Circa 1920 |
1924 - 1958 |
1959 - 1963 |
1963 - 1991 |
Current |
Posted on 03/06/2003 8:17:27 PM PST by a_Turk
LONDON - Bombing, invasion and regime change by a superpower — Iraq has seen it all before in its recent history.
For 40 years after World War I, Britain tried to control Iraq, pioneering aerial bombing as a way of enforcing its power. One British general urged using poison gas.
Now, as Washington and London warn that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) must be removed and talk of building democracy in Iraq, U.S. and British troops may soon be retracing routes followed during one of the darker episodes of British colonial history.
Britain took over Iraq during World War I, chasing out the Turks, who occupied the region for centuries. British officials divided up the collapsed Turkish empire, creating several new nations, including Iraq.
The British commander who captured Baghdad in 1917, Lt. Gen. Stanley Maude, told the people his troops had come to free them.
"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," he said in a proclamation.
It was not an easy victory. A British army had been surrounded and forced to surrender in 1916 at Kut on the Tigris River, south of Baghdad. Of 10,000 British and Indian soldiers taken captive, some 4,000 died in terrible conditions in Turkish prison camps.
Wanting to hold on to the region for its oil and strategic position on the route to India, the jewel of the British Empire, London sent officials to run Iraq as an outpost of their vast dominion. It ignored criticism from the United States, which opposed colonialism.
The Arabs, who had helped the British fight the Turks, did not want to change one set of foreign rulers for another. In 1920, anti-British riots turned into a bloody revolt.
Faced with threats in many colonies, British commanders came up with "air control" — using the newly developed warplane to bomb opponents and avoid expensive and bloody ground engagements. Critics dubbed it "empire on the cheap."
Iraq became a testing ground for the new imperial big stick. British Bristol and Wapiti bombers hammered rebel tribesmen, destroying their villages. The British commander, Gen. Sir Aylmer Haldane, demanded London send poison gas, but the Iraqis were defeated before any action was taken.
Delayed action bombs were used on Iraqi villages to catch residents who returned after bombing raids.
British officials, including Winston Churchill, then the colonial minister, hailed air control as the perfect method of policing the empire.
Some British commanders denounced the new techniques as unsporting. Administrators said the army was just upset at being upstaged by the air force, whose officers it considered socially inferior.
"Much needless cruelty is necessarily inflicted, which in many cases will not cower the tribesmen, but implant in them undying hatred and a desire for revenge. The policy weakens the tribesman's faith in British fair play," wrote Col. Francis Humphries, a critic of bombing.
London was convinced the bombing had pacified Iraq. The British military presence was cut from 23 battalions in 1923 to two in 1928.
Air Marshall Sir John Salmon, in a lecture on the merits of air control in Iraq, said it transformed the country. "A heterogeneous collection of wild and inarticulate tribes has emerged in an ordered system of representative government by the vote," he said after the revolt was crushed.
A pro-British Arab monarch from the Sunni Muslim minority was imposed on the Shia Muslim majority, and Iraq became independent in 1932. British officials stayed to advise the king along with squadrons of British air force bombers to quell internal opposition.
Britain again invaded Iraq during World War II, when a pro-German regime seized power in 1941. British air force units, based in Iraq, bombed the Iraqi forces until British troops occupied Baghdad. Some 3,000 Iraqi troops were killed in the fighting.
London sought to retain influence in Iraq, but the monarchy was ousted in 1958, ushering in a series of coups that culminated with Saddam Hussein coming to power.
Thus ended what historians have described as Britain's "moment in the Middle East."
Could you explain the use of a missle defense program against someone armed with boxcutters?
How would it stop someone armed with a vial of smallpox?
It's a different game my friend. I agree with much of what you say, however I do not think that we can isolate ourselves from people that want to kill us just because we represent a lifestyle that they oppose on a religious basis.
I do not agree with everything that President Bush does, but I do believe we need to shut down that terrorist shopping mall in Iraq.
But I think the further we involve ourselves in the Mid East (and they are insane and not ready for democracy of any sort) the further we sink more lives, treasure, and resources of our Country.
You just made my point! Thank you! Bush was all about WMD the other night and the WTC was brought down by box cutters and yet we are going to fight a "war against terrorism"! What the heck does Iraq have to do with the box cutters that took 3000 American lives? Anything?
Did Sadaam buy the box cutters for a buck a piece? We still let in hundreds of Islamic immigrants every day in this country. Even more pass through Mexico and yet Bush does nothing? NOt one of 9/11 was from Iraq. If Iraq does have chemical or bio weapons (and I belive they do) why wouldnt Sadaam pass them on this week to Al QUeda since he knows we are coming for him? ANd if he does and 100,000 die say in Boston will you say Bush was wrong?
I fail to see how I have "made your point," but if you say so, you're welcome.
I don't believe we should wait until Sadaam sells some of these WMDs to some terrorist fruitcake to use against us. If he is unwilling to destroy these weapons, we should assist him.
I believe we should shut down our borders and stop this flow of illegals into our country.
And when we say we will settle for nothing less than his death or regime change why wouldn't he sell or even just give WMD to Al Queda? What does he have to lose? In fact- Once Bush labeled the "Axis of Evil" why not increase the pace of nuke development in all those countries? What do they have to lose since the US anounced under Clinton (and never revoked under Bush) the right to intervene anywhere at anytime.
My family has not had a participant in war since WWI- (my Grandfather- yes he was 54 when my dad was born) and my dad was in military "intelligence"- quotation marks are his as he hated it. But lets ponder this venture fellow freepers. Ponder it. Estrada is far more important in the long run than this war.
| Circa 1920 |
1924 - 1958 |
1959 - 1963 |
1963 - 1991 |
Current |
Simple answer, his life. If he would just choose to walk away, he could remain wealthy and alive. This war, if it comes, will not be our choice but Sadaams.
If you believe for one second that if we ignore him and act like nothing is going on, he will never come after us, you are deceiving yourself.
Should we just ignore the fact that he has violated the terms of his surrender? Are you willing to pass this problem on to the next administration like Clinton did? Are you willing to pass it on to to the next generation when perhaps the weapons Iraq has will be further developed and more sophiscated? When do you believe we should take care of this threat?
Are you going to continue to run from this statement? Several of us would like for you to back up your remark with facts or admit you slandered the president.
France, Germany, Belgium, Britain, Nato, and the Arab League was with us during the first Gulf War! They are not now. Why? Because they are "Cheese eating surrender monkies" and cowards like the Neocon press says? Or because this proposed war is just the first in a long series of wars? Will Syria be the next "Hitler" we must depose and occupy? Or will it be Iran? This adminstration is lying about this upcoming war and the future wars they have planned.
Stratfor reported last week that Bush would rather be seen as attacking Iraq without just cause than to publicly admit his long term plans i.e. regime change in the entire Arab world and a long occupation of Arab lands. I agree with that assessment.
The above article about the British historical presence in Iraq doesn't mention it but I seem to recall reading that the British used poison gas against the Kurds in the 1930's. Your a history reader, do you recall that? I do not think I am dreaming it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.