History repeats itself. Governments / politicians / we never learn from history. We ignore history at our peril. Some of the things commonly said about the consequences of not engaging with history when decisions like going to war are made. Countless people pointed this out in relation to the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq and continue to do so. However, the planning and justifications for this particular invasion have never been countenanced by history. How could they? Who, in the Bush and Blair regimes have ever engaged with history truthfully, recent or distant, to make it influence their decision making? The only use of historical legitimacy that I noted was in that feeble declaration of support penned by Tony Blair and some of his European counterparts to make a statement of solidarity for George Bush and the US government:
“We in Europe have a relationship with the United States which has stood the test of time.
Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism.
Thanks, too, to the continued co-operation between Europe and the United States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent.”
(30 January 2003)
Presumably the last statement refers to the persistence of US-bases - sovereign American soil - on the European continent (not least the UK and its colonies). Because, we are told, history demonstrated that alliance with the Americans brings victory, Europe should continue to stand behind the US government in future conflicts as victory and glory, surely, will be guaranteed again. The ’special relationship’, cemented by Winston Churchill and revived between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan (and also taken to new levels of affection between Tony Blair and George Bush II), will be one aspect of history that will be difficult for Britain and Europe to extricate itself from. However, obviously the French and Germans did not feel their historical allegiance should force an alliance. The same can be said of Britain’s ex-colonies such as New Zealand, in spite of the moral and practical support afforded to the US by its neighbour Australia.
Clearly the invasion and war has, as many predicted it would, gone disasterously wrong. Would hindsight really have stopped the manner in which Iraq was invaded and occupied? Would that the US, UK and its allies in Iraq have understood better the history and consequences of past conflicts, they might never have embarked on this madness. I argue not. For history to count, for the wisdom and experience it brings to give weight to political decisions, it has to be debated openly, honestly and publically.
Yesterday, I was forwarded a very interesting article by George Monbiot which also appears in today’s Guardian. Writing about the appauling treatment of Irish civilians during the Irish War of Independence or Anglo-Irish War (c.1919-1921), Monbiot draws parallels between the cold-blooded killings and torture (widely attested) afforded by the Black and Tans or Royal Irish Constabulary to innocents and to those who even deigned to walk about with hands in their pockets, and the similar treatment dished out to Iraqi civilians by US soldiers in Iraq. Monbiot quotes a US veteran from Iraq: “On Sunday another veteran told the Observer that cold-blooded killings by US forces “are widespread. This is the norm. These are not the exceptions.” ” Like the Black and Tans then, the US troops, for now, are unlikely to face much in the way of punishment. He ends his piece by cautioning: “Occupations brutalise both the occupiers and the occupied. It is our refusal to learn that lesson which allows new colonial adventures to take place. If we knew more about Ireland, the invasion of Iraq might never have happened.”
If only that were true. If only those who understood change and therefore understood history were in power, such an idea as invading Iraq might never have been brought to the table. We don’t know and not all historians were against the idea of regime change. In any case, historians are not in charge of the country, nor do they have a prominent place in providing government advice. Even as academics they are barely valued as crucial to the fabric of society. During this year’s Reuter Lecture, ‘Historians and public intellectuals: Theodor Mommsen and Fustel de Coulanges’ at the University of Southampton (5 June 2006), Prof. Patrick Geary stressed the crucial role historians have to play in continually pointing out and correcting the mis-use of history, especially by politicians. However they also have a role in making comment about the present without needing to draw on their own academic work. Neither Theodor Mommsen nor Fustel de Coulanges drew upon their subjects of expertise (classical and medieval history) in their debates about the ownership of Alsace-Lorraine during the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71).
It is in our (historians’) capacity to understand people and change that makes us essential commentators and critics of the world in which we live in today. Merely knowing and highlighting past events will seldom change decisions made in the present day. Yes, we can point to historical examples to bolster our arguments but it is the arguments themselves that have to stand firm on their own, and persuade. We have to demonstrate that honest intellectual debate, engaged in by anyone who has anything sensible to say, is the only sturdy counter-balance to wayward governments. However, like this person who seems to comtemplate himself in the mirror in this red-figure ware Greek vase, any historian - or anybody else - wishing to partake in such debates, first needs understand him/herself before they can seek answers about the past or indeed the present.