set them up but individuals on the ground with the soldiers and rebels carrying out these policies made history.
Glubb on the far right beside Emir Abdullah in 1944
Also lets not forget they are both perfect images of Colonialism. These may be individuals but isnt it more important that these could have been any british officers? Because they are just part of a wider world view of the British Empire?
ReplyDeleteI would say both men were exceptional officers. If you look at Wingate he specialized in unconventional warfare and was specifically selected for training both the Palmach and the Chindits in Burma. Glubb was also an area expert who lived with Bedouins and spoke Arabic. The British selected these men because of their experience and skills in these specific tasks.
ReplyDeleteNot to beat a dead horse, but I find myself in agreement with Alex. Certainly, these two men were exceptional examples of military officers who possessed unique skills. However, would the individual impact on international relations actually fall to the British leaders who envisioned and implemented the programs in Jordan and Palestine? Can you envision a successful Israeli military without Wingate? Could the Jordanian military have organized and trained without Glubb?
ReplyDeleteI think the IDF would have been created eventually but the Jordanians would have a little different outcome. If you look at Jordan in the 1920's during the mandate period the state was constantly threatened to be overthrown by local tribes and the Saudis. The Mobile Force that was created in 1921 was tasked to do this and couldn't control the country at the time so Emir Abdullah requested British aid. Once military aid and personnel came in to Jordan the state asserted its control, secured its borders, and had weight in its dealings with the Saudis and Palestinians. Specific examples of how unstable Jordan was in the 1920's is the Kurra incident which left part of the country out of Jordanian control for a year. The Adwan and Palestinian rebellions were also tough times and without Glubb the Arab Legion would not have formed and the Hashemites wouldn't have any authority outside of Amman. Glubb's leadership and organization of the Arab Legion showed the surrounding countries that Jordan was here to stay and any threats would be taken out by a professional military force.
ReplyDeleteGreat article Travis! From the beginning, you made a statement, showed facts supporting your argument, and when Alex and Chris gave you grief (:P) you presented your facts, had faith in your arguement and prevailed. Now while I am praising your argument, I am also going to have to criticize it. At the end of the post (not the comments I might add) I still left unconvinced. I feel like you could have presented more evidence supporting your theory, allowing your audience to believe in what you were writing. However when I scrolled down and read the comments, it seemed that you had a stronger argument here than in the posting itself. Your last comment in particular has evidence in it that I feel like you could of used in the initial post. For example, how was the Jordanian army further influenced by Glubb's command? Your style and prose were also great, but I feel like you can use your ability to write to your advantage when convincing your audience the sincerity of your argument. Here it seems like a mathematical equation. You present the arguments but you go into no further detail about why they matter.
ReplyDeleteEverything else was great. I liked the organization and substance especially. Just go deeper into your argument dude. Some more visuals also could of helped :P