Historic Suckupness, Poor Judgment
Self-destructiveness and abandonment. History doesn’t repeat, they say, it rhymes. Badly, sure, and with poor meter. Free verse, if you like.
Guess who else went to Cairo and addressed a big historic suckup speech to the Islamic world, to no avail? Then, through ineptitude, lost the means of his own resupply, bungled the whole operation and saw the greater Islamic world turn against him anyway. Fill in the blanks:
__________ seemed to win no local supporters through his loudly proclaimed tilt to Islam. Instead, he merely witnessed the decline of his own forces. The ____________ had been emboldened by the __________ of the _________. As Nicholas the Turk put it: ‘[the people] knew for certain that the _____ had lost all hope of receiving aid from their own country … All we have to do is resist them, and we’ll be rid of them in the end, for whatever does not grow must diminish.’
No, it’s not “Obama,” “Taliban and al-Qaeda,” ”abandonment” of the “counterinsurgency strategy,” and “the Americans and their allies.”
If you guessed “Napoleon Bonaparte,” ”Egyptian resistance,” ”destruction” of the “French fleet,” and the “French,” you guessed right!
That Nick the Turk is one astute observer. I got whacked with something and spent yesterday on the couch, nose in Robert Harvey’s The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France: 1789-1815* when not dozing. Fascinating reading with not a few lessons regarding war and politics in general. Makes me wish I still had all that time to read that I used to have.
Now, Obama’s no Bonaparte. They are no matched historical set. But as you examine the totality of Obama’s career to date, there are some curious parallels. Not so much the part about being an outsider shouldering his way in … Napoleon of course was a Corsican with an Italian accent, which made him a foreigner and a provincial bumpkin though integrated into French society through political connections and education. Obama, of Kenyan and white American descent, raised in part overseas, after all was welcomed and acclaimed exactly for reasons of his minority status, due to the nation’s and his political party’s interest in recognizing and elevating minority populations. Napoleon, unlike Obama, didn’t get carried into power on the crowd’s shoulders as the second coming. He had a harder and more hazardous job manipulating political factions to achieve his ends, and when that didn’t quite put him over the top, did it by force. The parallel is more the megalomania … the operating principle that history was all about him, the notion that to defy him is to defy history … and the cockamamie political and strategic ideas that he got a chance to exercise once in power.
Another key difference. Obama, after being elected, remains short on accomplishments. Napoleon, by the time he took power and engineered a plebiscite to secure it, had accomplished a fair amount. In addition to some spectacular military victories in France and Italy, they included snowing everyone about what a great success his disastrous Egyptian expedition was. An ill-conceived mystically motivated series of massive blunders and large-scale war crimes that even shocked the 18th-century officers and soldiers he compelled to carry them out. In the end, he abandoned that part of his army he had not lost, and fled without notice, yet managed to return a hero. That guy was really something. But we’re getting ahead of our storyline. Here’s Napoleon’s big Islamo-suckup proclamation in Cairo:
In the name of God, the clement and the merciful. There is no divinity save Allah; He has no son and shares his power with no one.
In the name of the French Republic, founded on liberty and equality, the commander-in-chief of the French armies, Bonaparte [lets it be known] the beys who govern Egypt have insulted the French nation and oppressed French merchants long enough: their hour of punishment has come.
…
Peoples of Egypt, you will be told that I have come to destroy your religion. This is an obvious lie. Do not believe it! Answer back to those imposters that I have come to restore your rights and to punish the usurpers; that I worship God more than the Mamalukes do; and that I respect His Prophet Mohammed and the admirable Koran.
Tell them that all men are equal before God. Intelligence, virtue, and knowledge alone differentiate them from one another.
…
Kadis, sheiks, imams tchorbadjis and notables of the country, tell the people that the French also are true Moslems. The proof is that they have been to Rome the great and destroyed the throne of the Pope, who always incited the Christains to make war on the Moslems, and that they went to the island of Malta and expelled the Knights, who fancied that God wanted them to make war on the Moslems.
…
Happy, thrice happy are those Egyptians who side with us. They shall prosper in fortune and rank.
Napoleon’s officers even had to dissuade him from going out in a turban and kaftan, as he had become convinced he was a new Alexander, and lost sight of the practical considerations necessary to realize his vision of challenging Britain in Asia. The Moslems didn’t buy any of it.
Obama, who went to Cairo to make his own suckup speech, of course did not invade a hapless French-allied Ottoman Egypt that was busy minding its own business. Nor did Obama invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which were invaded by a prior administration compelled to address the manifest threats they posed to the United States and a geopolitically strategic region. In fact, Obama’s goal in making his speech was quite different than Napoleon’s, not to provide cover for an empire-building invasion, but to provide cover for retreat in a war of self-defense and the abandonment of vast regions to their prior state of dangerous chaos. But there is no sign the Moslems … those among them who are bent undermining the United States and its allies, that is … are buying it this time, anyway.
Obama also has not had to deal with the destruction of his fleet, as Napoleon did when, due to his own poor judgment, he left it vulnerable to Nelson who did the honors in the Battle of the Nile. Obama and the Democratic leadership of Congress appear to be intent on scuttling their army’s means of resupply and reinforcement themselves.
To dispense with Obama-Napoleon parallels for the moment, the whole story is not yet written. Napoleon had many blunders and narrow escapes and a lot of idol-worship ahead of him, as he deftly took advantage of Europe’s political divisiveness and the large, capable French republican army he had inherited and won the loyalty of while using and abusing it ruthlessly, earning a place in history that is somewhat overrated except to the extent he managed to cause trouble for more than 20 years. Unclear as yet how far Obama can run on suckupness, poor judgment, self-destructiveness and abandonment, even of historic proportions.
OK, enough ancient history. Some news and links:
At last, a critical examination of Vice President Joe Biden in his emerging role as Obama’s double-reverse Cheney … an influential vice-president who is bent on losing. New York Times notes he has a long history of being wrong, being on the wrong side of things and/or reversing himself to get on the wrong side, and generally bad ideas.
Uh oh, bad news for Biden. Investors Business Daily: Americans, in reversal, now back Afghan troop surge. Except Dems and Ron Paul, that is, Gateway adds helpfully.
Totally related, Gateway also has collected the Nobel Peace Laureate’s top quotes. Thanks for the headsup, Malkin, where commenters are being really hurtful.
Max Boot, Commentary: How we can win in Afghanistan. A quick primer on counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, what McChrystal has in mind, and what obstacles he faces. The biggest one, it turns out, is about 10,000 miles away from the AfPak theater.
Fred Kaplan, Slate: How splitting the baby can work. OK, that’s not exactly how he put it. Banks on Afghans looking on admiringly at progress within armed camps while the Taliban crow about driving out the infidels and re-establishing Karzai as mayor of Kabul. OK, that’s not exactly how he put it either. But at last check, withdrawing into armed camps where Karzai was mayor was a major lefty criticism of George Bush’s prosecution of the Afghan war.
Good news. Unlike Boney, we have the Brits on our side. UK Guardian, Brown’s ready to send more troops.
Via HotAir, Inouye changes course after Afghan trip, backs full commitment.
Washington Times: Mullahs emboldened by U.S. feebleness.
Not unrelated, Beinart at the Daily Beast, Petraeus is the GOP’s best chance. via HotAir where Allahpundit reluctantly says he may be right.
* Robert Harvey, a former conservatie MP is also a former Economist editor and Telegraph foreign affairs writer. In addition to War of Wars … in which I’m currently reading with delight Harvey’s considered and documented disparagement of the false peace of 1802-3 and the gullibility and fascination with which some people treat dictators … some other titles:
Cochrane: The Life and Exploits of a Fighting Captain Good one, if you’re interested in the intense, combative leadership and tactics of the Napoleonic War-era Royal Navy. About a star-crossed British captain that Harvey suggests may have been Nelson’s superior in boldness and tactics.
A Few Bloody Noses: The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution of which a Publisher’s Weekly reviewer wrote:
… projects a British bias but strives for balance while arguing that the Revolutionary War was more complicated than is typically understood. Specifically, Harvey aims to dispel what he terms myths, both large and small, that have persisted about the Revolution, from the idea that the war was motivated mainly by America’s “love of liberty” to the notion that Washington’s crossing of the Delaware had military significance … He examines various important battles, as well as blunders and unconscionable acts on both sides. Ultimately, Harvey proposes that the Americans were more concerned about the British blocking their westward expansion than about taxation without representation.
Sounds like an interesting, and probably worthwhile look under history’s skirt.
A Short History of Communism Booklist review:
… a concise, sharply focused account of the rise and fall of a pseudoreligion that alternatively seduced, inspired, and stifled millions of people … this outstanding survey illustrates how intelligent people can distort or even invent alternative realities to conform to a dogma.
Maverick Military Leaders: The Extraordinary Battles of Washington, Nelson, Patton, Rommel, and Others Publisher’s Weekly reviewer seems to think Harvey’s new at writing about military leadership, and thinks he stretches too hard to include Washington, Rommel and Patton in his list of mavericks, but allows it’s a lively read. Critics …
American Shogun: General MacArthur, Emperor Hirohito and the Drama of Modern Japan dust jacket copy via Amazon:
Today’s partnership between modern Japan and the United States was forged by the confrontation, and finally the reconciliation, of these two competing agendas and cultures in World War II, a drama that was defined by two men: General Douglas MacArthur and Emperor Hirohito. Under celebrated historian Robert Harvey’s scrutiny, these two iconographic figures are brought into full relief, producing a nuanced narrative as well as a revealing portrait of these extraordinary figures.
Liberators: Latin America’s Struggle for Independence also known as but not currently available as “Liberators: South America’s Savage Wars of Freedom 1810-1830,” which is a better title. Apparnelty its a rollicking ride through the characters and battles, with big picture provided.
Global Disorder: How to Avoid a Fourth World War dust jacket copy via Amazon:
Global Disorder not only examines the precarious state of world affairs in the aftermath of 9/11 but also offers far-reaching proposals for the reform of global security. In light of the emergence of the United States as the world’s first megapower, Harvey explores the sources of international tension that have increasingly commanded the attention of the West and lays out the perils inherent in the globalization of capitalism without political or economic control.
(Care to comment? Use the “contact” link to assure me you are a real human being interested in commenting on the topics at hand. Include your preferred screenname and temporary password. Lefty Kumbayah singers, moderate handwringers, meanspirited rightwingers all welcome. This is a free speech zone as long as you keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)
Topics: Afghanistan, France, Obama, history
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:01 am Comments (1) on Wednesday, October 14, 2009
One Response to “Historic Suckupness, Poor Judgment”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Once again, Mr Crittenden, thanks for digging deep into the archives to find a contemporary comparison, albeit with a new (retreat) twist. Well done,Sir.