Napoleon Bonaparte and W
Well, I found this interesting article in the Nation that draws an interesting parallel between the wars of Napoleon and Bush's war in Iraq. Of course, I believe that Napoleon was much more intelligent than W. But some references in the article are very interesting and reminiscent of the similarities of time. A couple of examples:
[The French general and the American president do not much resemble one another--except perhaps in the way the prospect of conquest in the Middle East appears to have put fire in their veins and in their unappealing tendency to believe their own propaganda.]
[Both men were convinced that their invasions were announcing new epochs in human history. Of the military vassals of the Ottoman Empire who then ruled Egypt, Bonaparte predicted: "The Mameluke Beys who favor exclusively English commerce, whose extortions oppress our merchants, and who tyrannize over the unfortunate inhabitants of the Nile, a few days after our arrival will no longer exist.]
And this is how the article concludes:
[It is no accident that many of the rhetorical strategies employed by George W. Bush originated with Napoleon Bonaparte, a notorious spinmeister and confidence man. At least Bonaparte looked to the future, seeing clearly the coming breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the likelihood that European Powers would be able to colonize its provinces. ......Bush's neocolonialism, on the other hand, swam against the tide of history, and its failure is all the more criminal for having been so predictable.]
Anyway, the historical parallels are unexpected, remarkable, and shocking. History clearly repeats itself over and over. However, I think there is a distinct difference in the wars of these men. Napoleon was a sophisticated and strong leader that ultimately failed because he was overambitious. Bush is not a leader. I don't think he understands what he is doing. He is someone that by his own admission believes that "God drives his actions". He lives in a religious cloud and his actions are in reality controlled and driven by others who represent corporations and other financial interests. And that is why Bush and his ridiculous war in Iraq failed so quickly and so obviously.
[The French general and the American president do not much resemble one another--except perhaps in the way the prospect of conquest in the Middle East appears to have put fire in their veins and in their unappealing tendency to believe their own propaganda.]
[Both men were convinced that their invasions were announcing new epochs in human history. Of the military vassals of the Ottoman Empire who then ruled Egypt, Bonaparte predicted: "The Mameluke Beys who favor exclusively English commerce, whose extortions oppress our merchants, and who tyrannize over the unfortunate inhabitants of the Nile, a few days after our arrival will no longer exist.]
And this is how the article concludes:
[It is no accident that many of the rhetorical strategies employed by George W. Bush originated with Napoleon Bonaparte, a notorious spinmeister and confidence man. At least Bonaparte looked to the future, seeing clearly the coming breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the likelihood that European Powers would be able to colonize its provinces. ......Bush's neocolonialism, on the other hand, swam against the tide of history, and its failure is all the more criminal for having been so predictable.]
Anyway, the historical parallels are unexpected, remarkable, and shocking. History clearly repeats itself over and over. However, I think there is a distinct difference in the wars of these men. Napoleon was a sophisticated and strong leader that ultimately failed because he was overambitious. Bush is not a leader. I don't think he understands what he is doing. He is someone that by his own admission believes that "God drives his actions". He lives in a religious cloud and his actions are in reality controlled and driven by others who represent corporations and other financial interests. And that is why Bush and his ridiculous war in Iraq failed so quickly and so obviously.
<< Home