Home > Notes from the Underground
I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it.
All of the ephemera that is far too trivial to be bothered with elsewhere on this site or, depending on your point of view, a meta-commentary on it. This ephemera includes, but is not limited to art, music and literature. Most of the content here will be discussed in terms that are as abstract as possible, reality being a singularly overrated concept.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Following on from my previous post discussing historical parallels with the present situation in Iraq, Niall Ferguson has suggested that the experience of the British Empire in Iraq itself is the most appropriate one:"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," declared Gen. Frederick Stanley Maude — a line that could equally well have come from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld this time last year. By the summer of 1920, however, the self-styled liberators faced a full-blown revolt... Then as now, the insurrection had religious origins and leaders, but it soon transcended the country's ancient ethnic and sectarian divisions. The first anti-British demonstrations were in the mosques of Baghdad. But the violence quickly spread to the Shiite holy city of Karbala, where British rule was denounced by Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi al-Shirazi."
The problem with Ferguson's thesis is that he is rather selective in his account. In particular, he takes the view that the brutality with which the British suppressed that revolt will have to be emulated by the Americans if any orderly transition of power is to be effected. It is certainly true that the British were subsequently able to do just that, but Ferguson neglects to mention that the Hashemite prince Faisal was subsequently deposed, thereby allowing a fascist dictatorship to sieze power. Suffice to say that this is not quite the inspiring example Ferguson appears to view it as.Labels: History
posted by Richard 8:26 pm
