Robert Fisk: "for Iraq 1917, read Iraq 2003. For Iraq 1920, read Iraq 2004

[G_j]

* posted this in Editorials but it is SO important, I thought I should post it in GD
--
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x59227

Robert Fisk contends that "Britain's 1917 occupation of Iraq holds uncanny parallels with today - and if we want to know what will happen there next, we need only turn to our history books..." Is the US repeating the British mistakes of the early twentieth century? According to Fisk: "for Iraq 1917, read Iraq 2003. For Iraq 1920, read Iraq 2004 or 2005." (Independent)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2004/0617iraq1917.htm

Iraq, 1917 (June 17, 2004)

They came as liberators but were met by fierce resistance outside Baghdad. Humiliating treatment of prisoners and heavy-handed action in Najaf and Fallujah further alienated the local population. A planned handover of power proved unworkable. Britain's 1917 occupation of Iraq holds uncanny parallels with today - and if we want to know what will happen there next, we need only turn to our history books...

On the eve of our "handover" of "full sovereignty" to Iraq, this is a story of tragedy and folly and of dark foreboding. It is about the past-made-present, and our ability to copy blindly and to the very letter the lies and follies of our ancestors. It is about that admonition of antiquity: that if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. For Iraq 1917, read Iraq 2003. For Iraq 1920, read Iraq 2004 or 2005.

Yes, we are preparing to give "full sovereignty" to Iraq. That's also what the British falsely claimed more than 80 years ago. Come, then, and confront the looking glass of history, and see what America and Britain will do in the next 12 terrible months in Iraq.

Our story begins in March 1917 as 22-year-old Private 11072 Charles Dickens of the Cheshire Regiment peels a poster off a wall in the newly captured city of Baghdad. It is a turning point in his life. He has survived the hopeless Gallipoli campaign, attacking the Ottoman empire only 150 miles from its capital, Constantinople. He has then marched the length of Mesopotamia, fighting the Turks yet again for possession of the ancient caliphate, and enduring the grim battle for Baghdad. The British invasion army of 600,000 soldiers was led by Lieutenant-General Sir Stanley Maude, and the sheet of paper that caught Private Dickens's attention was Maude's official "Proclamation" to the people of Baghdad, printed in English and Arabic.

..more..

[IrateCitizen]

1. Great article, G_j!

If anyone from the West knows the Middle East intimately, it's Fisk. He's lived in Beirut for something like the last 20+ years now, I believe.

George Santanaya once said, "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it." I personally think that Kurt Vonnegut was more on the money when he said something along the lines of, "It doesn't matter whether or not we learn anything from history. We're condemned to repeat it no matter what."

[shadu]

3. that is a great Vonnegut quote - scary but great

[HawkerHurricane]

7. How about a Terry Pratchet quote?

"Sometimes history doesn't merely repeat itself, sometimes it screams 'weren't you listening the first time' and lets fly with a club."

[G_j]

8. that quote gets my vote,

well said :toast:

[redqueen]

2. This is news? How sad.

I've been ranting about how we should have learned from Britain's experience since before the war.

:(

[whistle]

4. The second link to the main story doesn't seem to be working

[G_j]

6. fixed, thanks!

[leftofthedial]

5. no surprise they didn't learn from the Brits

the planners trained using the failed approach of the French in North Africa.

[G_j]

9. kick

[theHandpuppet]

10. How unfortunate...

... that the media mouthpieces of today, so ignorant of history, are also so willing to bang the drums of war before the parade of folly.

This article should be sent to every editor, journalist and newsroom among the "coalition of the willing".

[Stone_Spirits]

13. great idea

I'm sure some of them know well who Fisk is. But just to remind them that WE are paying attention to history and we understand they are a bunch of simple buffoons who don't know what they are talking about.

[truthspeaker]

11. I bet Iraqis know their own history

No wonder they don't trust an invasion force promising to liberate them. They've been through it before.

[G_j]

14. exactly n/t

[Jim Warren]

12. They hate us for our freedom

to fuck them over and over.

[Jacobin]

15. If Condi read this, would her head bobble completely off?

Or would she just start sputtering and darting her eyes until they rolled back into their sockets?

Maybe she'd pee her pantsuit?

If she had to explain this to Smirky, would he get pissed off at Gawd for lying to him and not telling him about the British experience in Iraq? Would he start shooting missiles at clouds to try to "take Gawd out?"

[Ms. Clio]

16. A great article, thanks very much for the link

An extremely valuable history lesson and the parallels are stunning; this is only one of them:

"Within six months, Britain was fighting a military insurrection in Iraq and David Lloyd George, the prime minister, was facing calls for a military withdrawal. "Is it not for the benefit of the people of that country that it should be governed so as to enable them to develop this land which has been withered and shrivelled up by oppression? What would happen if we withdrew?" Lloyd George would not abandon Iraq to "anarchy and confusion". By this stage, British officials in Baghdad were blaming the violence on "local political agitation, originated outside Iraq", suggesting that Syria might be involved.

Come again? Could history repeat itself so perfectly? For Lloyd George's "anarchy", read any statement from the American occupation power warning of "civil war" in the event of a Western withdrawal. For Syria - well, read Syria."

[G_j]

17. kick