4,000 American deaths in Iraq; 1,000 French troops soon to come to Afghanistan; the Occupations Continue

On the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, CBC is reporting that the latest milestone in Iraq has been reached: 4,000 dead American soldiers. This is, of course, in addition to the 29,451 injuries reported by the U.S. Military (antiwar.com suggests, based on disability claims by returning veterans, that 100,000 injuries is closer to the truth).

The more things change, the more they stay the same: 1898 & 2008

It’s funny how the historical record of imperialism is treated: it can be to some people, as this CBC news article shows, both something to be criticized, and yet also something to be simultaneously proud of. This is only complicated by current developments where this ‘proud history’ is being repeated, ad nauseum, with only a minor facelift.

The article is essentially a ’support-the-troops’ story about how some Canadian soldier’s great-grandfather was in the same general area (Eastern Afghanistan, presumably) in the late 19th-century. The soldier naturally argues that what Canada is doing in Afghanistan is completely different from what the British Empire was doing in the area:

Taylor said his mission is worlds apart from the work carried out by his great-grandfather’s unit more than a century ago, as the British attempted to subdue Pashtun tribe members in a valley in modern Pakistan.

“The main difference is that when the British were here in the 1890s, it was to colonize the area against the will of the people,” he said, “whereas right now, we’re here at the behest of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan in order to provide assistance to them, in order to provide security and stability within their own country.”

The Tirah Campaign involved the retaking of the Khyber Pass between what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan from the Afridis. The Afridis had been apparently been in the employ of the British Empire (for 16 years) to hold the pass safe for imperialism; they apparently changed their mind about the situation, rose up and took the Pass for themselves. The Empire, of course, could not stand for an indigenous population controlling their own land (especially when it held such important military and economic importance) and proceeded to invade and reconquer the area.

There were, apparently, some ‘Indian princes’ working for the military commander of the expedition, as the British Raj was in effect at the time and there would have been a fair amount of collaboration by the Indian elites with the British Empire. Additionally, a number of the actual soldiers were also indigenous people. Collaboration by elites with imperialist occupying forces is one of those striking similarities between the two military campaigns, although it is interesting to see the active service of the indigenous population in the occupying military.

I cannot claim that late 19th-century imperialism is identical to early 21st-century neo-imperialism, but they are both based on the same idea: control and access to key economically- and politically-strategic resources and locations. How anyone today can still ‘take pride’ in a family history of participating in imperialism, however, is beyond me.