Mittwoch, 21. März 2012

All Colonial Wars Are Alike by Eric Margolis

http://ericmargolis.com/2012/03/all-colonial-wars-are-alike/
Today I came along this interesting blog, thought I should share it with you.



"All Colonial Wars Are Alike

by Eric Margolis


News of the massacre by an American soldier of 16 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children, made me reflect on the 14 wars and colonial conflicts I’ve covered. Horrible but not surprising.

It illustrates what I call the Iron Laws of Colonial Warfare:

Pick a good pretext to invade a country that you covet. France invaded Algeria in 1830 after its ruler supposedly flicked the French ambassador with a fly whisk. During the 19th century colonial era, Britain and France provoked incidents, then claimed their invasions were to bring the light of Christianity and western civilization to Africa and Asia. There was the notorious Gulf of Tonkin incident that sparked the Vietnam War. During the Bush era, spreading democracy was the claim.
Today’s pretext du jour is humanitarian rescue missions. Oil-rich Libya was a prime example. Britain, the US and France stirred up a revolt in Benghazi, then intervened militarily.

Divide et Imperia (divide and conquer) as the Romans said. Pick a disgruntled or rebellious minority, favor them against the majority, making them your allies in colonial rule. Good examples: Tajiks and Uzbeks in Afghanistan who first backed the Soviets, then Americans, against majority Pashtun. Tamils in Sri Lanka, favored by the British Empire; or Christian Ambonese in Indonesia used by the Dutch to enforce their brutal rule.

Build a native mercenary army. Imperial Britain used Gurkhas and sepoys in India; the French used Senagalese troops in North Africa; the US employed tens of thousands of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain’s Indian Raj was made possible by scores of cooperative princes. The Soviets ruled Eastern Europe through local communists and their security forces.

Denounce all those opposing foreign rule as: religious fanatics; terrorists; savages; bandits (favorite Soviet term). Western media dutifully denounced independence leaders as "mad mullahs;" "arch-terrorists;", "Hitler on the Nile (Nasser)" or today’s favorite, "Hitler in Tehran."

The longer your occupation army remains, the more it will first despise, then hate the local population, regarding them as savage and sub-humans.


Collective punishments of civilians by angry, frustrated, fearful foreign troops will become the norm. Atrocities will increase. Think of Vietnam’s Mai-Lai massacre, the infamous Amritsar massacre in India, India’s repression in rebellious Kashmir, Japan’s savagery in China, the US marines at Falluja, or Russians in Chechnya.

Colonial occupations increasingly rely on brutality and intimidation, then torture and secret executions. France’s Army was deeply corrupted by its crimes in Algeria and lost its honor. The United States is repeating this terrible precedent in Afghanistan. Italy used concentration camps and poison gas to subdue Libya in the 1930’s. The USSR killed 1.5 million Afghans. All colonial wars are dirty.

Colonial troops find themselves surrounded by a hostile civilian population, under attack from all sides, betrayed even by their nominal native allies. They become increasingly brutalized, vindictive and prone to drug use and rape. Surprise attacks, booby traps, mines and other explosive devices cause widespread fear and depression.

Russia now suffers a lethal heroin epidemic from its 10-year occupation of Afghanistan. The use of torture in Iraq and Afghanistan is spreading back to US law enforcement. Many former soldiers who served in these third world neo-colonial wars return home to join police forces and government agencies.

A sense of betrayal dominates. The Soviet’s supposed local Communist Afghan allies often kept secret links with the mujahidin resistance and warned them of impending Red Army operations. Today, many members of the US-installed Afghan government secretly cooperate with Taliban and its allies.

Foreign occupation and garrisons inevitably spread corruption, prostitution, junk culture, and venereal disease. The foreign troops increasingly keep to fortified bases, sallying out to take reprisals and show the flag. The notion that 20-year old soldiers from the bottom of western society can win hearts and minds of Afghan tribesmen is one of the most ludicrous myths of our times.

Occupying armies quickly transform themselves into colonial forces: lightly armed, mobile police units. When a real war comes, they are not ready to fight a modern opponent. In 1914, Britain’s imperial forces were slaughtered in the trenches of Flanders. The US has reconfigured its army for colonial warfare. But its next war may be with China or North Korea."



Eric Margolis is the author of "War at the Top of the World" and the new book, "American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World". See his website http://ericmargolis.com/

18 Kommentare:

  1. It is often overlooked that the US military is a voluntary one and what type of person would join knowing they will be sent to a battle zone perhaps as soon as they finish basic training? The US military is filled with the lower dregs of US society; I am surprised that more barbaric actions are not committed.

    AntwortenLöschen
  2. I'm not a US citizen and have no skin at all in this game, But I honestly think this is a thoughtless and insulting thing to say. What about the educated and relatively wealthy children of US politicians who believe in the need to defend the values of patriotism? What about Pat Tillman? Or the countless men and women who followed his example? For that matter what about all those young Black kids who are recruited in the Ghetto because they see the US army as their only chance to get a University education or escape the cycle of poverty and gang violence that dominates US inner cities? Are 18 year old kids who want a better life for their family than dealing Crack the "lowest dregs of society" now? Jesus Christ.

    I don't know why this particular post so pissed me off. I see all kinds of narrow minded and uneducated slurs of all kinds of people on here daily. But I guess the difference is this: When people do the hate-rhetoric thing to Obama, it's shitty but at the end of the day he's a big boy and he can look after himself and he gets well paid to be the subject of those attacks. But The people you are talking about here are DYING because they believe in your right to have another latte and even if they are completely and utterly wrong in that belief the very least they deserve from you for that is your respect.

    AntwortenLöschen
  3. BTW Thank you Ulla for the original article/post, it's awesome. Margolis' Historical perspective does give pause for thought, and makes you seriously question the Policy of colonial-style "peacekeeping" missions. Must find some more of his writing.

    AntwortenLöschen
  4. What about them indeed!!

    First, and foremost, I'd like to point out that it's been well known for quite some time that the "wealthy children of US politicians" are conspicuous by their absence in the US military. Can you name one senior politician with a child in the military? (btw: Sarah Palin doesn't count for obvious reasons.)

    I put it to you that as it has become increasingly obvious that most wars these days, despite the rhetoric, amount to War for Profit. As such, they're not attracting the caliber of men (and women) who may have otherwise entertained the thought of the military as an honourable career.

    Pat Tillman? An excellent example and indisputably a great man in every sense of the world... but look at what happened to him. It would appear there's no room for men and women of integrity in the military today. Tillman and Manning have proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    One only has to also look at the fact that the selection criteria for the military today has been significantly lowered. People who once wouldn't have passed muster are now welcomed with open arms... and loaded weapons.

    There's a vile culture in the military today. A culture which has been corrupted by poor selection criteria and the increasing contact with "contract" personnel... mercenaries who kill not for country, but for profit! Seen the percentage of these employed in Afghanistan or how many of them were in "service" in Iraq? You may not agree but it's my belief that employing these soldiers of fortune as resulted in a decline in the standards of the military in general.

    AntwortenLöschen
  5. That may have once been the case. Today I think most soldiers enter these countries ALREADY despising and regarding these people as savage sub-humans. One only has to look at the terminology used to denigrate them: "rag-heads" and "camel jockeys" aren't exactly terms of endearment.

    AntwortenLöschen
  6. I'm a citizen of a country colonised for 200years and then guilty of colonial occupation itself. My considered opinion is that the average soldier does come from the 'dregs of society' in a volunteer army except a few who join up with patriotic stars in their eyes; people who have no other option except the army, poverty draftees. They feel trapped, hate their jobs, are looked down on by the career officers as uneducated slobs, have no stake in anything but themselves. There are those like Sgt Robert Bales, scum who would be in jail if they hadn't run off to the army. Bales has a history of fraud and assault. That said, a conscript army's no better. Even if the children of the high and mighty do serve,they're insulated from danger. (The only exception I can think of is Stalin, whose sons served at the front. One was captured and died in German captivity after Stalin himself refused a prisoner exchange offer from the Nazis.) And as for the idea that American colonial troops in Afghanistan are dying so we can have latte, I have a one word answer: Merde.

    AntwortenLöschen
  7. A look at the response column of any British or American current affairs article will show how the average vocal respondent has been trained, brainwashed and programmed to hate the vile uncivilised Muslim enemy. The soldiers drawn from a society like this are as much programmed to think of Muslims as subhuman as the Hitler Jugend were to think of Slavs, Gypsies and Jews as Untermenschen.

    AntwortenLöschen
  8. Sure, I'll give you several:


    Senator Tim Johnson (democrat, South Dakota): his son brooks did tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Senator Christopher Bond (republican, South Missouri): His Son Sam is in the Marines and served in Iraq.
    Rep. Duncan Hunter (republican, California) His son Duane is a US marine who served in Iraq. Duncan Hunter Is HIMSELF also a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Senator Joe Wilson (republican, South Carolina) has three sons in the Military: Alan, Addison, and Julian (national guard, Navy, National Guard).
    Senator James Webb (democrat, Virginia) Has a son who is a US marine with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    I could go on, but I'm getting bored; however let's not forget John McCain, John Kline, Joe Biden (yes the US Vice Prez has a son Beau Biden who did his tour in Iraq from 2008-2009), Jim Saxton, Marilyn Musgrave, Ike Skelton, and Todd Akin.


    In fact Census stats show that in general the percentage of Poilitician's children OF BOTH PARTIES in the US is slightly higher than the national average. But don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit argument.

    Most wars are Wars for profit? Sure, I'll take that premise. I'm not very fond of the flimsy rationales for US aggression in the Middle East myself. But your corollary does not follow; it is in fact a complete nonsequitur. That's a polite way of saying that it's bullshit. For one thing many men and women joined the army before either war was announced and then were honour and duty bound to fight, whether they agreed with the war or not. For another thing it's a huge supposition to suggest that the "caliber" of those who join a military be determined by goals that are deliberately obscured by war rhetoric that is increasingly well-managed and media driven.

    MIlitary entrance criteria have indeed been lowered. The standard of applicants is definitely not as high as it once was. Once deployed the environment these people are subjected to is hardly a healthy one. These are all red herrings when we talk about actual men and women on the ground. The point is that many people join for the best of reasons, reasons that have nothing to do with (e.g.) the machinations of US diplomats who want to secure strategic oil reserves. John Doe the recruit just wants a college education for his little daughter. Maybe you're right that he doesn't belong there, but he's doing the best that he can. If you fail to consider the depth and complexity of the situation when you address a problem like this in such black and white terms, you shit all over his memory.

    AntwortenLöschen
  9. Again, Bill, Selection Bias. Your "average soldier" is based on the worst examples you can come up with. I'd be willing to take this more seriously if you actually knew anyone in the army and have any kinds of records from any conversations with them to draw upon. You go ahead and do that, and I'll provide two soldiers of the type I'm describing for every one of the type you describe.

    ....I don't want to leave the impression that I'm defending Military intervention. I'm not, I hate it, and I agree with many points in the article. But I'm not a big fan of scapegoating either, or of knee-jerk lynching. The direction people are trying to stretch Margolis' arguments as presented is dehumanizing and unsettling.

    AntwortenLöschen
  10. I know plenty of people in the army, from colonel down to private soldier. But that's the Indian army - not the American.

    It may be dehumanising, but the fact is that these soldiers are systematically conditioned to hate Muslims from even before their induction; as I said, you just have to check the response columns. It's exactly the same way as the US soldiers of the Cold War era were trained to hate "Commies".

    I'll direct your attention to this article:

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/03/11/who-are-the-terrorists/

    Of course not all soldiers join to kill Muslims/Arabs. But the fact is that they do kill them, in ways that have nothing to do with combat, and only a few are brave enough to denounce the crimes. That's why we talk about people like Bradley Manning and Pat Tillman, or the soldier who outed the Kill Team. If more were like them there wouldn't be much illegal killing going on.

    AntwortenLöschen
  11. am sure there are Bill, but maybe they are scared and would like to make it out alive. they had no idea they would be working along side the likes of Bales or al Qaeda ... i am sorry i know plenty of good kids who joined military. unless you are here in this great land of free and suffering its economic conditions due to perpetual war, you really have no idea. it is very bad here, and the liberals make excuses for King Obama

    AntwortenLöschen
  12. I'll just leave a link to something I wrote last October, on the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan:

    http://bill-purkayastha.blogspot.in/2011/10/ten-years-of-operation-endless-war.html

    AntwortenLöschen
  13. Do they want to force these people into the military by starving them?

    AntwortenLöschen
  14. good question Bill, get them off the streets and use as cannon fodder what the hell do they care. they got theirs

    AntwortenLöschen
  15. oh and in the mean time they are plowing down foreclosed homes so the homeless can not live there either, which really stinks for the homeowner who was foreclosed on also. if they don't resell they keep all the debt ..

    AntwortenLöschen
  16. It is true - most people here have no idea how bad it is and are still living in the past that Americans are
    well off. They have started some documentaries about tented villages but old brainwashing dies hard.
    The penny has not dropped.

    AntwortenLöschen