Something Napoleonic about Bush

Indian Express ^

[milestogo]

Something Napoleonic about Bush

Students and future historians, remember you read it here first

Jaithirth Rao

The last time I wrote in defence of George W. Bush I got three broad categories of feedback. The leftist dimwits were angry, apoplectic, incoherent and best ignored. My supporters, the right-thinking conservatives were complimentary in that delightful understated way which is God’s gift to us conservatives. What surprised me were the mid-fielders who wrote in telling me that while they were not in complete agreement with me (doubtless they will be if they keep buying the Indian Express and reading my columns in the right spirit!) they wanted to thank me for providing a distinct and sobering perspective.

Shrill anti-Bush fire-breathing dragons occupy so much of the op-ed space that both balance and perspective seem to often disappear.

Napoleon is known to most of us for his military and political achievements in the European arena. Jena and Austerlitz, the Code Napoleon and the Arc d’Triomphe and so on are the stuff of general knowledge. Very few people know that Napoleon invaded Egypt and Palestine. He defeated the Egyptians at the Battle of the Pyramids and his campaign at Acre was riddled with controversy. Napoleon’s intrusion into the Middle East had little lasting impact on his overall career. One could argue that it was a sideshow.

While the biographer of Napoleon may make the Egyptian campaign a footnote, the historian of the Middle East will not. Every one of them will tell you that Napoleon’s brief interlude in Egypt marked a major inflexion point in the history of that entire region. It was a military, political and cultural watershed with incalculable consequences to the collective psyche of all inhabitants. One can think of the Middle East before and after the Napoleonic shock treatment. And by the way, this goes for historians in all ideological camps — those who think of Napoleon and his army as benign as well as those who ascribe every kind of malefic design and effect to them.

I would make the argument simply as a matter of historical prophecy that Bush will go down in the same category as Napoleon in terms of his impact not only on the history of the Middle East but also in terms of the analogy that Bush’s intervention will be seen by future historians as having similar consequences — creating a discontinuity, establishing an inflexion point. And again I would appeal to persons from all ideological schools to examine this simply in terms of impact, not based on whether they think the intervention is desirable or not. And remember, contemporary students as well as future historians, you read about this first in my column!

Revolutions happen for different reasons. The fiscal bankruptcy of the “ancien regime” and the obtuse and stubborn unwillingness of the aristocracy to share power with the bourgeoisie caused the French Revolution. Comprehensive defeat in war combined with the “agony of the thousand-mile long front that even Comrade Lenin underestimated”, as Yevgraf Zhivago put it, led to the Russian Revolution. Commodore Perry’s insistent stance with the Shogun led to the end of the Shogunate and the Meiji Revolution in Japan. The aspirations of the Chinese diaspora and the discredited state of the Manchu nobility led to the Chinese Revolution of 1911. Comprehensive defeat followed by a conscious rejection of the banner of the Islamic Caliphate and the embrace of Anatolian Turkish identity made possible the Kemalist Revolution in Turkey. The direct military intervention by President George W. Bush in the Mesopotamian sands in the early years of the 21st century already seems to be gaining the contours of the event which will precipitate the yet-to-be-named revolution in the Middle East.

The physical presence of the Anglo-American coalition, the worldwide disgust with the horror of totalitarian regimes (the Baathist tyranny being merely the most egregiously sickening one), the exemplary impact of elections where actually the results turned out quite different from what the conquerors might have wanted, the ability and the willingness of the winning armies to punish the sadists among them after open trials while the regimes of the Middle East treat the existence of their own torture-chambers as matters of casual routine, the simple fact that there are a hundred newspapers and a hundred cable channels in the previously monochromatic Iraq — all of these are impacting the psyche of the much-maligned Arab street in ways that we may not be able to discern for a long time. After all, we are too close to the events and do not have the benefit of the telescope of history.

For the leader of a political party known for its inward-looking isolationist platform, for the leader of a country which has constantly debated as to whether it even wants to bother with the blood-lettings of the old world, it is quite ironic that Bush is the person making what seems to be disproportionate impact in one of the world’s oldest, most-intractable regions. Unlike Napoleon who never understood how important a role he played in Middle Eastern annals, Bush seems to be conscious of it. His speech-writers are having a field day trying to portray him as being in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson. I would only humbly say: “Ay there’s the rub”.

The moment the spin-doctors take over there is every likelihood that Bush will start moving towards a wimpish “let me please the liberal media” line. This, in my opinion, would seriously undermine the quality and the impact of his Middle Eastern intervention where, by being steadfast in his resolution, he has achieved so much both directly and indirectly. For, signs of weakness, signals of willingness to abandon compatriots, attempts to appease the extremists — these are what the Arab street is looking for. And if any of these signs are perceived, the reaction will be swift, negative and baneful from the perspective of all the well-wishers of the region. My unsolicited advice to George W. and his advisors is simply this: “Please, please do not craft a strategy, a doctrine or even a slogan, let alone an operating plan to curry favour with the liberal media. That would not only be distinctly un-Napoleonic, but I predict would go down dimly with history. As a simple rule of thumb, it might be wise to do everything that is diametrically the opposite of what the liberal media suggest!”

The writer is chairman and CEO, Mphasis. Write to him at jerryrao@expressindia.com

[oldtimer]

I read a history book about Napolean not too long ago, and as I recall he got his head handed to him in Egypt as in a rout, fled, and thousands of his soldiers got 86'd.

If this book is true then your logic dosen't hold water.

What GWB will go down in history for is to end the destroy the Grand Caliphate that Osama had in mind to unite the Arab/Muslim world against the West/Isrealis.

[King Prout]

good read. bookmarking. pinging

[billorites]

"Who said dat? Thanks."

That's a real Bush quote from 11/4/04 right after reelection when he first faced the press.

Check it out.

[krunkygirl]

save for later

[Paulus Invictus]

Great idea! Send this to Rove and company and do it fast!

[Paulus Invictus]

Great idea! Send this to Rove and company and do it fast!

[BobS]

Sometimes I use the CSUN engineering facilities and I take great fun standing behing my truck with a coffee and dognut at 8AM and making eye contact with those younger gals after they see my pro-USA stickers on the shell of my F-250 Super Duty. No words, just smiles from me:) We should buy the damn range instead of spending $4000 for a day. I work for PhD idiots. I guess students learn from PhD idiots. I am a recovering idiot:)

[Radioactive]

The poor old Rothschilds did ok out of the final battle of the Napoleonic War though

Oh Gosh....don't even bring up the Rothschilds....

You will be attacked by the Freepers who deny there is even a Rothschild family and a banking cartel.

Look Out...I'm warning you!

There are a few of the ...Oh you must be the anti Jewish banker anti semitist people who think.....type people.

It happends every time!

[Red Sea Swimmer]

I can assure you that no-one will make that claim about me.

[nothingnew]

Thanks.

Ping to myself.

FMCDH(BITS)

[kenavi]

That's a real Bush quote from 11/4/04 right after reelection when he first faced the press.

Wow,what a classic, and a nice antidote to a Napoleonic complex. Thanks.

[kenavi]

You will be attacked by the Freepers who deny there is even a Rothschild family and a banking cartel.

I never saw hide nor hair of Rothschilds banking cartel in 20+ years in NY banking. (But maybe that just shows how smart they are?)

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

"with some significant positive accomplishments"

His greatest military accomplishment was putting buttons on his army uniforms to keep them from wiping their noses on their sleeves!

[Al Simmons]

As a famous historian once wrote:

"Napoleon went out in search for virtue; finding none, he sought out power."

[MeekOneGOP]

The direct military intervention by President George W. Bush in the Mesopotamian sands in the early years of the 21st century already seems to be gaining the contours of the event which will precipitate the yet-to-be-named revolution in the Middle East.

bump! bump! bump!

[TigersEye]

It sounds like fun with the truck and donuts but you lost me with the comments about the range. Are you talking Jen-Air or Ponderosa? Either way four grand a day does seem a little steep unless it's a Jen-Air that can grill half the Ponderosa's herd at once.

FWIW all conservatives are recovering idiots whereas liberals are self-affirming idiots. Those are two of the three classes of government school products. The third being chicken little couch potatoes who don't want to be bothered with politics.

[Radioactive]

Rothschilds are behind the scene types.

They do not want you to know they even exist.

That is why you do not know why they are in all the banks in the world.

Just because you were in banking it does not neccesarily mean you needed to know the history of banking here in the US or the world.

Where I used to work, I did not know the owner of the company was connected to the maffia until I looked into his history after hearing stories about him.

After finding that out, I quit.

[kenavi]

That is why you do not know why they (Rothschilds) are in all the banks in the world.

Of course THEY are not in all the banks of the world. In the U.S., and most developed countries, public companies have to disclose identity of holders of 5% interest or more.

If you are saying that the Rothschilds hold less than 5% of all the public bank companies in the world, then good luck to them, that's a diversified portfolio that might yield them, say, 10-15% p.a. It's not Masters of the Universe.

[Bernard Marx]

Placemarker bump. Looks very interesting.