Centerfield

British Colonial Occupation and Iraqi Elections

The inspiration for this posting is that I've been reading Churchill's 6-volume WWI history (yes, WWI, not II - he has has a separate 6-volume set on WWII), and just finished the Appendix on Britain's occupation of Iraq, Appendix A. Interestingly, it's right after the Conclusions, which happen to be located in which volume? Volume 6, you would guess? Nope, Volume 5. The war ends with volume 4. Volume 5 is about the postwar era. Volume 6 is about the war on the Eastern Front. You could think of it as an extended appendix, I guess. Imagine if Lord of the Rings had had an entire separate volume for the appendices! Churchill liked appendices. Although, it's also a similar era to LotR.

It does have an impact on current events. All of a sudden, I think prompt elections are a lot more important than I did before reading Appendix A, and that Bush would talk more about elections than Iraqi sovereignty, because the British already burned some bridges on yielding sovereignty. Before I read about this, I didn't think too much about it, but now I'm in the Kaus korner on early elections.

The British were in Iraq after WWI. A system of what President Wilson euphemistically called "mandates" (basically colonies) were handed out by an American commission following the war. These mandates covered miscellanous pieces of turf from empires on the losing side of WWI (German, Austrian and Turkish). Britain got Mesopotamia (renamed Iraq) and everybody's favorite trouble spot, Palestine (Britain set Jews in the territory to rule over the Arabs, memories of which are still a source of some trouble).

Kemal Ataturk made infeasible a certain mandate that the commission earmarked for the US: Armenia. I think it's fortunate we couldn't "collect", but certainly Kemal's solution was the worst possible one, the, er, final solution. Yes, this was the massacre of the Armenians. I'm wonderins how much Milosevic was inspired by him, because they both took the same approach to their countries' borders.

First I'll grumble about Britain. After getting Arab support in WWI by promising freedom, their occupation was the real thing as far as imperialism went. Churchill, note, was a staunch imperialist. He was Lloyd George's problem-solver, and his choice to solve the nasty Mesopotamian - now Iraqi - problem. Lawrence of Arabia had been directed to bring Arabs into WWI against their masters the Turks by promising them freedom. The British Empire reneged against that promise, and sent in troops to take over after the war. A rebellion resulted. Churchill, then in charge of the War Office, cracked down. Here's an interesting Guardian comment on the subject:

Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _"

It's rather ironic, as charges of chemical stockpiles, and reminders of gassings of Kurds were part of the rhetoric used to justify the war.

After putting down the revolt, Churchill was moved to the Colonial Office, to deal with Iraq, Palestine, and develop relations with the new Irish Free State. Some good advice from the chap on the scene (Arnold Wilson) and British voter distaste for heavily occupying Iraq in addition to Germany and other post-WWI trouble spots combined to persuade Churchill to grant native rule. His idea, presumably because he had doubts of native ability to understand the hard democracy stuff (a familiar refrain), was to appoint a King (another recently-heard refrain), Feisal. To British credit, they did hold a referendum to approve King Feisal's reign. But he was chosen by Englishmen, and there certainly weren't any other candidates, nor any alternative plan presented on native rule.

It didn't go over too well. My favorite quote from Appendix A:

Iraq advanced rapidly under our guidance. The term 'mandate' acquired an unpleasant significance in the country. It was held to imply a degree of tutelage which the new State considered that it did not require.

Imagine that! Bloody ungrateful natives! Anyway, Churchill and Britain wisely decided to give further. They forced the new Iraqi Monarchy to be a Parliamentary one and yielded it "responsibility". But they also kept troops there for a long time, and refused to yield independence, though they don't seem to have interfered much.

Churchill's Appendix A is decidedly sketchy, even though he spend lots of time on Iraq. Not only did he run the occupation, and oversee the transfers of power to Feisal, but he was Britain's guy in the conference that decided Iraq's borders. But just about the only thing documented in Appendix A is how Churchill saved money by replacing the British Army with the Air Force. He doesn't mention that the savings were achieved by replacing security patrols with a threat of bombing uncooperative villages. Churchill thoroughly documents the things he's proud of, (British Navy at the start of WWI, giving tanks a friend in high places, grumbles that the Army was wasting men, role in the Irish Free State, etc.), and even some not-so-proud things, like the Dardanelles. Iraq, though, is a different story. Imperialist though he was, I don't think he was atall proud of his record there. Similarly, Eisenhower's memoirs get decidedly sketchy when he talks about overthrowing Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh (an error which may have cost us the two towers).

So, what's the impact on present events? Iraqis familiar with history will be deeply cynical about a "sovereignty transfer." I'm sure it seems rather similar to bringing in King Feisal. It's probably even worth using the less-than-trustworthy food-for-oil voter rolls that Saddam used. Stability problems can be addressed by only holding them in fairly secure districts (most of Iraq) and in trouble spots as they stabilize.

Because Britain forced a parliamentary monarchy on Iraq, Iraq has had experience with democracy. It was admittedly not terribly stable, probably partially because of its novelty, and partly because it was forced on them by the just-evil British. The constitutional monarchy ran 1924-1958, with independence in 1932. Admittedly, not many living Iraqis were around. But it remains as memories and Iraqi examples to look back on.

Does Churchill's use of poison gas on Iraqis invalidate the moral case of a coalition including Britain invading Iraq? Not in my view. Irony from the past doesn't keep current events from spinning as they will. And wide condemnations of both colonialism and use of poison gas in warfare only developed afterwards, with Britain on the right side of both issues for half a century. Iraqis were deeply unhappy about Britain's post-WWI role in Iraq. They are happy to be free from Saddam Hussein (if unhappy about being occupied). Posted by Jon Kay at May 27, 2004 05:32 PM