Did Churchill Have the Right Idea About Iraq?

Did Churchill Have the Right Idea About Iraq?

By Shannon Monaghan

Shannon Monaghan studies history at Yale University and writes for the History News Service.

On Sept. 1, 1922, Great Britain's colonial secretary, the man responsible for the administration of the British presence in Iraq, wrote a scathing letter to his Prime Minister on the miserable state of that country and Britain's interests there. He closed his letter with these crushing lines:

"At present we are paying eight millions [in] pounds Sterling a year [the equivalent of half a billion dollars today] for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having."

The name of that colonial secretary? Winston Churchill.

The phrase "history repeats itself" is overused; the greater tragedy is that in this instance the cliche is entirely appropriate. President Bush appears to think that he can somehow escape the lessons that the past can teach us and that history will treat his misadventure in Iraq well. Experience does not bode well for his hopes.

By 1922, Churchill had no such illusory hopes about Iraq. In fact, he declared the task of managing the country "impossible."

Little has changed since Churchill came to that sobering conclusion. Like those who would today challenge the American president on Iraq, Churchill paid a price for his view. His prime minister severely rebuked him, and refused to allow even the notion of withdrawal to be brought before his cabinet. It took Great Britain ten years more of harsh lessons before it finally granted that nation its independence.

In making his case to Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Churchill argued that Britain's course of action in Iraq was a waste - a waste of money, effort, time and political capital. The difficulties with Britain's stance that Churchill emphasized are those that the American public faces day after day, month after month, year after year.

Churchill declared the Arab officials of Iraq's British-backed King Feisal "incompetent." He noted the gross over-expenditure of monies in the region by the British government, which "it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay." Furthermore, he lamented that "no progress has been made in developing the oil." He was worried about British troops and desperately concerned about increased Turkish influence in the region and a potential Turkish invasion. He insisted that "there is scarcely a single newspaper . . . which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country."

In fact, Churchill strongly advocated immediately removing the British presence in Iraq if the provisional Iraqi government did not co-operate. Furthermore, he pointed out that in Britain the party had "no political strength to face disaster of any kind," and that the British public's opinion of the situation was so poor that a newly formed government at home would have to order "instant evacuation" to gain immediate support. After reciting at length this litany of failures, Churchill crisply stated, "Altogether, I am getting to the end of my resources."

One need only to turn on the news to realize that the United States is futilely struggling with the very same problems that Churchill struggled with - and more. The U.S. government and its military leaders cannot find a solution to the problems besetting the Iraqi government, the development and allocation of the country's oil, the influence of Iran and other countries in the region and sectarian violence. U.S. military forces face unrelieved dangers. Public opinion at home has soured on the war. Americans, like Britons in Churchill's day, have reached the end of their resources.

Ironically, Bush declared in 2004 that "I've always been a great admirer of Sir Winston Churchill, admirer of his career, admirer of his strength, admirer of his character -- so much so that I keep a stern-looking bust of Sir Winston in the Oval Office." If the President so admires Churchill, he should heed that great man's warnings about involvement in Iraq and remove American troops from that nation now.

A True Hero

Not often in our lives do we really see a Hero. We try to equate the movie image with real live, but that truly is not the case. Movies, as expected, are nothing more than a hyperbole of life. I know we’ve often heard of courage with soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade, but these heroes are ‘trained’ to sacrifice for the ‘greater good’ of the team.

But the actions of Liviu Librescu during the massacre at Virginia Tech are truly heroic. Here is a 76 year old man who ‘just’ happened to be a Holocaust survivor who give his life to safe his entire class on the official Holocaust Day acknowledged throughout the world (except in the Islamic/Arabic world).

I know there were others who showed heroism during this tragidy, but I am in awe of Mr. Librescu. Could I, would I try to barricade a door and look in the eyes of a mass murder and throw my body and soul to save a group of students??? It is said that Cho was able to push open the door(s) a bit as he was trying to enact his destruction.

I can’t imagine what Mr. Librescu saw in Cho’s eyes. Mr. Librescu would have been around twelve years old during his incarnation by the Nazis. Can you imagine as a young lad to witness the horrors of the concentration camps and then experience this? I wonder if the dead eyes of Cho were the same as those of the heartless guards. After hearing and seeing Cho’s unbelievable post-mortem manifesto, I’m even more impressed by those who sacrificed themselves.

After this horror, I choose to not acknowledge the devastation wrought by Cho, but the honor Mr. Librescu.

God Bless.

Can Secular West Understand?

I was raised in pretty much a secular home growing up. I never remember going to church until I moved to Texas at the age of twelve. My early years were spent in So Cal, from Torrance to Encino. Once in Texas, I was required to go to Baptist church weekly. Can’t say it helped much as some people may attest… Today whudda thunk I’d attend Catholic church every week (albeit as a “practicing non-Catholic” as my wife calls it) AND send my children to private Catholic school??? More on that in future posts!

My original point was going to be growing up in a secular home, I’ve always given the benefit of the doubt when it came to religion to the believer. I was one of those dope smokin’ slackers in college that took up every religion that I could came across. I read the Bhagavad-Gita, the Vedas, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Daozang and the Book of Mormon; I thought all these religions were all basically good at heart. At times, I thought the Christian church was the least worthy of all the major religions due to its bloody past.

I never really studied Islam during this time and thought it was just a step child of Judaism and Christianity and thought Mohammad was just another prophet. I don’t think I’ve EVER been so naïve.

During Islam’s Golden Years, I have no doubt it was a thriving social and cultural leader, but that was between 700 to 1200 years ago. Now they’ve, and yes that is a massive generalization to say this, but I’m speaking from North Africa to Indonesia, devolved into a series of societies with petroleum and terrorism as the primary export.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I came across an article by Shlomo Engel today which I thought included several valid points.

The current war between Islam and the West is over the most fundamental cultural values of the two civilizations.

Followers of Western culture believe in the supreme value of human life, civilian rights, complete freedom of thought and human spirit, genuine pluralism of beliefs and views coexisting side by side, equal status of men and women, and a free economic and intellectual market that is constantly improving as a result of competition and the individual's right to advance.

Western culture also believes in the power of words and persuasion, the use of force as a last resort only, individualsism, limitless self-criticism and public criticism, and all other values of freedom and equality.

On the other hand, followers of the Islamic culture believe in one religion and one opinion meant to overtake the world through a Muslim crusade of blood and infidel bodies.

The well known duty of spreading Islam by the sword reflects the essence of this belligerent, murderous culture, which is willing to sacrifice millions of human beings (both Muslims and infidels) whose value is insignificant on the altar of the Muslim ideal of conquest and force.

In such a belligerent, violent society, there's of course no room for civil rights or any status for women, or any aspiration for education that is not zealously religious.

What is so amazing with today’s West is the lack of acknowledgement of Islam’s fundamental mistreatment of women.

It's difficult to point to a significant social movement by Muslims that espouses the values of education, freedom, equality, and peace. On the other hand, millions of Muslims are quick to avenge and destroy and kill and burn over any caricature or utterance they do not like.

Muslims are almost completely absent from the scientific and academic world, not to mention the Muslim woman.

This religious zealotry is unrelated to economic and social status, and is true for residents of luxurious palaces in Saudi Arabia as it is for residents of refugee camps in Gaza and Lebanon.

It is to be expected that merely presenting this war of civilizations will immediately elicit the regular derogatory insults of racism and fascism that are so much liked by Muslim fanatics and their innocent supporters in the West.

The Western world's great openness created a situation whereby the blatant, anti-democratic racism and inequality that is built into Muslim culture receives the same status and legitimacy as other Western cultural values.

Under this cover, the violent and fanatic aggressor allows itself to fight Western culture in its own home by demanding rights of equality and freedom that it doesn't believe in, but is glad to utilize in order to achieve its own destructive objectives.

[…]

The realization that a democracy must defend itself against those threatening to ruin it, even at the price of undermining the rights of those fighting against it, is a required condition for a victory by the sons of light against the sons of darkness – a war faced by the entire world, and particularly in Israel.

This is not just Israel’s fight but all of ours. Until we recognize what radical Islam is bringing to the West, we’re in dire peril being blinded by our sense of fairness which these folks don’t seem to fathom.

Jimmy Carter's Folly

I’m sure most of you have seen Jimmy Carter’s book tour and subsequent explanation or rationalization of all the factual errors. It’s a shame how he’s turn into such a flamin’ anti-Semite, but then chances are he’s always been one.

Carter has always been considered somewhat of an intellectual, but his blatant dishonesty is beyond the pale.

CARTER: Page 57: The 1949 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of Israel and were accepted by Israel and the United States, and recognized officially by the United Nations.

FACT: The 1949 armistice lines separating the West Bank from Israel never became permanent borders recognized by Israel, the United States or the U.N. Security Council. On the contrary, the Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement of April 3, 1949 specifically notes that the lines are not borders: "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto."

CARTER: Page 190: [The barrier] is projected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel’s internationally recognized border ...

FACT: The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs notes that "Because of its meandering path into the West Bank, the [total 703 km length of the route] is more than twice the length of the "Green Line" – 315 km."

CARTER: Page 50: Perhaps the most serious omission of the Camp David talks was the failure to clarify in writing Begin's verbal promise concerning the settlement freeze during subsequent peace talks.

Washington Post Op-Ed, Nov. 26, 2000:

Prime Minister Begin pledged that there would be no establishment of new settlements until after the final peace negotiations were completed.

FACT: Begin promised—and delivered—a three month settlement freeze. At a Sept. 17, 2003 symposium at the Carter Center, Israeli jurist Aharon Barak explained he was in the relevant meeting, had been the only one taking notes, and that his notes showed that Begin had agreed only to a three month freeze. Off camera Carter is heard to state, "I don't dispute that." William Quandt then added that while he had not been in the meeting, Cyrus Vance (Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State) had been and told him immediately afterwards that Begin agreed to a three month freeze. (See details and video clip here.)

Too many more examples to list, but pls review the numerous factual errors.

Red State Mentality

Stumbled upon an interesting snippet from Inside the Beltway buried deep. John McCaslin brings up an interesting comparison which I've not heard of, yet.

"Weather Bulletins" from both North Dakota and Colorado are making the rounds on Capitol Hill, about how the regions are recovering from 90-mile-per-hour blizzards that dropped upward of 44 inches of snow, broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, cut power to tens of thousands, closed roads and stranded motorists in lethal snow banks.
Nevertheless, say the creators of the bulletins: "George Bush did not come. FEMA did nothing. No one howled for the government. No one blamed the government. No one even uttered an expletive on TV. Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit. Our mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else. Our governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either. CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit — or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards. No one asked for a FEMA trailer house. No one looted. No Larry King, no Bill O'Reilly, no Oprah. ... "
It goes on and on and on, but you get the message.

Could this be the middle America work ethic verses the urban entitlement syndrome?