![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Those who do not learn from history...
Failures in Iraq repeat history
November 21, 2004
BY EDWIN BLACK
America cannot succeed in Iraq until we understand the history we ignored and recently repeated. For the past century, Iraq has offered only one attraction to the Western powers: oil. It has been a fatal attraction.
During World War I, Britain invaded Mesopotamia (as the three neglected Turkish provinces were called) for oil and only for oil. Despite this, the British declared in their May 18, 1918, proclamation, read aloud in Baghdad: ''Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.''
As part of that liberation, the British illegally seized the most valuable oil lands in Mesopotamia, the Kurdish Mosul region, this on Nov. 7, 1918, a full week after the general armistice with Turkey. This invasion enabled Britain to cobble three ethnically separate provinces together -- Kurdish Mosul, Sunni Baghdad and Shiite Basra -- into a single land that London would rename Iraq. The name ''Iraq'' came from the ancient Arab cartographic designation.
The British then established Iraq as a nation for the sole purpose of structuring the exploitation of its oil. Arnold Wilson, the British civil administrator of Mesopotamia, the man who authorized General William Marshall's unauthorized push into Mosul, wrote, ''Thanks to General Marshall, we had established de facto, the principle that Mosul is part of 'Iraq,' to use the geographical expression. . . . Whether for the woe or weal of the inhabitants, it is too soon to say.'' Wilson added that, had General Marshall waited just 24 hours for the restraining instructions from London to arrive, history would be otherwise. But, Wilson continued, Marshall did not wait to invade Mosul, and so ''laid the foundation stone of the future State of Iraq.''
But Arab and Islamic nationalists in the newly invented Iraq did not want to share their land with infidel European Christians. Nor did they choose to share European values of democracy and pluralism, ideals that had never taken root in the Islamic Middle East for 7,000 years. It did not take long for the Iraqis to rise up in terror raids, burning, bombing, kidnapping and massacring Westerners, including those sent to commercially develop the land and its waterways.
The outraged British response to such horrors was aerial bombardment to shock and awe the villages. But the Iraqi violence and the British resolve to combat it with troops and tanks persisted, all for the oil wealth of Iraq.
After World War I, the British and the French, becoming ever more dependent upon oil, engineered a secret petroleum pact, sanctioned by the League of Nations, which divided up oil drilling and pipeline rights in Syria and Iraq. The oil pact was announced at San Remo the same day the League of Nations granted mandates to Britain to rule oil-rich Iraq, and France to rule Syria where the pipelines would run to the Mediterranean. The British worked hard to instill democratic values in Iraq, thus creating a stable environment for the oil to flow. But it was a governance disaster because the people did not want it. Genocide against minorities, ethnic cleansing, repression, corruption and neglect were the rule in Iraq for years.
Major John Glubb, the British officer who organized the Arab Legion, complained bitterly in a letter to Whitehall. ''We . . . imagined that we had bestowed on the Iraqis all these blessings of democracy. ... Nothing could be more undemocratic than the result. A handful of politicians obtained possession of the machinery of government, and all the elections were rigged. . . . In this process they all became very rich.''
For eight more decades, the West -- now with the United States joining France and Britain -- has tried to hang onto its oil lifeline in the Middle East, using our diplomats, corporate surrogates and militaries. That has only fueled the cycle of insurrection and now world terrorism from a people who resent our presence and resource exploitation, and have always understood better than anyone exactly why we are there. It is not sand we crave in Iraq, it is oil.
America will never succeed in Iraq, if we once again naively expect democracy to take root there and flourish. What can possibly occur next week to transform that society that has not occurred for 7,000 years?
The only way to succeed in Iraq is to survive long enough to intelligently withdraw, and then rapidly -- at breakneck speed -- develop alternative energy resources to detach us from this far-off place where we are not wanted, where we should not be, and upon which our industrialized world is now dependent.
November 21, 2004
BY EDWIN BLACK
America cannot succeed in Iraq until we understand the history we ignored and recently repeated. For the past century, Iraq has offered only one attraction to the Western powers: oil. It has been a fatal attraction.
During World War I, Britain invaded Mesopotamia (as the three neglected Turkish provinces were called) for oil and only for oil. Despite this, the British declared in their May 18, 1918, proclamation, read aloud in Baghdad: ''Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.''
As part of that liberation, the British illegally seized the most valuable oil lands in Mesopotamia, the Kurdish Mosul region, this on Nov. 7, 1918, a full week after the general armistice with Turkey. This invasion enabled Britain to cobble three ethnically separate provinces together -- Kurdish Mosul, Sunni Baghdad and Shiite Basra -- into a single land that London would rename Iraq. The name ''Iraq'' came from the ancient Arab cartographic designation.
The British then established Iraq as a nation for the sole purpose of structuring the exploitation of its oil. Arnold Wilson, the British civil administrator of Mesopotamia, the man who authorized General William Marshall's unauthorized push into Mosul, wrote, ''Thanks to General Marshall, we had established de facto, the principle that Mosul is part of 'Iraq,' to use the geographical expression. . . . Whether for the woe or weal of the inhabitants, it is too soon to say.'' Wilson added that, had General Marshall waited just 24 hours for the restraining instructions from London to arrive, history would be otherwise. But, Wilson continued, Marshall did not wait to invade Mosul, and so ''laid the foundation stone of the future State of Iraq.''
But Arab and Islamic nationalists in the newly invented Iraq did not want to share their land with infidel European Christians. Nor did they choose to share European values of democracy and pluralism, ideals that had never taken root in the Islamic Middle East for 7,000 years. It did not take long for the Iraqis to rise up in terror raids, burning, bombing, kidnapping and massacring Westerners, including those sent to commercially develop the land and its waterways.
The outraged British response to such horrors was aerial bombardment to shock and awe the villages. But the Iraqi violence and the British resolve to combat it with troops and tanks persisted, all for the oil wealth of Iraq.
After World War I, the British and the French, becoming ever more dependent upon oil, engineered a secret petroleum pact, sanctioned by the League of Nations, which divided up oil drilling and pipeline rights in Syria and Iraq. The oil pact was announced at San Remo the same day the League of Nations granted mandates to Britain to rule oil-rich Iraq, and France to rule Syria where the pipelines would run to the Mediterranean. The British worked hard to instill democratic values in Iraq, thus creating a stable environment for the oil to flow. But it was a governance disaster because the people did not want it. Genocide against minorities, ethnic cleansing, repression, corruption and neglect were the rule in Iraq for years.
Major John Glubb, the British officer who organized the Arab Legion, complained bitterly in a letter to Whitehall. ''We . . . imagined that we had bestowed on the Iraqis all these blessings of democracy. ... Nothing could be more undemocratic than the result. A handful of politicians obtained possession of the machinery of government, and all the elections were rigged. . . . In this process they all became very rich.''
For eight more decades, the West -- now with the United States joining France and Britain -- has tried to hang onto its oil lifeline in the Middle East, using our diplomats, corporate surrogates and militaries. That has only fueled the cycle of insurrection and now world terrorism from a people who resent our presence and resource exploitation, and have always understood better than anyone exactly why we are there. It is not sand we crave in Iraq, it is oil.
America will never succeed in Iraq, if we once again naively expect democracy to take root there and flourish. What can possibly occur next week to transform that society that has not occurred for 7,000 years?
The only way to succeed in Iraq is to survive long enough to intelligently withdraw, and then rapidly -- at breakneck speed -- develop alternative energy resources to detach us from this far-off place where we are not wanted, where we should not be, and upon which our industrialized world is now dependent.
no subject
Problem. Islam hasn't existed for 7k years.
no subject
Neither have Democracy or Pluralism, for that matter.
no subject
no subject
Yes, we are still very dependent on Middle Eastern oil, if not directly, indirectly through our trading partners around the world. Just this (and the desire to maintain our current economic advantages) pretty well forces American involvement in the region, regardless of the philosophical morality of the war. Losing access to those resources makes for the possibility of an economic collapse of many western economies.
Developing alternative energy resources is the best idea, but the economic impact of such a transition to other sources may cause an economic collapse itself. The efficiency and portability of oil-fueled energy is it's prime advantage over other types, especially the more flexible infrastructure requirements versus, for example, electrically powered replacement systems (Especially considering the state of the US's power grid at this time).
So, back to Iraq...
Another prime difference between now and then is transparency of government actions. What the British did and what the former Iraqi governments did would be rather difficult to pull off with the current proliferation of non-governmental communications and reporting sources.
Still, it is an uphill battle when dealing with a culture with inflexibility and lack of willingness to accept others as major religious tenets.
It's just like Israel and the Palestinians.
The Palestinians blinked in 1947 and the situation changed while their eyes were closed. They were and are faced with having to deal with another group of people who refuse to give up and are willing to fight for their survival. The Arab intolerance to try and work out a mutually beneficial while demanding the Israelis sacrifice their own survival leads to a seemingly endless cycle of self-destruction on their part. Even the Israelis are idiots in this case for trying to negotiate with people who won't give up on their requirement for the destruction of Israel.
Iraq will probably be similar because of the seemingly wanton desire by many Muslims for death over beneficial compromise and their belief in a zero-sum system of us vs. them.
In the end, and this is going to sound bad, I think we should force the issue of a peaceful representative government in Iraq by bleeding dry violent uprisings until, in Darwinistic fashion, the only Iraqis left are the peaceful ones that work together like the social creatures humans are to the benefit of themselves and the world around them.
Of course, the population density will be quite a lot thinner by then, but a peacable democratic Iraq, perhaps based on the Sunni branch of morality, would probably be a MAJOR stepping stone to a peaceful Middle East.
no subject
1) Suck the Middle East dry first. Buy all the oil and make $$$ off our cut . . .
2) then crumple like a used beer can in the back of the pickup truck . . .
3) . . . while we make sure that alternative energies are under our firmly planted corporate thumbs . . .
3a) . . . and we screwed up by ever letting private people own solar panels. We know better now.