U.S. and British Invasion of Iraq: Historical Parallels
This paper examines the historical parallels between the 1917 British-led invasion of Iraq and the 2003 joint U.S.-British invasion, drawing on Libby Copeland's Washington Post analysis. It compares the use of "liberation" rhetoric in both eras, the role of oil and strategic interests, and the pattern of installing compliant regimes. The paper also considers key differences between the two invasions, including Iraq's evolved national identity, and argues that both interventions primarily served Western geopolitical interests rather than the genuine well-being of the Iraqi people.
- Introduction: Two Invasions, One Rhetoric: Shared liberation rhetoric in 1917 and 2003
- Oil, Control, and Western Interests: Oil and control driving both Western invasions
- From Ottoman Ousting to Puppet Regimes: British mandate, King Faisal, and indirect rule
- Ethnic Divisions and Iraqi Mistrust: Sectarian divides and distrust of Western rule
- Differences Between 1917 and 2003: Key distinctions between the two invasion contexts
- Conclusion: History Repeating Itself: Western interests override Iraqi sovereignty again
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a single, focused primary source to anchor a comparative historical argument, demonstrating how one journalistic analysis can support a sustained academic claim.
- Balances similarities and differences between the two invasions, showing intellectual honesty by acknowledging counterpoints before reinforcing the thesis.
- Employs specific historical details — the League of Nations mandate, King Faisal I, and the 1958 coup — to ground abstract claims about colonial control in concrete evidence.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of historical analogy as an argumentative framework. By systematically mapping events from 1917 onto 2003 — troop movements, rhetoric, regime installation, and ethnic divisions — the author builds a cumulative case that Western motivations have remained consistent across nearly a century. This technique shows how historical comparison can reveal patterns that purely contemporary analysis might miss.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by introducing the historical parallel and the shared "liberation" rhetoric, then deepens the comparison through specific topics: oil interests, colonial governance, and ethnic fragmentation. A dedicated paragraph acknowledges genuine differences between the two eras, lending credibility to the argument. The conclusion returns to the thesis, reinforcing the claim that Western powers prioritize control over the welfare of the Iraqi people.
Introduction: Two Invasions, One Rhetoric
In an April 6, 2003 Washington Post article, Libby Copeland writes about the striking historical parallels between the 1917 British-led invasion of Iraq and the 2003 joint British- and United States-led attack. In the early twentieth century, Iraq was ruled by the Ottomans, who, like Saddam Hussein, ruled with an iron fist. The Iraqi people wanted the Ottomans out, enabling the British to capitalize on the propaganda of "liberation." In fact, the rhetoric in 1917 was the same as it was in 2003. British General Stanley Maude used the word "liberators" to justify the British cause. Similarly, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and most other government officials called the invasion an effort to "liberate" the Iraqi people.
Oil, Control, and Western Interests
However, the Iraqis did not see it that way, especially since their own history points to the truth. The British remained in Iraq for decades after they captured Baghdad, using the nation as a stronghold for their burgeoning oil interests and as a strategic passage to India. Things had not changed much in nine decades: Iraqi oil remained high on the agenda of both Great Britain and the United States in their most recent attempt to "liberate" Iraq.
The key word in both the 1917 British invasion and the 2003 invasion is control, according to James Zogby, President of the Arab-American Institute. The recent invasion of Iraq was just one more attempt by the Western powers to control the region in service of their own interests. The well-being of the Iraqi people was not as much a consideration as these governments would have had the public believe.
From Ottoman Ousting to Puppet Regimes
Once the British ousted the Ottomans, they installed a puppet regime that allowed them to maintain control over Iraq for four decades. The League of Nations gave Great Britain a mandate to rule Iraq in 1920, and the Iraqis revolted. In 1921, the British government placed King Faisal I in power, establishing a constitutional monarchy with strong ties to Great Britain. Iraq gained independence in 1932, but the British remained in indirect control until 1958, following a coup against the British-allied government.
The 1917 British invasion of Iraq progressed along remarkably similar lines to the 2003 war. British troops first entered Basra in the south and proceeded north to seize Baghdad; coalition troops in 2003 followed a nearly identical path. Furthermore, Iraq was just as divided along ethnic and tribal lines then as it was during the more recent conflict. The Shiite majority was dominated by a substantial elite Sunni minority. Copeland notes that these divisions existed even within the exiled Iraqi community.
Conclusion: History Repeating Itself
The 2003 invasion of Iraq served the needs of the American and British superpowers, not those of the Iraqi people. Iraqis recognized the "familiar arrogance" of the American approach, which mirrored what had happened almost a century before. The Iraqi people feared that history was repeating itself, and that the Western powers would continue to impose foreign values on a sovereign nation.
Works Cited
Copeland, Libby. "For Iraq: Deja vu All Over Again: 'Liberators' Have Been There Before, and Stayed for Decades." Washington Post. 6 Apr. 2003: F01.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.