h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Iraq has been conquered and re-conquered a dozen or more times, by (among others) the Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, Parthians, Arabs, Ottomans and British, and in February 1991, yet another foreign power raised its flag over the ancient city of Ur, near the mouth of the Euphrates: the Americans.

The British Empire has a lot of blood on its hands. Just like every other Empire in all of human history. It marched in with its industrial might, drew new borders, forced enemy tribes to live with each other, instated new monarchs, drew up new constitutions and trade agreements to suit its interests in every part of the world that it chose to touch.

There are countless border disputes, racial tensions and civil unrests still occurring in the places that were once under its sphere of influence. All of these problems were created by the mighty Empire, its interests and its rivals.

When the crumbling British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire and finally stuck its flag into the soil of Iraq in 1918, a new era began for the country. That era was, and still is, a very bloody one. At the time, the country was in such disarray the Empire decided to try to calm it by uniting all its peoples under a new monarchy. Then there was a big debate in Baghdad as well as London over whether the British should have a 'direct rule' over the country, or an 'indirect rule.' Then, under pressure, the British granted Iraq 'independence' in 1932, for all it was worth. - It was never true independence - it was there in mandate, but not in form.

Well, that worked. For a few years anyway. - The monarchy was overthrown in 1958 by the first revolution and was replaced by a republic. That, in turn, was overthrown in a military coup in 1963 and replaced by another. And then, guess what, on July 17, 1968, that government was overthrown by the army and the Ba'th nightmare began.

Well, it's 2003 now, the Ba'thist regime has been defeated, and the new Empire - The American Empire - has finally stuck its flag into the soil of Iraq. So, lets see what the new policies are: a period of 'direct rule' (currently being debated as to whether 'indirect rule' may be better) and then, when all the happy peoples of Iraq are holding hands again (again?), the American Empire will grant Iraq 'independence' for 'the first time in its history.' Hooray! Well, I guess that's all sorted then, everything's going to be fine.

It was 14 years after the British finally secured the 3 main parts of Iraq that it granted Iraqi 'independence.' Afterwards, the government still meddled in Iraqi affairs until it was no longer possible (because of revolution).

How long will it be before there is another revolution in Iraq? 30 years? 20?

Bearing all this recent history in mind, what is the difference between Iraq in 1918 and Iraq in 2003? Well, its obvious - the word 'British' has been replaced by the word 'American.'

The difference is - This Time, It's Personal.

Gif

P.S. - To put it another way, the US has made bold claims of a new 'golden age' for Iraq as an enlightened democracy, that will show the entire Middle East the benefits of the 'American Way'. For this fundamental rebuilding and restructuring of the country, they have budgeted 2 billion USD. During the war, they spent 40 billion USD destryoing the country's infrastructure. Some contradiction?

The early results seem to be that the Americans are hated as an occupying power, are unable to provide even basic services such as law and order, and seem to have lost interest in high ideals now that the war is over (if the war is over, they won't say it is).

All this does not bode well for the future of Iraq. The US announcement that Iraq will show the Middle East the benefits of the American Way may come back to haunt them if that Way turns out to be even worse than the Ba'athist 'Way'.

Flake,

Well, first-off, Iraq as a nation has only really existed since the early 20th-century. The Arabs who currently make up it's population have only been there since (I think) around the 7th century. So all those ancient battles weren't with Iraq or the ancestors of modern Iraqis but over the land (ancient name: Mesopotania) and the various races that have occupied it.

Secondly, the British Empire that "planted it's flag" into the land after obtaining it from the defeated Ottoman Empire was not "crumbling", in fact it was very strong and, territory-wise, was approaching it's zenith. The British Empire's collapse came about fairly quickly after Britain was economically exhausted in WWII and the New World that formed after it had no place for colonial empires.

America (calling it an Empire is, historically and politically speaking, innaccurate. The Romans had a name for how the Americans extend their power and it wasn't "Imperium", but that's another story ; "Empire" has been used by the Left since the 19th century to describe a power-base they disagree with (when it was much more accurate) and they've never really let the phrase go) didn't "plan their flag" in Iraq. In fact they made a point of not doing so. The official US line is that they are there to remove the Ba'athist regime and oversee the setting-up of a new, democratic, Iraqi government and then leave. So far, despite what some may tell you, there is no sign that they intend to do anything else.

"How long will it be before there is another revolution in Iraq? 30 years? 20?

Bearing all this recent history in mind, what is the difference between Iraq in 1918 and Iraq in 2003? Well, its obvious - the word 'British' has been replaced by the word 'American"

You seem to have an extremely negative outlook. Do you honestly think there is no hope for the Iraqis and that history will repeat itself? So far the Americans are sticking to their "set-up new government and then leave" story and until they definitely waver from it, this sort of negativity helps no one. If you care about the Iraqis, then you might at least hope for a future for them.

An aside:

Actually, quite a few historians see the British Empire as 'crumbling' long before the Second World War, about 1870, and it was the Great War that really put the nail in the coffin. They point to a failure to innovate after the industrial revolution leading to other countries catching up when it came to trade and the military.

(Unfortunately, for my recent history exam, I studied mostly the early labour movement and inter-war extremism, so I'm a bit sketchy on this.)

Zagreb,

First off, I am completely aware that Iraq is in what used to be called 'Mesopotamia.' Iraq is made up of many different tribes and factions, as was ancient Mesopotamia. When referring to 'Iraq' I am referring to all these different tribes throughout the ages because the current country now known as 'Iraq' did not exist during the previous invasions I mentioned. The reason I did this is because there are, and has always been, so many different tribes and factions in the area. Its far easier to refer to them all under the umbrella term 'Iraqi' then mentioning each one in turn. If there was any confusion, I apologise.

"...the British Empire that "planted it's flag" into the land after obtaining it from the defeated Ottoman Empire was not "crumbling"..."

I don't care. It's completely irrelevant. If it bothers you then just skip the world 'crumbling.'

"America (calling it an Empire is, historically and politically speaking, innaccurate. The Romans had a name for how the Americans extend their power and it wasn't "Imperium", but that's another story ; "Empire" has been used by the Left since the 19th century to describe a power-base they disagree with (when it was much more accurate) and they've never really let the phrase go)..."

Again, I don't care. The comparison I made was useful to demonstrate my point. It really doesn't matter whether it's technically an empire or not.

So, we finally get to the real point...

"You seem to have an extremely negative outlook."

I have a realistic outlook based on evidence from the past. That evidence is mainly negative.

"Do you honestly think there is no hope for the Iraqis and that history will repeat itself?"

Yes. Or to be more accurate - 'little hope.'

"So far the Americans are sticking to their "set-up new government and then leave" story and until they definitely waver from it, this sort of negativity helps no one."

I utterly disagree. This sort of 'negativity' serves to keep the powers that be in check. To let them know that they will be held accountable for the future of Iraq by the people of the world can only help the situation. To remind people of the similar situations in the past will help us avoid the same mistakes in the future.

"If you care about the Iraqis, then you might at least hope for a future for them."

Oh please. You can do all the 'hoping' you want, but it won't help the Iraqis or anyone else nearly as much as studying the past and learning from it will.

Let's pick apart a paragraph for the propagandist innacuracies:

"The early results seem to be that the Americans are hated as an occupying power," - Actually, results have been mixed. The protests have taken the tone of "The US needs to do more" rather than "The US needs to bug off." A hated occupier would receive the latter.

"are unable to provide even basic services such as law and order," - An army is a bad provider of law and order. They're trained to kill people, and lawmen are trained to be more restrained. They're doing the best they can, and are preferred to their Iraqi counterparts in many places - http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/aid/story/886540p-6177417c.html

Other basic services such as water, power, and transportation are being provided. So I guess that makes this statement almost entirely false.

"and seem to have lost interest in high ideals now that the war is over (if the war is over, they won't say it is)." - What are the high ideals, and what is your evidence that they have been abandoned?

I'd also be curious to see any references justifying the position that there is an overall goal of showing the 'American Way' to the Middle East.

Blathers and Giford, without wishing to sound truculent, I would appreciate it if your current line of discussion be either continued somewhere else, altered, or abandoned.

If you want to relate it to the way the British ran Iraq at the beginning of their rule and their standing with the Iraqi people, then that's fine, but I would hate for this thread to become as malformed as quickly as 'The Decline of Democracy' thread did.

Thanks.

I have no problem abandoning it. I've already made my point. Debates don't consist of packing several unsupported opinions into a few paragraphs.

However, I don't think we can discuss this issue without discussing specifics of the former and the current situations, and debates can branch off on any semantic point. It's the nature of the beast.

I understand all that, but we're not even up to post ten and I feared that that particular argument could have gone on and on. So far, the only people to have commented on my original post were Giford (and that was one line) and Zagreb (90% of that was, for lack of a better word, 'irrelevent' in my opinion (no offense meant, Zagreb)).

So Blathers, What do you think of my conclusions in post one?

In the sense that every time you knock over a country's infrasturucture, you get pretty much the same chaos and misery, then no difference. What answer do you expect? BTW, Blatherskite, are you sure that water/electricity etc is up and running?

On the other hand, you could argue that first time round there was still hope for countries to bounce back from ground zero economically/ socially/ politically and be able to compete in 'a global market', and now there is almost none.

"In the sense that every time you knock over a country's infrasturucture, you get pretty much the same chaos and misery, then no difference. What answer do you expect?" - Solnushka

Of course, you're correct. Maybe the title of the thread should have been '...What will be the difference?'

Personally, I don't think there'll be much of a difference. The coalition will take a huge amount of time 'rebuilding' Iraq and then, eventually, it'll be forced from the country by revolution or political pressures at home.

Before that though, Iraq will be in much the same state as Afghanistan is now, i.e. coalition control of the country will be limited to the capital (maybe a few other places) and the protection of the new government, the new government will be less powerful than several warlords that have chosen to block trade routes, the main highways will be centres for ambush by groups of bandits or men under various warlords' control, the coalition will turn a blind eye to many unlawful activities, the new government will constantly request more money from western leaders as whatever it gets will not be enough...

http://www.observer.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,962905,00.html is an excellent article written by the man that fronted the 'Afghanistan: Here's One We Invaded Earlier' documentary a few weeks ago on Channel 4.

Please, read it all if you did not see the excellent documentary, compare the promises made to Afghanistan by Bush and Blair to the promises they've made to Iraq, and then read about the reality of the situation.

I think that any discussion on whether Iraq will have a revolution in 20-30 years is premature. We don't even know what form the Iraqi government will take, much less how it will be received.

It's not too early to predict what will happen in Afghanistan. Based on what I read in your article, I expect a revolt will occur much sooner than 20 years. There are too many armed factions for there to be any other outcome.

If the US really wanted to ensure the future of Afghanistan, the first thing they need to do is put in a sufficient security force, and be an occupying power like they are in Iraq, just to keep the peace. They would then have the clout to request the soldiers to turn in their arms. This plan for paying a small sum for weapons is just not going to happen.

A security force would also give the Afghan president the authority he needs to get those funds from the warlords that they're failing to turn in. With that money and some more aid, they could build their own police and army. Security is the building block of a successful nation. Without it, everything is doomed to failure.

Of course, governments do everything they do badly, which is why I'm a libertarian. And since they have absolutely no accountability to constituencies in Afghanistan and Iraq, so they'll do things even worse than usual.

And yes, Flake, I realize that almost all of this is irrelevant to your desired dialogue.

After having thought about security, I think Iraq has a much better chance for success than Afghanistan. For one, there are no more existing power structures. The Taliban did not have absolute power in Afghanistan like Hussein enjoyed in Iraq, so there isn't anybody ready to step into the power vacuum. The US has also committed a lot more troops to security. There are armed people in Afghanistan who are not Taliban, so I guess they expect those people to help provide security... whereas in Iraq, all the armed people are Ba'athists, so they have to provide full security.

It's still too early to say what will happen in Iraq, but there are enough positives to be hopeful.

Flake,

First off, sorry for nit-picking on the historical innacuracies in your post, but I'm something of a historian and it bugs me when history is presented innaccurately

I still stand by my claim that your views on the Iraqi situation were entirely negative rather than "realistic". You claim that your reasoning is based on looking at history. However, in 1918 it is well worth remembering that the British regarded Arabs as people who were best-served by a Monarchy (ie a dictatorship. This says a great deal about the simple-minded racism of the British at the time). The Arabs revolted against that Monarchy (not least because of it's ties to the UK) and overthrew it.

For Bush to make the same mistake, he would have to leave another dictator in power and break his promise for a democratic elected Iraqi government. Not only would that be a monumental mistake (imho) but it would leave Bush open to attack at home as untrustworthy.

So far, I have seen no real sign that the US intends to install a dictator. So really, instead of saying "the US *will* repeat the mistakes the British did", we should be saying "the US *might* repeat the mistakes the British did".

"I utterly disagree. This sort of 'negativity' serves to keep the powers that be in check. To let them know that they will be held accountable for the future of Iraq by the people of the world can only help the situation."

What would keep them in check would be "We think this is a good plan, we expect you to stick to it and we will be watching you carefully all the way". Saying "We think you are imperialists and will provide Iraq with no future" will not "keep them in check", they will simply clock that you are dead set against them and ignore you as "naysayers".

Zagreb,

"...in 1918 it is well worth remembering that the British regarded Arabs as people who were best-served by a Monarchy (ie a dictatorship..." - Zagreb

The following quotations are taken from http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/history.html

"Faysal was nominated to the Iraqi throne with the provision that a plebiscite be held to confirm the nomination... A provisional government passed a resolution on July 11, 1921, declaring Faysal king of Iraq, provided that his "Government shall be constitutional, representative and democratic." The plebiscite confirmed this proclamation..."

Well, doesn't sound like much of a dictatorship to me, maybe my definitions are all wrong. But wait, there's more...

"The establishment of the monarchy was the first step in the establishment of a national regime. Two other steps followed immediately: the signing of a treaty of alliance with Great Britain and the drafting of a constitution."

A constitution you say? Well, what dictatorial evilness would that have in store? Ah yes, all this...

"[The constitution] provided for a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary government, and a bicameral legislature. The latter was composed of an elected House of Representatives and an appointed Senate. The lower house was to be elected every four years in a free manhood suffrage."

Wow. That's harsh. Sounds like a tough regime to live under.

Sarcasm aside, there is a point to all the copying and pasting - it establishes that the British didn't set out to screw Iraq over, they set out with, in my opinion, quite an honourable intent to unite the country and stabilise it. Just like you claim the US is doing right now.

But alas, it all began to go sour...

"The Iraqi nationalists, though appreciating the free expression of opinion permitted under a parliamentary system, were far from satisfied with the mandate. They demanded independence as a matter of right, as promised in war declarations and treaties, rather than as a matter of capacity for self-government as laid down in the mandate... The British treaties were viewed by the nationalists not only as an impediment to the realization of Iraq's nationalist aspirations but also as inimical to the economic development of the country."

But then, out of nowhere, this happens...

"In 1929 Britain decided to end this stalemate and reconcile its interests with Iraq's national aspirations. It notified Iraq that the mandate would be terminated in 1932 and a new treaty of independence negotiated. A new government was formed, headed by General Nuri as-Sa'id, who helped in achieving Iraq's independence."

Well, well, well. Who'd have thunk it. Under pressure both at home and from Iraqi nationalists, the British granted Iraqi independence. How nice.

But then, a couple of shakey decades later in 1958...

"Despite material progress, the monarchy failed to win public support and, in particular, the confidence of the younger generation. Before the revolution, Iraq lacked an enlightened leadership capable of achieving progress and inspiring public confidence. The new generation offered such leadership, but the older leaders resisted and embarked on an unpopular foreign policy, including an alliance with Britain through participation in the Baghdad Pact and opposition to the establishment of the United Arab Republic."

You mean to say that after carving up the middle east with France, pushing countless rival tribes and various factions of both ethnic and religious differences into a newly drawn up country, and then attempting to create a democratic state DIDN'T work? 'How could it fail?!' they cry.

"For Bush to make the same mistake, he would have to leave another dictator in power and break his promise for a democratic elected Iraqi government." - Zagreb

Well, for Bush to make the same 'mistake', he'd have to go on doing exactly what he is doing, and intends to do, now.

"I have seen no real sign that the US intends to install a dictator." - Zagreb

Nor did the British. They simply created the perfect environment that would breed a dictator and allow him to force his way to power. Which he did.

"...instead of saying "the US *will* repeat the mistakes the British did", we should be saying "the US *might* repeat the mistakes the British did"." - Zagreb

In my previous reply to you, I said that I think there is 'little hope', not 'no hope.' But word it how you will.

So, do you still stand by your claim that my views on the Iraqi situation were entirely negative rather than "realistic"? Or do you now agree that the evidence is mainly negative and my views reflect that evidence, thus making them realistic?

P.S. "What would keep them in check would be "We think this is a good plan, we expect you to stick to it and we will be watching you carefully all the way". Saying "We think you are imperialists and will provide Iraq with no future" will not "keep them in check", they will simply clock that you are dead set against them and ignore you as "naysayers"." - Zagreb

I am not saying "We think you are imperialists and will provide Iraq with no future", I am saying that 'based on the evidence from the past, what you are doing now is, in 20 to 40 years time, probably going to leave Iraq in the same state is was in when you arrived.'

Blatherskite,

"It's still too early to say what will happen in Iraq, but there are enough positives to be hopeful."

As far as I can see, the only positives you mentioned in that post were 'comfort in the unknown' ("We don't even know what form the Iraqi government will take, much less how it will be received.") and the fact that the US has committed a lot more troops to Iraq than it did in Afghanistan.

To me, that doesn't constitute 'enough positives to be hopeful.'

"...in Iraq, all the armed people are Ba'athists..."

Actually - and correct me if I'm wrong - I think that Iraq has one of the highest concentrations of illegal firearms owned by the general population in the world. Not just the Ba'athists. Does this mean that the troops will always have to be there? After all, with Saddam gone all the different religious and ethnic groups are free to express their hatred of one another. How long will it be before they decide to demonstate this hatred with the help of their soviet made firearms (firearms that didn't exist back when us Brits were in charge, so the US has another problem to put into the mix)?

Let me put that bit about the guns another way... there are no organized groups with guns. Sure, the Shi'ites and the Kurds and the other groups have guns, and they may eventually rally around their own leadership... but they've been put down for so long that they don't have any clear leadership to rally around. Afghanistan faces organized resistance, Iraq does not.

The positives:

1) Greater commitment to security by the US and UK. As I said, security is the building block.

2) Disorganized resistance. This gives the new regime the opportunity to organize its own security forces.

3) Absolute power vacuum. This gives the interim government the opportunity to take control of all oil revenues... giving them the resources to pay for the security forces.

Those revenues also make it possible for companies from other countries to make greater commitments to restoring the infrastructure. The money already exists to pay for the repaving of the roads, etc, and does not have to be appropriated from tight-fisted taxpayers.

I find all three of those points dubious, but it would be pointless to debate them - as I've implied, I fully expect a new government to be instated and to function as well as it can. For a while, at least. I don't expect it to provide long-term stability, though. Iraq will probably suffer the effects of a revolution within the next half-century and revert to a dictatorship, in my opinion.

Is this thread dead already? There must be more opinions about my controversial conclusions, surely?

Do you not care to respond to my last reply to you Zagreb? It's no problem if you don't, just wondering was all.

Oh, and by the way Blatherskite, the resistance in Iraq seems to be becoming more and more organised, doesn't it? It's pretty small scale at the moment, I admit, but where will it go? Do you think the US will end up eradicating it, or will the country always have some kind of armed resistance from now on?

No resistance is ever completely eradicated. That's why I get so annoyed when the US decides to declare war on concepts... war is hard enough against people.

The resistance could still crumble if the new Iraqi government has enough credibility and makes enough people happy that they set aside their guns. But that won't happen, because the Mid-East is a propaganda breeding ground, and it'll be enough for the leaders to point out that the US had a hand in setting it up.

The situation will be more dependent on the new government and how it deals with its own opposition than on any US actions. In fact, the less the US retaliates, the better... in the long run.

****

If you want to keep this one alive and don't see anything to comment on in this, you could always pick out some of my "dubious" points in my previous post, and question them.