HISTORY IS NOT ON AMERICA'S SIDE
James O. Goldsborough 
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE  
April 7, 2003 

Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, predicts war in Iraq will produce "a hundred new 
bin Ladens."
As U.S. forces move in for the kill in Baghdad, Americans need to focus on the 
consequences of this war.
One consequence, the supreme irony, would be if Mubarak is right and this putative war 
against terrorism unleashes more terrorism. Tom Ridge, the head of homeland security, 
warned of the same thing. Terrorism will not be an unintended consequence of war, but is 
an anticipated consequence.
This is a war of contradictions. Once again, America is invading a country in pursuit of 
one man, but what makes Iraq different from Afghanistan is that Osama bin Laden 
attacked us. The people we are killing in Iraq did nothing to us. Their crime: defending 
their country. Another difference is that bin Laden was a foreigner in Afghanistan. The 
foreigners in Iraq are Americans and British.
The Muslims who supported America against al-Qaeda and in the first Gulf War oppose 
us today. "When it is over, if it is over," Mubarak told Egyptian soldiers last week, "this 
war will have horrible consequences."
Many Bush supporters foresee these horrible consequences and welcome them. The 
opposition of Muslims, the undercutting of the United Nations, the weakening of NATO, 
the possibility of war spreading into other Middle East nations and provoking terrorism, 
are all seen as acceptable costs in remaking the Middle East.
The difference between Mubarak's scenario and those painted by Bush stalwarts such as 
Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle is that the stalwarts think America can re-create the 
Middle East. We will pacify Iraq, tame the Palestinians, weaken authoritarian regimes in 
Egypt, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, which eventually will be swept away by a tide of 
Muslim democracy.
The scenario is so far-fetched as to be delusional, but it is the reason America is at war 
with Iraq.
There is a problem of history. The foreign presence has never been welcome in the 
Middle East, and foreign invaders – and foreign imposed leaders – have never prevailed. 
Even tiny Lebanon has found ways of driving out foreigners, as it did with American, 
French and Italian peacekeepers in 1982. The bombing of a military barracks near Beirut 
in 1983 took 241 American lives.
The British experience in Iraq is a better example. Britain captured Baghdad from the 
Turks in World War I and (along with the French) betrayed the Arabs who had fought 
with them on the promise of independence. London had other ideas, and when the Iraqis 
objected to replacing one empire with another, the British bombed their towns to subdue 
them. They installed a king (Faisal), who was Saudi, and whose grandson (Faisal II) was 
murdered in 1958 by the same republican guards who are now fighting for Saddam 
Hussein.
Why did the British want Iraq? The answer is found in the 1925 agreement establishing 
the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), controlled by the British (the French had a 25 percent 
interest), which received a concession for 75 years. The republicans who overthrew 
Faisal II in 1958 revoked the concession and nationalized Iraqi oil in 1961. Without their 
1956 fiasco at Suez against Egyptians, the French and British would have been sorely 
tempted to invade Iraq to save their oil.
This time the British are bit players. Washington will not impose a Saudi prince on Iraq 
as London did, but will name a proconsul, Jay Garner, who will report to the 
commandant, Gen. Tommy Franks. Wolfowitz, already called "Wolfowitz of Arabia" 
will run the protectorate from the Pentagon. Are you ready for an American empire on 
the Tigris? The Romans, British and French had Middle East empires, so why not the 
American democracy with Bush as the new Caesar?
A new oil company will be created to serve U.S. price purposes and perhaps leave a little 
left over for rebuilding Iraq in Western ways. If we didn't know of the British experience 
under Faisal and other examples, we might even think the Bush plan could work.
Recall the Iran experience. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (today BP) like the IPC, 
gave Britain oil rights in Iran. When a nationalist leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, 
nationalized the company, British and U.S. intelligence mounted a 1953 plot to 
overthrow him and make the pro-Western shah all-powerful. The plan worked for a 
while, until the shah's increasingly repressive regime was overthrown by Shia 
fundamentalists in 1979.
Foreign plans for remaking the Middle East and laying hands on its oil have always been 
grandiose but don't have a great history of success. While the Muslims always lack the 
resources to defeat Western armies, in resistance and terrorism they have developed 
weapons that impose a terrible cost on the invader.
Bin Laden cited the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, his native land, as his motive 
for Sept. 11, 2001. If the presence of Americans in Saudi Arabia – where we are the 
invited guests of the regime – provokes a crime such as Sept. 11, what is in store for us as 
the illegitimate occupiers of Baghdad?
Mubarak may be wrong, but history is on his side.