History repeats itself, that’s the ironic part. For starters let’s compare the Boer War (both 1st and 2nd Boer Wars) to the last Iraq War.
The Boer war started due to a mix of Imperial interests in Africa, the wealth in the ground in the Boer republics – Gold and the perceived threat to the mainly British citizens working in the Boer Republics on the mines (this part was based on very ‘emotional’ grounds and less on reality – but it was the ‘Casus Belli’ – justified case – for war). The Iraq war started due to a mix of USA interests in the Gulf, the wealth in the ground – Oil, and the perceived threat to Americans and Israelis (or ‘the world’) from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (entirely fabricated but also the ‘Casus Belli’ for war).
All war is for ‘economic’ benefit, and the Boer and Iraq wars are no different. The subjective and emotional reasons given for the war –mainly that of ‘threat, oppression and persecution’ to minority groups in each case is no different. Like the USA in the modern day context (citing oppression by the Iraqis of Kurds, Christians, Kuwaitis), Great Britain also put it’s case forward to the ‘world’ (citing oppression by the Boers of British, American, European miners) and in both instances the war was passed off as entirely legitimate once it ended for these same reasons … the ‘Casus Belli’ had been made.
In Iraq, America remained as an occupier after the war – Great Britain did the same in South Africa after the Boer War– and in both instances the rational given to the ‘world’ was the reconstruction of the state both economically and politically until it’s perceived ‘threat’ was removed and the country was moulded in a likeness of themselves i.e. … more palatable ‘less aggressive’ version to the ‘world’. In both instances they attempted coalition political parties to govern the country as a means to gradually withdraw from direct governance, but retain influence – and in both instances injecting huge economic aid into both to ‘reconstruct’ it in their likeness.
In both instances, civilians where oppressed and randomly imprisoned as a means of removing support to guerilla cells. In the case of South Africa it was curtail supply to ‘Boer Fighters’ and in Iraq it was to curtail supply to ‘terrorist cells’ (the irony and the truth is that both these guerilla groupings where local and ethnically based). In both instances civilians where exploited to achieve these military objectives.
Oil in 1990 is to Gold in 1900. On the economic front the ‘world’ was presented a case that ‘aggressive’ states where not allowed to be in charge of the world economy as they hold the ‘key’ to it, and these states needed to be removed to ensure worldwide economic stability – this was argued by the USA in 1990 and by Great Britain in 1900 with a similar outcome and support to both.
The Iraq war – lets face it the whole WMD thing was a complete farce and millions of people where affected and will be for years to come, and whose kidding whom it was about Oil at the end of the day – same thing with the Boer War, an emotionally flawed reason for war, millions of people affected for years to come, and whose kidding whom it was about Gold really.
In summary, the cruel thing about history is that it repeats as it is the human condition that guides it. The reasons for war are always economic but they are guided by emotional convictions (religion, political dogma, ethic oppression, human persecution etc etc). The even crueler thing about both Iraq and South Africa is that ‘world’ opinion will always justify the war because of the strong cases put forward before and after the war by the victor (albeit very flawed cases). For this reason it is very unlikely that the USA will be compensating Iraqi families 110 years after the war and apologising, the same is also true of Great Britain and South Africa