A 1917 History Lesson ( Rep. John Murtha)

[laststeamtrain]

I find it hypocritical and ironic that Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, in their latest speeches to spin the war in Iraq, both commented that "many still have not learned history lessons," as they drew inflammatory parallels between Nazism and today's war in Iraq designed only to provoke unreasonable fear in the hearts of Americans.

Clearly it was the ignoring of history that got President Bush and his ideological policymakers into the quagmire that now exists in Iraq. As history dictated, it was absolutely foolish to believe that by occupying Iraq, the United States would transform the country into a beacon of American style democratic ideals. The British failed in its occupation attempts during the early 1900s. You only have to press rewind to hear the now haunting yet familiar words of a British Commander in Baghdad in 1917 say, "Our armies do not come in to your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." After a decade of fighting with the population they had forcibly "liberated," the British were finally expelled from what is today Iraq by a population who resented foreign occupation and control.

President George Herbert Walker Bush was obviously more astute than his son when it came to the learning of History lessons. During the first Gulf War he rejected the urging of many to march into Baghdad, fully understanding the complexities and pitfalls of such an act. President GW Bush should have spent a little more time under the tutelage of his much more insightful father.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/a-1917-history-lesson_b_28534.html?view=print

[rodeodance]

1. te he. He got a good dig in there--as I do not think Jr likes to have his

poppy praised over him!

President George Herbert Walker Bush was obviously more astute than his son when it came to the learning of History lessons.

[Stalwart]

2. History Lesson

http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=8382


January 13, 2006
History's Burden in Iraq
A review of William Polk's Understanding Iraq
by Alan Bock

History Lesson:

"Polk's discussion of British rule, directly from 1918 to 1933 and indirectly until 1958, is most relevant to the current situation. The British invasion in 1914 was based on bad intelligence and little knowledge of the region. Sound familiar?

The British expected the Iraqis to be grateful for their good administration, but "he Iraqis did not want Britain to run their country," and a vast insurrection emerged against the 133,000 British troops (number sound familiar?). The anti-guerrilla campaign eventually cost six times as much as the entire World War I campaign in the Middle East. When the ground war became a stalemate, the British used air power, as the United States is doing now. Its effectiveness was limited."

Snip........

"Interestingly, T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia"), who had actually spent time in the Middle East, understood the problems better than most of those deputed to solve them. In August 1920, he wrote a letter to the London Sunday Times:

"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete. … We are, today, not far from a disaster."

[MasonJar]

3. isn't everybody in the world more insightful than Georgie Porgie?

That is damning with faint praise, if I ever heard it. I just hope Stump hears what Murtha said; he'll be so irritated.

[yurbud]

4. Democracy was not the goal--it was hegemony of oil for American oil

companies.

History will show that, and the longer Democrats dance around it, the more foolish and feckless they will look to future generations.