Spread Freedom

If you read anything about the later phases of European imperialism, one is struck by the way in which the need for, for example, perpetual British control over India or large swathes of Africa is always justified as being for the good of the subjugated people. And, of course, the perpetual control isn't described as perpetual. It just needs to last a bit longer. Then a bit longer. You know, Friedman Units and all that. Somehow the actual desires of the people being controlled don't seem to figure much into the calculations.

I thought of that as I read this bit of dialogue from the McClatchey stringers' blog:

"Why, Mum? Why can't I go to this shop?"

"Because it's in the green zone baby, and you're Iraqi."

That was brought to my attention by the deeply unserious Jim Henley who fails to recognize that this is serving an important higher moral purpose.

See also this striking bit of state-of-the-art COIN doctrine in action.

Comments

Of course its serving a higher moral purpose! Its shows how big Republican dick really is! Don't believe me? Then why is Bush's Homeland Security Adviser using "impotent" to describe bin Laden?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_bin_laden

Of course why we need to fight AQI becomes even less important then, but hey when the tape measure is out, you do what you got to do!

Posted by Rob | September 9, 2007 9:52 PM

It is rather remarkable that for the last six years the debate over various twists and turns in the Iraq fiasco has been totally uninformed by the British colonial experience in the thord world. Even the avowedly liberal bloggers take it as a given that Iraq was a good idea badly implemented, and concede it to have been a terrible idea from the beginning only from the perspective of hindsight given the newly discovered deceptive nature of those who initiated and supported this madness.

Posted by gregor | September 9, 2007 10:00 PM

Oh, god, Matt, now you're just being mean. You're going to make all your turd trolls come back here yet again, giving another evening up, and posting 40,000 word missives on how wrong Teh Left was to stop colonialism and how everyone which fought against it was Teh Criminal and Teh Terrist.

Posted by El Cid | September 9, 2007 10:19 PM

It's actually France that has maintained the closest ties with its former colonies. Few people think of it as imperialism, however.

Posted by Peter | September 9, 2007 10:59 PM

au contraire, Peter, almost everybody thinks of it as imperialism! well, as colonialism anyhow.

Posted by belle waring | September 9, 2007 11:27 PM

This post is simply del.icio.us. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go bear the white man's burden with my colleague Rudyard.

Posted by Cecil Rhodes | September 9, 2007 11:29 PM

Incidentally,

This isn't even the logic applied to Israel's occupation of Palestine. There, Israel's shit-heads of apologists do not even need to resort to this. The only argument that is needed is to say that the Palestinians can not govern themselves and we need to be there. Which is an even more primitive colonial argument.

Now watch as SLC and other pro-Israel morons hijack this blogspot with their sickening drivel about how it is different, and while Britain was wrong to colonize the world, Israel is fine to colonize Palestine and ruin the lives of millions.

Posted by saifedean | September 10, 2007 12:39 AM

Few people think of it as imperialism, however.

What people are we talking about?

Posted by Ed Marshall | September 10, 2007 12:47 AM

Matt
Why do you point to European colonialism? I wonder if Iraq would ever have happened if most Americans knew about the Philippines adventure.

The occupation of the Philippines for forty years prior to WW2 was justified mainly to act as a deterrent to the Japanese. But in fact the American military presence was small and the Americans did not trust the locals (after the insurgency) to arm and train them properly. So when war broke out the Philippines fell after a token resistance. All the expense over decades, the justification for colonialism etc was exposed as a sham.

What were the real reasons for continuing the occupation? Who knows. Maybe because otherwise all the bloodshed during the insurgency would have been a waste, maybe because it would look like retreat.

Posted by NYT | September 10, 2007 1:45 AM

Yes, any decent knowledge about the late colonial and post-colonial history would prevent someone from making the many idiotic mistakes of this administration in Iraq, starting with the colossally stupid decision to actually invade. The descent of Iraq into anarchy was completely fucking predictable from the start. Cue the Burke cliche: “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.”

Posted by andrew | September 10, 2007 2:14 AM

The descent of Iraq into anarchy was completely fucking predictable from the start.

Well, yeah, but I'm not so sure a general colonial study would show the inevitable outcome. What we do in Haiti every few years is probably more in line with that work and we seem to get away it. Picking up a decent history of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon should have spelled out the outcome of all this though.

Posted by Ed Marshall | September 10, 2007 2:31 AM

"Because it's in the green zone baby, and you're Iraqi."

Twenty years ago Soviet satirist-dissident Vladimir Voinovich wrote a book Moscow 2042. The protagonist travels to the future where Soviet communism has been achieved, but only in one city - Moscow, separated from the rest of the country (where the population is starving) by a huge wall. It's funny.

I've never thought I'd see it happening in real life. Though I notice many anti-utopian predictions are being fulfilled these days.

Posted by abb1 | September 10, 2007 4:52 AM

I'm not sure that India will provide the kind of example that will make you happy. Britain left hastily in 1947 (a year earlier than they had said they would leave), and they partitioned the country along sloppily drawn lines.

Chaos and killing ensued, in large numbers. You might want to read The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan for an idea of just how well a rapid exit went for the people of the subcontinent.

Posted by James Robertson | September 10, 2007 6:18 AM

I grew up in Colonial Africa; was a school kid when India was partitioned (in Bangalore) and worked a spell in the Colonial Service. It went down rapidly from 1947 on. But that said I think the British had a better understanding of why they had to leave, and even their organised plans produced the chaos that ensued in India/Pakistan, the insurgency in Malaya, the Mau Mau in Kenya and the arrival of Hasting Banda to set up his own distatorship in Malawi. All the while apartheid South Africa tried to beat back the tide of African Nationalism. Outside a strong core of scholars and diplomats are there many Americans who have a true grasp of the complex world we live in? Or have Americans felt that their kick ass mentality was enough to establish their leadership of the Free World!!!!

Posted by Alan | September 10, 2007 8:02 AM

Matt
Why do you point to European colonialism? I wonder if Iraq would ever have happened if most Americans knew about the Philippines adventure.

The occupation of the Philippines for forty years prior to WW2 was justified mainly to act as a deterrent to the Japanese. But in fact the American military presence was small and the Americans did not trust the locals (after the insurgency) to arm and train them properly. So when war broke out the Philippines fell after a token resistance. All the expense over decades, the justification for colonialism etc was exposed as a sham.

What were the real reasons for continuing the occupation? Who knows. Maybe because otherwise all the bloodshed during the insurgency would have been a waste, maybe because it would look like retreat.

Posted by NYT | September 10, 2007 1:45 AM

*************************************************

Read some history. In 1934 the Tydings-McDuffie Act promised Filipino independence in 1946 with a twelve-year transition period to full soverignty. That got messed up (obviously) by WW II, but the July 1946 independence date still held. There wasn't any "justification for colonialism" as the decision had already been made to end it.

*************************************************
So when war broke out the Philippines fell after a token resistance
*************************************************Not sure what your definition of "token resistence" is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippines_(1941-42)

It took the Japanese six months to secure the Philippines. US-Filipino forces lost 2,500 KIA. The contrast with the British collapse at Singapore is vivid.

"The ill-prepared British were defeated in six days, and surrendered the supposedly impregnable "Bastion of the Empire" to General Tomoyuki Yamashita on 15 February 1942 in what is now known as the British Empire's greatest military defeat."

Posted by Campesino | September 10, 2007 12:51 PM

"I'm not sure that India will provide the kind of example that will make you happy. Britain left hastily in 1947 (a year earlier than they had said they would leave), and they partitioned the country along sloppily drawn lines.

Chaos and killing ensued, in large numbers. You might want to read The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan for an idea of just how well a rapid exit went for the people of the subcontinent.

Posted by James Robertson | September 10, 2007 6:18 AM"

The lesson is that when you choose a date, you don't unilaterally change that date and you don't partition another people's country along semi-arbitrary lines (for instance, the partition of Bengal between Hindus and Muslims, with the Muslim part going to Pakistan, ignored the relative harmony of Hindu-Muslim relations in Bengali culture, the fact that East and West Pakistan had a large country between them and that East Pakistan was still 20% Hindu. When Bangladesh was formed, it was formed more on Bengali nationalism than a form of Islamic identity). The British had been in India in one form or another for centuries, yet the riots still happened upon partition. Maybe if we stay in Iraq for another 500 years, there won't be any violence when we leave.

Posted by Reality Man | September 10, 2007 1:01 PM

Why do you point to European colonialism? I wonder if Iraq would ever have happened if most Americans knew about the Philippines adventure.

I just know more about the British and French experiences. My knowledge of turn of the century US history is a little shaky compared to my knowledge of Europe.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 10, 2007 2:09 PM