“Both the Mongols and the Americans used heavy bombardment to topple Baghdad, but whereas the Americans rushed into the capital in a triumphant victory celebration, the Mongols wisely decided not to enter the defeated — but still dangerous — city.â€
– a more intelligent strategy, but the writer doesn’t seem to take into account the modern day international media factor and the ‘hearts and minds’ (‘Shock & Awe’, whatever..) tactic America has tried to use on the Iraqis and on the rest of us.
Although it does seem like there was an element of that involved in the 13th Century: “When conquering Muslims, Genghis Khan always announced that Allah willed the Mongol victory as divine punishment; to resist the Mongols was to defy the will of God.â€
I think the Romans were even more devious and cunning in their strategies than Bush in a way, and I can see more similarities between them and, say, Coca Cola, McDonalds or Shell Oil than the US government, though obviously there’s a major corporate, asset stripping or controlling factor involved in the decisions behind Bush’s invasion and occupation.
The Romans appeared to be peaceful and friendly, but worked on a “We’ll let you live… if you give us all your land, money, people and anything else useful you might possibly have..†basis, which of course is still invasion and occupation but less concrete to argue with and fight against.
I don’t know much about Lincoln, but if the article is true, his approach is a lot more like Bush’s isn’t it? But again, without the International media factor Bush has to deal with. There’s the (very) small matter of the UN nowadays too, which Bush has to at least nod towards appeasement with, although as far as I can tell that’s about all he does re: them.
Lincoln also seems to have had a sight more integrity than Bush: “Even the pious Lincoln came to realize it was fruitless, even sacrilegious, to invoke God as his ally. “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God,” he lamented. “Both may be, and one must be, wrong.” As Lincoln understood: “The Almighty has his own purposes.”
Yes, with Washington the boot was on the other foot, of course. You’d think they’d learn, wouldn’t you? 🙄 â€When the British army presented itself for battle, as it did on Long Island in the summer of 1776, Washington felt honor-bound to fight — a decision that proved calamitous on that occasion and nearly lost the war at the very start.†– not a mistake that the Iraqis seem to be making! †Like the British decision to subjugate the American colonies, the Bush decision to democratize Iraq has been misguided from the start. The administration never appreciated the odds against its success, and it disastrously confused conventional military superiority with the demands imposed on an army of occupation.†– see I don’t view it quite this way. I think Bush et al knew full well that the ‘democratic process’ would be as much of a sham in Iraq as it is everywhere else, but in their never-ending modern need to justify everything, even black being white and vice versa, ‘democracy’ (which is of course no such thing) is the best and probably the only framework they have to work within. So they had no choice but to push the ‘freedom and democracy’ angle, because it’s what they pretend the West is about. None of the four leaders covered here had that to hamper them, because they were all around before ideas about ‘democracy’ being the ‘right’ way for the world to go had taken route. Leadership was still about leadership back then, not facilitation, administration and negotiation as it has to be now.
I think, given that Bush et al’s financial survival/supremacy – not to mention the global status quo – depends on a plentiful supply of oil, he had little choice but to occupy Iraq, put a puppet regime in there and start playing at democracy while the pipelines were laid and secured and the laws and deeds were rewritten to fit Western requirements.
Definitely interesting, I agree!
Also, as an aside, I have believed that we should have a republic in England (and Wales, Scotland and NI can choose their own way) since my early teens. Back then, no-one seemed to take the concept seriously (isn’t our Queen wonderful </simper>).
I am struck by the fact that given the choice between a President (like W) who talks God I would choose a King who talks to plants (like Charles) every time. So long live King Charles III, I say. 🙂
LOL! Yes me too!
But we had to chop someone’s head off before we got a monarchy we could live with (under), didn’t we? 😉
Our system of part monarchy, part democracy seems to work better than most, but I don’t like party politics. Things would obviously be better still, without whips and the selling of peerages!
And even better still if we had some real people power.
Ah well.. we can dream! 😀
Oh, interesting. Quite apart from the morals or otherwise of the war, and whether or not the authors are right about what any of those other guys would have done, I thought it fascinating that they’ve basically taken Keirsey temperament theory and applied the four relevant ‘intelligences’ (logistic, diplomatic, tactical and strategic) to the problem of the war. Fascinating. And yes, Bush’s temperament is supposedly the same as Lincoln’s was.
“Both the Mongols and the Americans used heavy bombardment to topple Baghdad, but whereas the Americans rushed into the capital in a triumphant victory celebration, the Mongols wisely decided not to enter the defeated — but still dangerous — city.â€
– a more intelligent strategy, but the writer doesn’t seem to take into account the modern day international media factor and the ‘hearts and minds’ (‘Shock & Awe’, whatever..) tactic America has tried to use on the Iraqis and on the rest of us.
Although it does seem like there was an element of that involved in the 13th Century: “When conquering Muslims, Genghis Khan always announced that Allah willed the Mongol victory as divine punishment; to resist the Mongols was to defy the will of God.â€
I think the Romans were even more devious and cunning in their strategies than Bush in a way, and I can see more similarities between them and, say, Coca Cola, McDonalds or Shell Oil than the US government, though obviously there’s a major corporate, asset stripping or controlling factor involved in the decisions behind Bush’s invasion and occupation.
The Romans appeared to be peaceful and friendly, but worked on a “We’ll let you live… if you give us all your land, money, people and anything else useful you might possibly have..†basis, which of course is still invasion and occupation but less concrete to argue with and fight against.
I don’t know much about Lincoln, but if the article is true, his approach is a lot more like Bush’s isn’t it? But again, without the International media factor Bush has to deal with. There’s the (very) small matter of the UN nowadays too, which Bush has to at least nod towards appeasement with, although as far as I can tell that’s about all he does re: them.
Lincoln also seems to have had a sight more integrity than Bush: “Even the pious Lincoln came to realize it was fruitless, even sacrilegious, to invoke God as his ally. “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God,” he lamented. “Both may be, and one must be, wrong.” As Lincoln understood: “The Almighty has his own purposes.”
Yes, with Washington the boot was on the other foot, of course. You’d think they’d learn, wouldn’t you? 🙄 â€When the British army presented itself for battle, as it did on Long Island in the summer of 1776, Washington felt honor-bound to fight — a decision that proved calamitous on that occasion and nearly lost the war at the very start.†– not a mistake that the Iraqis seem to be making!
†Like the British decision to subjugate the American colonies, the Bush decision to democratize Iraq has been misguided from the start. The administration never appreciated the odds against its success, and it disastrously confused conventional military superiority with the demands imposed on an army of occupation.†– see I don’t view it quite this way. I think Bush et al knew full well that the ‘democratic process’ would be as much of a sham in Iraq as it is everywhere else, but in their never-ending modern need to justify everything, even black being white and vice versa, ‘democracy’ (which is of course no such thing) is the best and probably the only framework they have to work within. So they had no choice but to push the ‘freedom and democracy’ angle, because it’s what they pretend the West is about. None of the four leaders covered here had that to hamper them, because they were all around before ideas about ‘democracy’ being the ‘right’ way for the world to go had taken route. Leadership was still about leadership back then, not facilitation, administration and negotiation as it has to be now.
I think, given that Bush et al’s financial survival/supremacy – not to mention the global status quo – depends on a plentiful supply of oil, he had little choice but to occupy Iraq, put a puppet regime in there and start playing at democracy while the pipelines were laid and secured and the laws and deeds were rewritten to fit Western requirements.
Definitely interesting, I agree!
“Taken route” 😆
Doh 😳
:slap:
Also, as an aside, I have believed that we should have a republic in England (and Wales, Scotland and NI can choose their own way) since my early teens. Back then, no-one seemed to take the concept seriously (isn’t our Queen wonderful </simper>).
I am struck by the fact that given the choice between a President (like W) who talks God I would choose a King who talks to plants (like Charles) every time. So long live King Charles III, I say. 🙂
LOL! Yes me too!
But we had to chop someone’s head off before we got a monarchy we could live with (under), didn’t we? 😉
Our system of part monarchy, part democracy seems to work better than most, but I don’t like party politics. Things would obviously be better still, without whips and the selling of peerages!
And even better still if we had some real people power.
Ah well.. we can dream! 😀
Surely whips do have their place, Gill. 👿
ROFL
You might very well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment 😉
I do wish the BBC would repeat House of Cards.
Me too, or (preferably and) more Michael Dobbs stuff. Starring Ian Richardson 😉
We were very taken with his performance as the voice of Death in Terry Pratchett’s “Hogfather”.
Oh I forgot, someone recorded that for me, I still have it to watch! Now.. to spend the afternoon cleaning out a cupboard, or watching Hogfather..? 😕
Watch Hogfather, it is very good. 🙂
Oh, interesting. Quite apart from the morals or otherwise of the war, and whether or not the authors are right about what any of those other guys would have done, I thought it fascinating that they’ve basically taken Keirsey temperament theory and applied the four relevant ‘intelligences’ (logistic, diplomatic, tactical and strategic) to the problem of the war. Fascinating. And yes, Bush’s temperament is supposedly the same as Lincoln’s was.