Lessons Learned from History - The Mongolian/American Invasion of Iraq

[Vince Noir]

Karl Marx stated that “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

I recently read an article by Amir Butler who points out the similarities between the Mongolian Invasion and the American Invasion of Iraq, and the lessons that one can learn from History. It may be nothing more than tenous parallels, but interesting nonetheless - some hilarious similarities. Please do no think I hold the opinion that the USA is comparable to that of Mongolians c.1250.

In 2004 CBS's Sixty Minutes II program showed footage of American soldiers creating human pyramids from detained Iraqis. However, it should be remembered that Iraqis, and indeed Muslims in general, are no strangers to human pyramids. The last time that such pyramids were built in the region was in the 13th century when the hordes of Hulagu Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan, sacked Iraq. After massacring entire towns and villages, they would assemble huge pyramids of human skulls as a reminder and warning that the Mongols were passing through. One can presume that similar sentiments – a need to send a "message" to would-be "insurgents" – underpin American atrocities in the region today.


The Mongol invasion began like the American invasion: with a disgruntled Shi'ite upstart aspiring to greatness. The Ahmad Chalabi of the 13th century was a character called Ibn al-'Alqami. Al-'Alqami was a minister in the court of the Caliph al-Musta'sim. Like Chalabi, al-'Alqami had desires of leadership of the land and, like Chalabi, he was not above soliciting the assistance of foreign powers to help – even if that assistance would come at great cost to his people or his nation. America was not a superpower in al-Alqami's time so he turned his attentions to the Mongols.


Al-'Alqami wrote a number of letters to the leader of the Mongols, Hulagu Khan, inviting him to invade the land, promising' his support and offering "intelligence" on the Caliph's armies, their strengths and weaknesses, and the overall lay of the land. It would, he assured the Mongols, be a cakewalk and within a short space of time the Mongol Empire could be extended into the previously impervious core of the Muslim Caliphate. At the same time, Al-'Alqami used his position to influence the Caliph to reduce the size of the army thus ensuring that the Mongol invasion would be guaranteed little resistance.


Hulagu accepted al-'Alqami's generous invitation to attack, pillage, and massacre. As per Mongol custom, he first issued a written threat to the Caliph: "When I lead my army against Baghdad in anger, whether you hide in heaven or in earth, I will bring you down from the spinning spheres; I will toss you in the air like a lion. I will leave no one alive in your realm; I will burn your city, your land, your self. If you wish to spare yourself and your venerable family, give heed to my advice with the ear of intelligence. If you do not, you will see what God has willed. Demonstrating what many conservatives might lament as the overall cultural decline since the 13th century, America sends her message to Iraqi insurgents by blasting AC/DC's "Hell's Bells" at them:


"If you're into evil you're a friend of mine,
See my white light flashing as I split the night,
'cause if God's on the left, then I'm stickin' to the right,
I won't take no prisoners, won't spare no lives,
Nobody's puttin' up a fight,
I got my bell, I'm gonna take you to hell,
I'm gonna get you, Satan get you.
Hell's Bells, Satan's comin' to you.
Hell's Bells, he's ringing them now.
Hell's Bells, the temperature's high.
Hell's Bells, across the sky.
Hell's Bells, they're takin' you down.
Hell's Bells, they're draggin' you around.
Hell's Bells, gonna split the night.
Hell's Bells, there's no way to fight, yeah."


Indeed.


The Caliph wasn't going to be intimidated. He refused the Mongol offer to surrender and decided to defend his city against their onslaught. While the Muslim armies put up a good fight, the reduced size of the army (due to the machinations of al-'Alqami) meant that they were no match militarily for the Mongols. Hulagu's armies killed everyone they found – the elderly, the infirm, the women, and the children. Nobody was spared their sword. Ibn Kathir, one of the scholars of Islamic History noted in his magnum opus, Bidaaya wa Nihaya, that the Mongols killed so many people that blood would be running down the street like rainwater. By some estimates, the number of dead exceeded 1 million.


After taking Baghdad the decision had to be made as to what would be done with the Caliph. The Mongols had a superstition which prevented them from spilling the blood of kings onto the earth. Al-'Alqami had no such qualms and suggested that rather than kill his leader with a sword, they should roll him and his family in carpet and then kick them to death. Al- Alqami volunteered for the task and proceeded to kick his former employer till he died. The Mongol Coalition of the Willing became strained at this brazen rejection of Mongol International Law. Berek Khan, a Mongol leader who had converted to Islam some years prior, pulled his men out of Baghdad in protest.



The death of the Caliph ushered in a new era of Mongol-imposed brutality on the majority Sunni population (back then, the Shi'a were still a minority in Iraq). However for all their cruelty, viciousness and relatively barbaric rules of engagement, the Mongols were pragmatic. They realized that men like al-'Alqami that would sell their people and nation to a foreign invader couldn't be trusted. If a man holds no loyalty to his own people, then how can he be trusted to hold loyalty to an invader and occupier? Al-'Alqami had hoped to be the Mongol's vicegerent in the region, but instead he became their slave. The sidelining of Chalabi would suggest that America has come to a similarly informed conclusion about the long-term usefulness of traitors, quislings and fifth columnists.


The Mongols understood what America is now learning: that the principle source of resistance to occupation of Muslim lands will always be religiously inspired. Therefore, any effort to dilute or subvert the practice of Islam in the lands under occupation was seen by the Mongols as a pre-requisite to maintaining the occupation. They therefore imposed a law over their subjects, which – like the law being conjured up by the US-led occupation – was essentially non-Islamic but couched into vague references and pseudo-Islamic terminology. The Mongols called their law al-Yasiq.


It is against this backdrop of occupation and foreign laws imposed on the population that one of the most influential and important figures in Islamic history would emerge. His name would be familiar to many people who follow the War on Terror, given that he is widely (though somewhat inaccurately) credited with having laid the ideological foundation for the so-called Wahabi movement. His name was Ibn Taymeeyah, or Sheikh-ul-Islam (The Scholar of Islam) as he has been affectionately known throughout the ages. When faced with the imposition of the Mongol's foreign systems of government and laws on the Muslim population, he rallied against the Mongols and those who had supported them, declaring that whoever implemented such laws was a disbeliever in Islam: "Whoever does this is an infidel who must be fought until he returns to the rule of Allah and His messenger. So no one other than He should rule neither minorly or majorly." This was the first time that a foreign system of belief had been forced on the heartland of the Muslim world, and Ibn Taymeeyah's lengthy fatwa provides the theological underpinning for Muslim resistance to man-made laws in every country in the Muslim world. He concluded by stating that defending the Muslim lands and expelling the occupying army is the second most important obligation of a Muslim after believing in Allah.


The reluctance of the Muslims to be satisfied with Mongol law presented a dilemma to their Mongol rulers. As long as the population was denied that right of self-determination, including determination of the laws by which they are governed, the Mongols could not subdue the population completely. At the same time, if the Muslims were ever granted this right then it would mean the instant end to Mongol hegemony in the region. Indeed, it was this desire to re-establish an Islamic state that drove every instance of Sunni resistance to Mongol rule from the moment they entered Baghdad. Today, it is this same desire that lies at the heart of the political instability in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria, and most every country in the Arab world that has chosen secularism as its political path. The inescapable fact is that a Muslim cannot accept secularism without leaving his religion. As a complete way of life, Islam has no concept of "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." For this reason, the Bush Administration's attempt to force the round pegs of secular democracy into the square holes of Middle Eastern society is certain to fail and draw the same violent resistance as would the forcible imposition of shariah law on the United States.


By subduing Iraq, the Mongols also came to learn that the Islamic world isn't divided on the basis of nation-state or geographic region. The Prophet Muhammad described the Muslim world as a single unit and likened it to the human body in that if one part feels pain then all feels the pain. For this reason, when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and built human pyramids with the remains of the city's scholars and poets, it was as though that brutality had been meted out on the entire Muslim world. When Muslims in Jakarta, Sarajevo, Riyadh or Tunis see the scenes of American brutality in Iraq, it is as though it is being done to them. When they see photographs of Iraqi men being forced into simulated oral sex alongside grinning American servicemen and women, the rage they feel is as if that act was carried out on their own brother or their own father. Occupations cannot be maintained without subduing the population – whether physically, economically or psychologically – so the more that America continues its occupation, the more it will be forced to engage in brutality and the more that this brutality reaches the eyes of the Muslim world, the less secure that the world becomes for Americans and, indeed, Westerners in general. It doesn't matter how many times President Bush appears on Arab television offering mealy-mouthed apologies and assurances that the sexual humiliation meted out to the Iraqis, the brutality, and the sadism is not representative of America. The fact is that Arabs and Muslims like most people will judge President Bush and America not on what they say, but on what they do.


The turning point for the Mongol occupation came in September, 1260 when they had moved into Palestine. The Mamluks, a Muslim nation based in Egypt, had sent an army to confront them. Led by a general named Quduz, the army met the Mongols at a place called Ayn Jalut (Eye of Goliath) in Palestine. They would number 20,000 on each side, but the Mamluks would defeat the Mongols impressively, inflicting heavy losses on them and sending shockwaves throughout their empire. It was a turning point for the Muslims and broke the spell of Mongol invincibility.



After the captured leader of the Mongol armies was brought to Quduz, he told him:"Despicable man, you have shed so much blood wrongfully, ended the lives of champions and dignitaries with false assurances, and overthrown ancient dynasties with broken promises. Now you have finally fallen into a snare yourself."


The despicable men of the Bush Administration, so infatuated with their own messianic vision for the democratic revolution, so intoxicated with the hubris of empire, and so enslaved to the neo-Jacobin vision of "creative destruction" have fallen into the snare of thinking that they can do what no other society has been able to do: violently impose a foreign ideology on the Muslim world. The Administration seems to be clumsily treading a path well worn by the Mongols – from the "human pyramids" to the modern-day Yasiq to the rise of religious fundamentalism in response to occupation excesses. It took two years between the fall of the Caliphate in Baghdad to the defeat of the Mongols in Ayn Jalut. America has yet to meet her Ayn Jalut, but as the Muslim world continues to seethe and violence in Iraq escalates, that day may be fast approaching.

[Chaigidel]

wow that is one of the most magnificently stupid things I have ever seen set into words.

[Vince Noir]

wow that is one of the most magnificently stupid things I have ever seen set into words.

Chaigdel, first of all you don't have to comment.
Secondly, I posted this at 5.48. I then had to edit the content, thus it was not visable until 5.49. Given the length of the article and time it takes for you to reply, you didn't even read it did you?

Thought not.

[Dr. Croccer]

Parallels, but nothing more.

[Vince Noir]

Parallels, but nothing more.

An interesting article nonetheless, I've spent most of the day reading over the effects of expanionism in the middle east. And I found some of the comparisons hilarious.

I read extremely fast actually I did read it, though I probably should not have done it the dignity-- the comparisons are completely invalid, juvenile, and basically incorrect.

Don't lie. It is impossible to read it that fast, particulalry for you.

[Aetius]

Very weak comparison.

Mongols were ruthless brutal conquerors who really had no goal for Iraq's future.

Yes they were both invaders, but how they went about that is much different. Nevertheless, history should always be examined before commiting an act in the present. Wat lesson did we learn from the Mongols? Control expansion, centralize government, and develop your lands for economic productivity to avoid imininent collapse.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Mongols were ruthless brutal conquerors who really had no goal for Iraq's future.

Of Iraq, Proably, but Overall, Hell no! They did more things for the modern world now then half the Empires around in the timespan of 1000-1900.

[Chaigidel]

I read extremely fast actually I did read it, though I probably should not have done it the dignity-- the comparisons are completely invalid, juvenile, and basically incorrect.

[Dr. Croccer]

I read extremely fast actually I did read it, though I probably should not have done it the dignity-- the comparisons are completely invalid, juvenile, and basically incorrect.

Delicious hypocrisy.

[Pickle_mole]

Delicious hypocrisy.

that made my giggle

[Chaigidel]

how is my statement hypocritical croccer> or is that just a word you learned?

@vince again it is an article which no doubt appeals to you because of your "unique" mental capability.

[Ummon]

The Mongols, later also, converted to Islam...

[Vince Noir]

Very weak comparison.

Mongols were ruthless brutal conquerors who really had no goal for Iraq's future.

Yes they were both invaders, but how they went about that is much different. Nevertheless, history should always be examined before commiting an act in the present. Wat lesson did we learn from the Mongols? Control expansion, centralize government, and develop your lands for economic productivity to avoid imininent collapse.

Jesus, hardly anyone read the entire article. If you had, you would have read the comparisons the article mentions, as tenous as they may be.

There is not a complete comparison between the Mongols and the USA, that is a pretty obvious deduction. However the comparions it does make, are pretty spot on and somewhat humerous. I.e - human pyramids.

The Mongols, later also, converted to Islam...

No one is saying they did not.

how is my statement hypocritical croccer> or is that just a word you learned?

@vince again it is an article which no doubt appeals to you because of your "unique" mental capability.

Chaigidel, when you manage to gain a shred of decency, and you actually read an article before commenting, and manage to stop your pathological lying - then comment.

[Ummon]

And no one is saying that anyone is saying they did not.

[Vince Noir]

And no one is saying that anyone is saying they did not.

You've yet to refute my argument that Atheism is not a dogma Ummon.The definitions are relevant/accurate and the logic infallible.

[Ummon]

You've yet to refute my argument that Atheism is not a dogma Ummon.The definitions are relevant/accurate and the logic infallible.

Off topic, and sincerely somewhat ridiculous, don't you think? The fact that you find the logic infallible, and the definition accurate, is not a good sign.

And, I reiterate, off topic.

[Vince Noir]

Off topic, and sincerely somewhat ridiculous, don't you think? The fact that you find the logic infallible, and the definition accurate, is not a good sign.

And, I reiterate, off topic.

1) The logic is similar deduction you regulalry make in many of your posts, the imperfect nature of humans

2)If it is not infallible, why cast it aside with definitions. As you seemed to have discarded every definition thrown at you on the grounds that it is not ther 'correct' one. Who decides the definition Ummon, why do you decide? Why do you say it is not? I say it is.

[Chaigidel]

wait wait wait

you are saying that the comparison to making prisoners stack like cheerleaders is akin to stacking a hundred thousand skulls in the center of town.

thats the dumbest comparison in the entire article !

[Vince Noir]

wait wait wait

you are saying that the comparison to making prisoners stack like cheerleaders is akin to stacking a hundred thousand skulls in the center of town.

thats the dumbest comparison in the entire article !

Of course it was not literal.

[motiv-8]

The Mongol invasion began like the American invasion: with a disgruntled Shi'ite upstart aspiring to greatness.

Um, no. The exiled resistance to Saddam was composed of both Sunnis and Shi'a, and disgruntled Iraqis included all parts of the society.

Moreover, "Iraq" didn't exist in the Thirteenth Century, and the caliph was in no way similar to Saddam Hussein either in person or in office.

What we have here is a historical farce manipulated to serve a half-baked political agenda, and the article itself looks like it's dated from several years ago. Hey nevermind that millions of Iraqis are participating in democracy; 'em, my opinion is the right one!