The Cassini Belt
12-02-2005, 23:54
I've been reading Winston Churchill's "The River War" (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/7rivr10.txt) describing the British rule of Egypt and the various wars ending with the destruction of the Mahdi Army ("Army of the Prophet") at Omdurman. Some amazing similarities to Iraq today (yes, even the name "Mahdi Army"). It is really interesting to examine exactly what drove the British to engage in battles across half the globe, and who their enemies were. In a sense, the paralel is almost exact.
Have a look at the quotes. What do you think?
Does anyone have suggestions for other historical books that are good analogies for the present "muddle"? (that's what Churchill calls it)
Some quotes from "The River War" that sound prophetic...
"What enterprise that an enlightened community may attempt is more
noble and more profitable than the reclamation from barbarism of
fertile regions and large populations? To give peace to warring tribes,
to administer justice where all was violence, to strike the chains off
the slave..."
Indeed, what? As GWBush says "Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation." If only practice worked as well...
"The inevitable gap between conquest and dominion becomes filled with the
figures of the greedy trader, the inopportune missionary, the ambitious
soldier, and the lying speculator, who disquiet the minds of the
conquered and excite the sordid appetites of the conquerors. And as the
eye of thought rests on these sinister features, it hardly seems possible
for us to believe that any fair prospect is approached by so foul a path."
Greedy trader? Haliburton. Inopportune missionary? "They want to convert us all to Christianity"/"It's all a Zionist plot". Ambitious soldier? "We don't need more troops" Rummy. Lying speculator? "No blood for oil". We got them all, and they certainly "disquiet the minds" and "excite the sordid appetites".
"Through their policy the British were in armed occupation of Egypt.
British officers were reorganising the army. A British official supervised
the finances. A British plenipotentiary 'advised' the re-established
Tewfik. ... it was evident that Great Britain could annex the country in name
as well as in fact. But Imperialism was not the object ...
Their aim was philanthropic and disinterested. ... they
had always been resolved that the British should evacuate Egypt.
Throughout this chapter it will be seen that the desire to get out
of the country at once is the keynote of the British policy."
Hmm, sound familiar? "The desire to get out of the country at once"? It didn't prove very easy for them.
"The reforms initiated by the British Administrators had as
yet only caused unpopularity. ...
Among and beneath the rotten weeds and garbage
of old systems and abuses the new seed was being sown. But England saw
no signs of the crop; saw only the stubborn husbandmen
begrimed with the dust and dirt, and herself hopelessly involved in
the Egyptian muddle: and so in utter weariness and disgust, stopping
her ears to the gibes and cat-calls of the Powers ..."
Rewrite that as "USA ... saw itself hopelessly involved in the Iraqi *muddle*" (although we usually call it the "mess"). "Gibes and cat-calls of the Powers", indeed.
Of course what happens next in *that* story is...
"It was as though at the touch of an angel
the dark morasses of the Slough of Despond had been changed to the breezy
slopes of the Delectable Mountains. ... The bankrupt
State was spending surpluses upon internal improvement. The disturbed
Irrigation Department was vivifying the land. The derided army held the
frontier against all comers. Astonishment gave place to satisfaction,
and satisfaction grew into delight. The haunting nightmare of Egyptian
politics ended."
Which would be pretty good. How long did it take them? A mere 11 years from start to - well, not exactly end, but let's say point at which the light at the end of the tunnel could be seen. Actually the British did not withdraw for more than 40 years.
"the old Egyptian army--or, rather, such parts as had escaped
destruction--was disbanded by a single sentence of a British decree"
Yep, we did that already.
"[The British] ... adhered firmly to
the principle of entrusting the defence of a country to its inhabitants,
and it was determined to form a new Egyptian army. ... Indeed, the new army differed
greatly from the old. In the first place, it was paid. The recruits were
treated with justice. Their rations were not stolen by the officers."
Working on that now... Notice the "entrusting the defence of a country to its inhabitants" bit.
"But all [Arabs], without exception,
were hunters of men. To the great slave-market at Jedda a continual
stream of negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. ...
Thus the situation in the Soudan for several centuries
may be summed up as follows: The dominant race of Arab invaders was
unceasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among
the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and
enslaved them."
This was written about Darfur in 1880. The more things change...
Have a look at the quotes. What do you think?
Does anyone have suggestions for other historical books that are good analogies for the present "muddle"? (that's what Churchill calls it)
Some quotes from "The River War" that sound prophetic...
"What enterprise that an enlightened community may attempt is more
noble and more profitable than the reclamation from barbarism of
fertile regions and large populations? To give peace to warring tribes,
to administer justice where all was violence, to strike the chains off
the slave..."
Indeed, what? As GWBush says "Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation." If only practice worked as well...
"The inevitable gap between conquest and dominion becomes filled with the
figures of the greedy trader, the inopportune missionary, the ambitious
soldier, and the lying speculator, who disquiet the minds of the
conquered and excite the sordid appetites of the conquerors. And as the
eye of thought rests on these sinister features, it hardly seems possible
for us to believe that any fair prospect is approached by so foul a path."
Greedy trader? Haliburton. Inopportune missionary? "They want to convert us all to Christianity"/"It's all a Zionist plot". Ambitious soldier? "We don't need more troops" Rummy. Lying speculator? "No blood for oil". We got them all, and they certainly "disquiet the minds" and "excite the sordid appetites".
"Through their policy the British were in armed occupation of Egypt.
British officers were reorganising the army. A British official supervised
the finances. A British plenipotentiary 'advised' the re-established
Tewfik. ... it was evident that Great Britain could annex the country in name
as well as in fact. But Imperialism was not the object ...
Their aim was philanthropic and disinterested. ... they
had always been resolved that the British should evacuate Egypt.
Throughout this chapter it will be seen that the desire to get out
of the country at once is the keynote of the British policy."
Hmm, sound familiar? "The desire to get out of the country at once"? It didn't prove very easy for them.
"The reforms initiated by the British Administrators had as
yet only caused unpopularity. ...
Among and beneath the rotten weeds and garbage
of old systems and abuses the new seed was being sown. But England saw
no signs of the crop; saw only the stubborn husbandmen
begrimed with the dust and dirt, and herself hopelessly involved in
the Egyptian muddle: and so in utter weariness and disgust, stopping
her ears to the gibes and cat-calls of the Powers ..."
Rewrite that as "USA ... saw itself hopelessly involved in the Iraqi *muddle*" (although we usually call it the "mess"). "Gibes and cat-calls of the Powers", indeed.
Of course what happens next in *that* story is...
"It was as though at the touch of an angel
the dark morasses of the Slough of Despond had been changed to the breezy
slopes of the Delectable Mountains. ... The bankrupt
State was spending surpluses upon internal improvement. The disturbed
Irrigation Department was vivifying the land. The derided army held the
frontier against all comers. Astonishment gave place to satisfaction,
and satisfaction grew into delight. The haunting nightmare of Egyptian
politics ended."
Which would be pretty good. How long did it take them? A mere 11 years from start to - well, not exactly end, but let's say point at which the light at the end of the tunnel could be seen. Actually the British did not withdraw for more than 40 years.
"the old Egyptian army--or, rather, such parts as had escaped
destruction--was disbanded by a single sentence of a British decree"
Yep, we did that already.
"[The British] ... adhered firmly to
the principle of entrusting the defence of a country to its inhabitants,
and it was determined to form a new Egyptian army. ... Indeed, the new army differed
greatly from the old. In the first place, it was paid. The recruits were
treated with justice. Their rations were not stolen by the officers."
Working on that now... Notice the "entrusting the defence of a country to its inhabitants" bit.
"But all [Arabs], without exception,
were hunters of men. To the great slave-market at Jedda a continual
stream of negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. ...
Thus the situation in the Soudan for several centuries
may be summed up as follows: The dominant race of Arab invaders was
unceasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among
the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and
enslaved them."
This was written about Darfur in 1880. The more things change...