Policy Opinion

How are the US actions in Iraq different from British actions in Iraq in the last century?

I find the war in Iraq indefensible, but not unique. It has always been about oil. "Britain set up a colonial regime in Iraq after a long military campaign during World War I. In response to Iraqi resistance, including a country-wide uprising in 1920, British forces battled for over a decade to pacify the country, using airplanes, armored cars, firebombs and mustard gas. Air attacks were used to shock and awe, to teach obedience and to force the collection of taxes. Winston Churchill, as responsible cabinet minister in the early years, saw Iraq as an experiment in high-technology colonial control. Though officials in London sometimes had qualms about the violence, colonial administrators on the ground like Gertrude Bell expressed enthusiasm for the power of the imperial military enterprise. " - Global Policy Forum Some resources: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/oilhistindex.htm#struggle http://www.old-picture.com/british-imperialism-index-003 bilez1 - yes, they did get out, but after how many years?

Public Comments

1. difference? the Brit's got out. just as they are downsizing their presence in Iraq now.
2. Interesting. I'm tempted to say the difference is that the American occupation is more nakedly an effort by corporations like Halliburton to profit from the war and death.
3. The Brits always get out in time to leave the tailing's to US
4. we borrowed the book from the brittish.