Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), commonly referred to as simply 'Hegel', is considered one of the most profound and prolific philosophers in the modern era (see picture)..
Hegel wrote thousands upon thousands of pages on esoteric subjects (i.e. phenomenology) and inspired the likes of Karl Marx and Jean-Paul Sartre years later. However, one of his more casual utterances has particular relevance to the current state of American foreign policy.
.
After years of contemplating the course of human events, Hegel came to a eye-opening conclusion with the quip, 'What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it.' In short, nations act as prisoners of the moment and fail to use history as a guide to the present and the future.
.
In the preparations to launch an invasion of Iraq in 2003, what kind of analysis did the CIA director, George Tenet, furnish to President Bush with respect to the post-combat outcome? Although his exact words will never be known, the administration claimed that US forces would be greeted as liberators. For about a week, the prediction was accurate, and then Iraq degenerated into a fractured state of warring ethnic and religious groups.
.
Nation-building in Iraq by the US and its coalition partners foundered due ignoring the past. A mere glance at a basic outline of Islamic and Mesopotamian history could have saved the US from its current political and military debacle.
.
Faulty Premise #1: The US Will Be Greeted As Liberators
.
On the surface, it seemed elementary. Iraqis under Saddam Hussein had suffered oppressive rule and a crippled economy for decades, and, as a result, most of the population would welcome and support the new order. Through an unselfish commitment to the welfare of Iraq, the administration seemed to believe that the US would be seen as a responsible superpower acting only on behalf of human rights at the other end of the globe. However noble their intentions, the Iraqis and most of the region interpreted the pre-emptive strike for democracy in the Middle East in a wholly different light. Why?
.
The actions of the Western powers in the Middle East during the 20th century contain the answer.
.
At the conclusion of WWI, the Ottoman Empire sank into oblivion. Turkey became an independent nation-state, and negotiations at the Paris Conference in 1919 produced a mandate system whereby the allied powers were given management responsibilities for various portions of the globe. In 1921, modern-day Iraq was born from two former Ottoman vilayets or regions - which included Basra and Baghdad. A third previous Ottoman vilayet, Mosul, was tacked on a few years later. The Hashimite Monarchy under King Faisal was installed by the British to look after the interests of the Empire.
.
After a dozen years of occupation and administration, Britain allowed Iraq to become independent in 1932. It was unfortunate timing. First, Baghdad utilized its newly found sovereignty to massacre an Assyrian population within his Western-drawn borders. Secondly, Hitler came to power one year later and began leading Germany inexorably toward a revanchist (revenge) war against its WWI enemies. In order to prevent Iraqi leader, Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, from throwing his support and oil over to Berlin, British armies returned in 1941 and the refounded the Hashimite monarchy under Faisal II after a six-year occupation.
.
On 14 July 1958, the Iraqi army, led by General Abdul Karim Qassim, successfully orchestrated a coup d'etat and reigned independently for five years. Another power struggle resulted in the overthrow of Qassim and the emergence of a new military leader - Abdul Salam Arif. When Arif died in 1966, his brother took the reins of power until 1979. In that year, Saddam Hussein and the Arab Socialist Baath Party ended the Arif regime.
.
Why would anyone in the CIA, the State Department or anywhere else have been under the impression that US forces would be 'greeted as liberators' in 2003? Their state, whose borders were arbitrarily concocted by imperialist powers in 1919, was subordinated to British geopolitical and economic interests (oil) almost continuously from 1921-1958. No authentic elections were held. Iraq then devolved into a power struggle among its army leaders for four decades prior to the rise of Saddam Hussein in 1979. From that year onward, Saddam Hussein crushed internal opposition with brute force and plunged his nation into a war with Iran - the former ignored by the US and the latter backed by Washington as means to curb Iranian influence. Approximately 300,000 to 500,000 Iraqis died in the war.
.
Due to creating and subordinating the nation of Iraq for the express purpose of serving Western interests, Iraqi hostility toward the presence of an American occupation force should have been expected by policymakers.
.
Regardless of the transcendent motives to remove an egregious dictator from power and allow Iraq to finally set-up a legitimate democratic state, the collective Iraqi memories of being subordinated to Western foreign policy designs since the end of WWI could not be mollified with a flourish of presidential rhetoric from behind a desk in the White House.
.
Faulty Premise #2: Iraq Is Ripe For Democracy
.
While most Iraqis wanted Saddam Hussein overthrown and replaced by a new government, the 1,400-year historical resentment between the majority Shia and the minority Sunni populations should have been an inescapable indicator of post-invasion civil war. A short recitation of their often bloody rivalry, based on opposing religious claims, demonstrates the inevitability of another clash for power.
.
Subsequent to the death of the Prophet Mohammad in 632AD, one of his close followers, Abu Bakr, was appointed the first Caliph to the consternation of another acolyte named Ali ibn Abi Talib - famously known as 'Ali'. As the case with most transitions of power among non-democratic states (i.e. Alexander The Great, Charlemagne, Lenin), a dispute arose over the who was the most legitimate person to succeed the founder of Islam. Indeed, the supporters of Ali's claim believed that Mohammad had actually designated him to be his successor in a place called Ghadir Khumm during the last year of his life. Rather than openly challenge Abu Bakr, Ali decided to transcend politics for the benefit of the Arabian movement. His restraint paid off. He became the fourth Caliph in 656AD. Due to not being seen as legitimate in the eyes of the disciples of Abu Bakr, however, Ali was killed five years later, and a split between followers of Abu Bakr (Sunni) and those of Ali (Shia) have divided the Muslim world to the present day.
.
The Sunni-Shia struggle remained a relatively low-intensity affair until the coming of the Azeris in the 16th century. In establishing the Safavid dynasty, they ended the Sunni reign of power and remade Persia (modern day Iran) into a Shia dominated region, and it remains Shia controlled today. Nearly five centuries later in 1979, 'radical' Shia Muslims overthrew the American-installed Shah of Iran. Saddam Hussein, the brutal Sunni dictator of Iraq, opted to launch a pre-emptive war on 22 September 1980 to forestall a possible Shia-inspired, Iranian invasion to unite the majority Shia population of Iraq with Iran. Needless to say, Saddam had other, ulterior motives as well. After eight years of gruesome warfare, the conflict ended in a stalemate with more than 1 million dead in total. It should be remembered that the Reagan administration supplied Saddam with weapons and intelligence in order to prevent Iran from exporting its revolution throughout the Middle East.
.
In 2003, why did war-planners forecast a relatively seamless transition for Iraq to democracy? Although the population was highly educated, similar to the Japanese and the Germans after WWII, and exhibited a desire to throw off its corrupt ruler, more than a millennium of Sunni-Shia tensions should have led policymakers to expect a Shia rebellion against their former Sunni masters. Saddam Hussein had indeed used WMD (i.e. chemical weapons) to preserve his tyrannical Sunni rule (35% of the Iraqi population) over the politically disenfranchised, far-larger Shia population (65%). Years of smouldering resentments were bound to surface at the first sight of a vacuum of power upon the fall of Saddam Hussein.
.
Furthermore, why have intelligence analysts and international relations scholars been surprised at the aggressive posture of Iran in Iraq? Shia-ruled Tehran is acting quite predictably. In their view, the Sunni-government of Iraq was wholly illegitimate - a point of agreement with the US. As Iraq is composed of a preponderant number of Shia, Iran is simply claiming to be a more legitimate spokesman for their interests than either the deposed Sunni autocrats or a foreign occupation force from a non-Muslim country. Of course, this is not to excuse the sordid dimensions of Iranian foreign policy and covert operations. However, the US was blind to the belligerent undercurrents inside and external to Iraq due to its failure to study the roots of the socio-religious make-up of the territory. In all, Iraq was not ripe for democracy immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein but ripe for internal upheaval and vulnerable to regional interference (Syria, Iran). Perhaps US General Eric Shinseki, demoted by President Bush for publicly declaring the size of the US invasion force to be inadequate just prior to the attack in 2003, understood the ramifications of sending a relatively small number of soldiers into a land where religious animosity has existed for hundreds of years. In 2007, President Bush ordered additional forces into Iraq and thus vindicated both history and the General.
.
Regardless of the outcome, the Iraq war is already a travesty. If the CIA, NSA and other intelligence agencies had taken the social and religious history of Iraq and Iran into account, the campaign to remove Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to Iraq might have been carried out in a more palatable and responsible fashion.
.
Timely signals intelligence, precise target information, accurate human intelligence and expert leadership analysis are essential components to defeating the many enemies of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. When it comes to recommending war or peace to Congress and the president, however, the CIA should first call an historian.
.
J Roquen