Uncanny Parallels

“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.” That is advice from British journalist Robert Fisk. Is it justified?

In 1917 British forces marched into Baghdad, thus ending four centuries of domination of Mesopotamia by Ottoman Turks. At that point, Britain had to decide if it wanted to impose its traditional colonial rule over the native population, or if it would follow the demands of its ally across the Atlantic, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson.

" No peace can last, or ought to last," Wilson warned, "which does not recognize and accept the principle that governments derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property. ... Peoples may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their own peril."

Neither the British nor the French took Wilson’s appeal serious. In 1915 they had secretly agreed that Britain would control what is now Jordan and Iraq, and France would hold sway over Syria and Lebanon. They also wanted to determine the boundaries, the basic laws, and the leaders for the conquered territories.

In 1920 the League of Nations formally approved their unilateral decisionsand assigned those Arab lands to Britain and France as so-called “mandates.” Millions of Arabs who had hoped for an end to foreign rule instead exchanged their Turkish overlords for British and French overlords.

The British authorities not only drew Iraq’s borders without any concern for the aspirations of the widely differing ethnic and religious factions in the country, they also imposed upon Iraq the Sunni Prince Faisal as king. The 65 percent Shi’ite majority had to accept the 35 percent Sunni minority. The 80 percent of the country’s Arabs in the center and the south had to accept a 20 percent Kurdish minority in the north.

The Colonial Office in London wanted direct control over Iraq in order to safeguard Britain’s long-term interests in the Persian Gulf and India. Rather than granting the divergent regions the semi-autonomy they desired, the British combined the provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra under one centralized administration.

In Baghdad, mass demonstrations against the British occupation began in 1920 and spread to the Shi’a regions of the lower Euphrates. Even though British forces used air attacks and mustard gas to quell the revolt, it dragged on until 1922. In developing native leadership, the authorities favored the Sunni minority to the chagrin of the Shi’ites. Nominal independence was granted to Iraq only in 1932 when the British were sufficiently fed up with the troubles they faced in Iraq and relinquished their League of Nations mandate.

Nevertheless, when subsequently the British government saw its interests in Iraq threatened, it repeatedly resorted to military intervention. Apparently for that same reason, Prime Minister Blair decided 70 years later to have British troops join in the invasion of Iraq when President Bush ordered it.

Forgotten was the failure of the British nation-building attempt in the 1920s. Forgotten were the limits to the use of air power and superior military technology in effectively ruling a conquered population and combating insurgencies.

Referring to the troubled British mandate over Iraq, Lawrence of Arabia wrote that the public had been led “into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor.” Could it be that Messrs. Bush and Blair fell into the same trap as Britain’s leaders did in 1920?

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	09-03-06
Uncanny Parallels
“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.” That is advice from British journalist Robert Fisk. Is it justified? In 1917 British forces marched into Baghdad, thus ending four centuries of domination of Mesopotamia by Ottoman Turks. At that point, Britain had to decide if it wanted to impose its traditional colonial rule over the native population, or if it would follow the demands of its ally across the Atlantic, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. " No peace can last, or ought to last," Wilson warned, "which does not recognize and accept the principle that governments derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property. ... Peoples may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their own peril." Neither the British nor the French took Wilson’s appeal serious. In 1915 they had secretly agreed that Britain would control what is now Jordan and Iraq, and France would hold sway over Syria and Lebanon. They also wanted to determine the boundaries, the basic laws, and the leaders for the conquered territories. In 1920 the League of Nations formally approved their unilateral decisionsand assigned those Arab lands to Britain and France as so-called “mandates.” Millions of Arabs who had hoped for an end to foreign rule instead exchanged their Turkish overlords for British and French overlords. The British authorities not only drew Iraq’s borders without any concern for the aspirations of the widely differing ethnic and religious factions in the country, they also imposed upon Iraq the Sunni Prince Faisal as king. The 65 percent Shi’ite majority had to accept the 35 percent Sunni minority. The 80 percent of the country’s Arabs in the center and the south had to accept a 20 percent Kurdish minority in the north. The Colonial Office in London wanted direct control over Iraq in order to safeguard Britain’s long-term interests in the Persian Gulf and India. Rather than granting the divergent regions the semi-autonomy they desired, the British combined the provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra under one centralized administration. In Baghdad, mass demonstrations against the British occupation began in 1920 and spread to the Shi’a regions of the lower Euphrates. Even though British forces used air attacks and mustard gas to quell the revolt, it dragged on until 1922. In developing native leadership, the authorities favored the Sunni minority to the chagrin of the Shi’ites. Nominal independence was granted to Iraq only in 1932 when the British were sufficiently fed up with the troubles they faced in Iraq and relinquished their League of Nations mandate. Nevertheless, when subsequently the British government saw its interests in Iraq threatened, it repeatedly resorted to military intervention. Apparently for that same reason, Prime Minister Blair decided 70 years later to have British troops join in the invasion of Iraq when President Bush ordered it. Forgotten was the failure of the British nation-building attempt in the 1920s. Forgotten were the limits to the use of air power and superior military technology in effectively ruling a conquered population and combating insurgencies. Referring to the troubled British mandate over Iraq, Lawrence of Arabia wrote that the public had been led “into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor.” Could it be that Messrs. Bush and Blair fell into the same trap as Britain’s leaders did in 1920?

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

09-03-06

Uncanny Parallels