Bush Iraq Policy Ignores Past Errors, Historians Say (Update1)

May 17 (Bloomberg) -- As revelations about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq fuel worldwide opposition to the U.S.-led occupation, authors and historians including Dilip Hiro and Niall Ferguson say President George W. Bush has failed to learn from the Arab nation's past.

The publication of pictures of naked detainees being abused and humiliated in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison ``marked the shedding of the last part of the fig leaf worn by President Bush to justify his invasion of Iraq,'' said Hiro, 64, the London-based author of 25 books, including five on the Middle East. Among them is ``Iraq: In the Eye of the Storm.''

Bush affirmed his support for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week as more photos were published showing abuse of Iraqi prisoners. ``You are doing a superb job,'' Bush told Rumsfeld at a news conference last Monday at the Pentagon. On Thursday, Rumsfeld made a surprise trip to Iraq to visit U.S. troops.

As gun battles raged in Fallujah, a majority Sunni Muslim city, and Najaf, a Shiite holy city, the military death toll has escalated. In April, 145 coalition soldiers were killed, and 48 died in the first 17 days of May. Altogether, 895 allied personnel have been killed since the war began more than a year ago, according to coalition figures.

`Repeating History'

Ferguson, 40, a professor of history at New York University and author of the book ``Colossus: The Price of American Empire,'' said the U.S. hasn't understood that it is an imperial power, inheriting a role once played by the British. In 1920, British forces quelled a similar revolt in Iraq -- and remained in the country for another 35 years.

``We have the spectacle of a great English-speaking power occupying Iraq and more or less repeating history, precisely because it neglected to pay attention to it before,'' said Ferguson, who is also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in Palo Alto, California.

Ferguson, in his book ``The Pity of War'' argued that Britain's misreading of German intentions in 1914 escalated what could have been a local conflict into World War I.

Rumsfeld, 71, said he was surprised by the hostile reaction to U.S. troops a year after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Much More

<http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000176&sid=au0VzUaBd3kk&refer=us_elections>

and unlawful shit. They DID NOT CARE!!! This whole tragic circumstance involves arrogant, greedy, evil human beings who sought to expand THEIR power. Oh sure,...they justified their insatiable black-hole appetite by clinging to a shallow and narrow vision to recognize their "greatness".

But,...they didn't give a rat's butt about applying learning or wisdom from historical mistakes. They were into "the power".

favorite historian!

...however - always good to rmember the past and consider it's lessons.

Titled: Even an Empire Needs Legitimacy. The Question is, How do we Win it?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ferguson17may17,1,682170.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

I wasn’t impressed with it at all….in fact my “letter to the editor”, which I’ve already been told, will be printed in the paper tomorrow (Tuesday)….it is as follows:


Re: Even an Empire Needs Legitimacy. The Question is, How do we Win it?

Half way through Niall Ferguson’s piece, it became obvious I was reading a recycled sales pitch….U.N., Germany and France…Bad….Bush, Bremer and Iraqi Governing Council…Good…..Marshall Plan….another $50 billion….wise installment….err, investment….bait….switch….somewhere, P.T. Barnum is wearing a big smile…

How would he know?
:eyes:

interesting article-

thanks, fnb.

Pipes seems to have been "misled" by a "faulty analogy" with post-war Germany and Japan: "Whereas Japan and Germany were defeated, the Iraqis were liberated and they thought that it was a chance to follow their will, not ours."

(Wait a minute. Does "liberated" mean something different to Pipes than it does to ordinary mortals? I mean, I'd think that if we liberated the Iraqis they WOULD be free "to follow their will, not ours.")

Anyway, from this insight, Pipes draws the conclusion that "we are going to fail if .. we are striving for .. a free Iraq," and that "A more modest goal is an Iraq that is not a threat to us."

But ... but .. Was Iraq a threat to us before March 2003? I thought it was a desperately poor country that had been pretty badly smashed up by wars and sanctions. If our goal were simply "an Iraq that is not a threat to us," couldn't we have saved ourselves the (say) $400 billion this adventure will cost us, simply by leaving them alone?

These comments from Pipes suggest: The pro-war propagandists are in disarray, and their once unified front is in danger of disintegrating into a chaotic cacaphony.

:loveya:

"their once unified front is in danger of disintegrating into a chaotic cacaphony."

since I think their ideological turmoil is likely to result in higher decibel irrational screaming about "traitors" and "support our troops" etc, so that in some respects the "danger is merely changed." But I do think we may have an important window of opportunity for reframing some popular perceptions while the Official Front is discombobulated.

the venue to Israel. Of course, they had the advantage of time..2 wks advance notice to orchestrate yet a new topic controlling the flow of conversation away from the scandal.

All the pertinent facts are coming out now. Who did what, when, and how..Do you think there will be a big enough follow through from the democrats to bring the spotlight back to an administration who thinks they are above the law?

The Administration has been p*ssing folks off for over three years. The honeymoon may really be over.

I always said it was absurd to say on the one hand that Iraq was such a danger to us and others due to its WMDs that we had to invade it, and on the other that the invasion would be a "cakewalk."

They knew it wasn't a danger. It sure is now.

skulking off home to slip out of his SS uniform and put on his overalls before the allied soldiers march into Berlin.

What a coward.

an article entitled Ignoble Liars: Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the philosophy of mass deception by Earl Shorris (not online yet, so no link available) . . .

The Study of History is the Road to Perdition

Historical events as such had little to do with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Wise men advised the President to do what he thought was right. Bush consulted with heaven, not with events on earth, and heaven, as he often said in the esoteric part of his speeches, told him what to do. That Richard Perle and William Kristol were his prophets and the Christian right his congregation was our American misfortune. The misreading of the events of 9/11 led to an attack on the wrong enemy for no other reason than the presumed need of a clearly defined enemy to make our liberal democracy strong. This triumph of principle over history initiated a series of contingent events, not only in the Middle East but also in large parts of Asia, that may not be resolved for decades.

Strauss, buffeted by history in his own life, railed against historicism, which holds that meaning can only arise from within a particular historical context. The Straussians contend that historicism leads to relativism and thus to nihilism, finally to the crisis that could bring about the destruction of the American liberal democracy -- a crisis, as Strauss himself said, that comes of the loss of the American sense of superiority.

great article . . . be sure to catch it either in hard copy or when it's posted on the Harper's website (probably a month from now) . . .