Britain's Post-WWI Role in Iraq Recalled [History of Irak]

AP ^ | 3/6/2003 | BARRY RENFREW

[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."

[a_Turk]

ping

[Ford Fairlane]

Everything the Brits have done in the middle east from WW1 thru 1950 caused 99% of the problems we are dealing with now

Just my opinion

[Torie]

And the point is? Thanks anyway, the article was interesting.

[a_Turk]

>> And the point is?

No point, other than education. Most have no clue about the history. Hell, I hear that Irak is thousands of years old :^D

Certainly not meant to sleight you..

[a_Turk]

There may be a lesson in it for you..

I'm not saying you won't but what makes you think you'll do any better?

[Sparta]

Some historical perspective on Iraq (a little anti-British AP warning)

If you want on or off the Western Civilzation Military History ping list, let me know.

[Ford Fairlane]

in the long run, we probably wont do much better

[SAMWolf]

Thanks for the ping Sparta.

[a_Turk]

We're here to help :)

[Ford Fairlane]

As far as I'm concerned, you can have it all if you keep things quiet over there (and sell me $0.75/gal gas for my musclecars)

[Burkeman1]

But I thought there was an "Iraqi" people! Great Leader Bush speaks of them as if they are one big homogenous group like the Germans and Japanese we brought democracy to after WWII? You mean it is more complicated than that? That Iraq is not even a real nation? That it has zero history of Democracy or western influence like the Germans and Japs did for decades? Iraq has different ethnic groups and religious sects and tribes that hate each other? But The Leader said . . .

[a_Turk]

Hey, I said help.. They've gotto govern themselves as a result.

[a_Turk]

The age of nation states is over. I agree with Bush. The concept of nation states fails because it promotes a certain isolation and allows ignorance to fester.

Both Turkey and the USA are made up of multitudes of ethnic groups. It works. No reason it can't work in Irak.

[Hazzardgate]

Agreed! Now be a good chap and put the tea on, will you? ;)

[donmeaker]

Of course there is an Iraqi people, in the same sense as there is an american people. What is a government? "Government is a monopoly on the first use of force over a certain geographical area." And the people who live in that government are the people associated with it. Ethnicity is different, but the US works well with Polish Americans, Irish Americans, even Texicans. The Kurds in Turkey are called "Mountain Turks" and the Pashtun tribes in Afganistan and Pakistan move easily across borders,(too easily!).

The most famous Arab general of the Crusades, Saladin, was an ethnic Kurd. All successful nations have the ability to recognize merit (say, Miquel Estrada) despite ethnic differences. Even the Soviet Union, did this when it was young (J. Stalin was Georgian). Course uncle Joe pulled up the gate after him pretty well.

[donmeaker]

You don't know much of Germany if you think it is ethnically pure. They used to say that the average German was thin like Goering, blonde like Hitler, tall like Gobbels. Germany has been a cross roads, and various people have left their mark in its gene pool.

What does a German do when depressed?
The Rhinelander gets a new girl friend.
The Berliner goes dancing.
The Thurigarian goes to church.
The Baltic Coaster goes out sailing.
The Hessian goes for a walk in the woods.
The Prussian works harder.
The Black Forester carves wood.
The Bavarian gets drunk.
The Austrian shoots himself.

See, vast differences!

[Jabba the Nutt]

Don't forget the French or the Germans, who supported a coup in Baghdad and backed the Turks in WWI.

There's a difference between then and now. The Ottoman Empire ruled the area for what, 600 years. They may have been incompetent, but they were Moslem. Iraq was coming out of a long decline and foreign rule. Today, Iraq has been ruled by Iraqis for decades. The bloom is off that rose. It is clear today, that the choice for every society is modernism or die. America is the fountainhead of modernism.

We're not bringing Empire or American control. We're looking to set up Iraqi self-government. There are some options within that self-government that are off the table, just like in post-WWII Germany, some political options were unacceptable. Within those wide limits, it Iraqi self-government.

We'll see how it goes. The problem is that if it fails, we're going to end up having to kill a heck of a lot more Arabs and Muslims, than if this plan to drain the Islamic cultural swamp succeeds. Pray for success, especially, if you are antiwar.

[Burkeman1]

Interesting (and would be funny if I knew the nuances of German geographic idiosychroncies). Americans have the same regional jokes but share the same history, religion (with mildly differing Christion sects for the most part), language, and political culture. That is not true of Iraq which is an artificial colonial nation held together throughout it's history either by British imperial forces or a dictator from Baghdad using terror methods (like Sadaam today).

[Burkeman1]

Thanks- Now Bush just has to tell it to the rest of the world- "Nation states are over- US rules- get used to it. No Sovereign nation but The USA!" Insanity. I love this Country (we are not a nation) and I weep to see us embark on this course of ruin. Read Edmund Burke and his opinions and speeches condemning the British actions against the American colonies as they would only lead to the worst case scenerio. I fear this country is heading into a giant hole and the conservative movement will be discredited by the lies of this administration (and the conservative opinion makers I once respected) for generations to come.