- MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX Mar. 31, 2015
- McConaughey Tweets "Long Way from 1971..."
- MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX Mar. 30, 2015
- Ginseng Harvest Returns as "Appalachian Outlaws"
- UPDATING ... 'Furious 7' Gonna Roll
- Op-ed: Essay on hope, Israel, Palestine, Bereaved Parents Circle
- People should always be skeptical when evaluating weight-loss products
- OP-ED:The Destruction of 'Forced Pooling'
- CARIBBEAN VIEW: St Kitts-Nevis election fiasco: Symptom of a bigger problem
- BOOK REVIEW: 'Don't Make the Black Kids Angry': More Accounts of Violence in the Wake of 'White Girl Bleed a Lot'
OP-ED: A Brief History of Iraq for Westerners
Because the Arabs were too backward to be allowed to govern themselves, or even to contemplate creating a world war, and because tribes and ethnicities and religions never really garner much loyalty or support that can't be wiped away with a good cup of tea or a few clouds of poison gas, and because the French were too dumb to know where the oil was, it became necessary for the British to install an Iraqi leader who wasn't Iraqi, through a democratic election with one candidate running.
The great Winston Churchill explained the governance of Iraq and the new civilizing technique of bombing civilians thusly: "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." Others failed to see the wisdom, and the Royal Air Force used non-chemical "terror bombing, night bombing, heavy bombers, [and] delayed action bombs (particularly lethal against children)" to police disobedient Iraqis. Only by developing these techniques on Iraqis were the world's civilizers prepared to use them on Nazis when the time came to level German cities in the name of defeating Nazis, which of course also places the rest of this paper beyond the reach of moral criticism.
Iraqis, from the formation of Iraq by Gertrude Bell (1868-1926) to this day, were never quite able to create a democracy for the CIA to overthrow as in neighboring Iran. But the idea that Iraqis have been violent or resistant to control because of lack of representation misses the central fact that people in the Middle East enjoy killing each other over sectarian differences. Of course it's hard to find evidence of significant sectarian fighting in Iraq prior to 2003 and some say there wasn't any. There was violent looting of Jewish neighborhoods in 1941, but the British government keeps all information on that event secret. There was bombing of synagogues in Baghdad in 1950-51 but that turned out to have been done by Zionists trying to convince Jews to come to Israel. And "until the 1970s nearly all Iraq's political organisations were secular, attracting people from all religions and none." But what was simmering just below the surface waiting to burst out at the slightest scratching?
Think how little it took. Supporting and arming a brutal dictator in Saddam Hussein and his catastrophic war against Iran, then bombing Iraq and imposing the most murderous sanctions in history, and then newly bombing Iraq and occupying it for 8 years while arming and training death squads and torturers and imposing sectarian segregation, creating 5 million refugees, and killing a half-million to a million-and-a-half people, while devastating the nation's infrastructure, and then imposing a puppet government loyal to one sect and one neighboring nation. That, plus arming the new government for vicious attacks on its own people, while arming mad killers in neighboring Syria, some of whom want to combine parts of Syria and Iraq: that was all it took, and suddenly, out of nowhere, ignorant Arabs are killing each other, just out of pure irrationality, just like in Palestine.
During the 8 years of U.S.-led occupation people mistook purely irrational violence that had been bubbling under the surface for centuries for resistance to the occupiers, and now some imagine that part of the violence against the puppet government is motivated by grievances against that government. But this misses the fundamental truths here, which are:
1. Shock and Awe was meant to put people at ease and make them comfortable.
2. The plan to rid Iraq of weapons it was about to use against those of us who matter was successful beyond the wildest expectations, working retroactively by a decade.
3. Our great leaders, Bush and Cheney, meant well in giving Iraqis freedom even if they weren't ready for it.
4. The election of Maliki was even more legitimate than the election of Faisal.
5. When the Bush-Maliki treaty ended the U.S. military presence in Iraq, that was thanks to President Obama who is way smarter than Bush but couldn't get Iraq to let U.S. troops stay with immunity for crimes -- crimes of course being necessary for policing, just ask Winnie.
6. When Iraq remained a disaster, that was President Obama's fault for focusing too much on murdering people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen, and never Iraq -- as if we just don't care about Iraq any more.
7. The U.S. weapons being seized and used against the U.S. puppet government in Iraq are no match for the vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that we can and must ship into Iraq now to be seized and redirected later on down the road.
8. The few people getting rich from all of this misery mean well.
* * *
David Swanson wants you to declare peace at http://WorldBeyondWar.org His new book is War No More: The Case for Abolition. He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for http://rootsaction.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.