Iraqis have lived this lie before

[BeyondGeography]

The British transfer of sovereignty in the 20s was equally meaningless

Haifa Zangana
Tuesday June 29, 2004
The Guardian

In Iraq, we have an expression: same donkey, different saddle. Iraq's long-heralded interim government has now formally assumed sovereignty. Official labels and tags have duly changed. The US administrator will now be an ambassador, while Sheikh Ghazi al Yawar and Iyad Allawi, US-appointed members of the former governing council, are to be known as president and prime minister.

To formalise the change, the UN has already issued a resolution under which "multinational forces" will replace "US-led forces". On the issue of control over US troops, the message is clear: the US forces are there to stay only because "Iraqi people" has asked them to. But which Iraqi people? Do they mean the new administration headed by the CIA's Iyad Allawi? And why does all this sound strangely familiar?

In Iraq we don't just read history at school - we carry it within ourselves. It's no wonder, then, that we view what is happening in Iraq now of "liberation-mandate-nominal sovereignty" as a replay of what took place in the 1920s and afterwards.

On April 28 1920, Britain was awarded a mandate over Iraq by the League of Nations to legitimise its occupation of the country. The problems proved enormous. The British administration in Baghdad was short of funds, and had to face the resentment of the majority of Iraqis against foreign rule, which boiled over that year into a national uprising. In the aftermath, the British high commissioner had to come up with a solution to reduce the British loss of lives.

…To the British government, control of Iraq's oil was a necessity. Iraqi national liberation movements called for "Istiqlal al Tamm" - complete independence - which was regarded by the British as "the catchword of the extremists". Any protest against the British-imposed monarchy was similarly regarded as the work of "extremists".

…As in the past, Iraqis are denied their natural right to resist the occupier and its imposed form of government. The "extremists" of our history are now called "terrorists".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1249508,00.html

[JPZenger]

1. Robert Rubin's View of the Middle East

http://www.rubininvestmentgroup.com/images/042304_BW_Edition.pdf

Robert Rubin was Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton. Here is his firm's view of the situation in the Middle East, as of April 2004. Please skip down to pages 7 through 9 of the attached link.

"We believe, based on thorough research, that the U.S. Government’s invasion of Iraq and ousting of Saddam Hussein has provided an opportunity for Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaida sponsored terrorist network to join forces with Iraq’s Wahabbi Sunni Muslims in the Sunni Triangle area of Iraq (encompassing Tikrit, Fallujah and Baghdad). If this occurs, a new training ground might develop for Al-Qaida to grow its base of loyal supporters...

The Bush Administration stated in April of 2003 that it believed U.S. troops would be needed in Iraq for no longer than two years. However, not to our surprise, during President Bush’s Press Conference on 4/14/04 regarding the “war”, the President hinted that U.S. troops will likely need to remain in Iraq for considerable more time and that more troops will be needed to stabilize the country..."

.Apparently, Mr. Bush and his administration is either not very familiar with the historical and long-lasting conflicts between opposing religious and political factions in the Middle East, or they have purposely mislead the American people and the rest of the world about their intentions in Iraq. Because of the inherent beliefs of Muslims and the growing number of Islamic Fundamentalist movements around the world, we believe that the Bush Administration (and any future U.S. Presidential Administration) will be forced to leave U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely, costing U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming years, unless the U.S. Government changes its policies in the Middle East.

According to the Qur’an, Muslims have the duty to act in defense of what they see as being right and to oppose wrong. The Prophet Muhammad said, "If someone among you sees wrong, he must right it by his hand if he can (deed, conduct, action).”...

[struggle4progress]

2. Nice article! Here's a related thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=57377#59641