Dispatches On War (Part IX)

Re: bjkumar # 21

To be quite honest, I had never thought of Kashmir in terms of California, as you suggested.

As to Kashmir, I am more interested in getting on with my life than I am in Kashmir or anything to do with Kashmir. Too much time and too many generations have been wasted on the issue of Kashmir and one generation MUST make the choice of putting their own future ahead of their parent`s past and as long as the future generations continue to fight the battles of their ancestors, nothing much will happen to solve the commons problems confronting all of us in India and Pakistan.


Ciao

Feroz,

A little bit off-topic, and I am unsure how much you have delved into this topic - do you see certain analogies between the US capture of California and the Indian capture of Kashmir (minus the religious fervor and a few other smaller differences). I sometimes get the feeling that over time, like the Californians, the Kashmir people will also come to appreciate that it was a GOOD thing for them to be grabbed?

Will you consider writing an article on that topic?

Re: # 16
Feroz
One might argue that the wars fought for Texas was for territorial gains. Again it is difficult to pin it down especially with Houston et al wanting an Independent state, but somebody in the US Government must have thought that, that bit of land was worth a bit of fighting for. Similarly Puerto Rico and Phillipines from Spain could potentially have been for territorial gains. You`ve made me think up of some new things. Thanks a lot.

Ajeet
Can`t believe you mentioned Heyer. I haven`t read that book on the Conqueror for 10 years. Another author I might suggest is Rosemary Sutcliffe. She writes about Roman Britain though. Very interesting.

There is an English writer who has written historial novels about the Norman conquest of England as well as the battle of waterloo. The first book, I beliver is called `The Conquerer` and the second is `The infamous Army` The author is Georgette Heyer. I found them interesting reading and they throw a lot of light on the events being discussed here. Interesting, a lot of history of Duke Williams victory over the English nobelman Harold is based upon a tapestry which was made by Williams wife, I forget what her name was.

Re: # 17

Sorry for the typo!

The sentence ``After the Islamic, there will be another threat and these threats are a generational affairs and will always exist. :)`` should read as follows:

After the Islamic threat, there will be another threat and these threats are a generational affairs and will always exist. :)

Ciao

Re: # 12

If one were to extent this logic towards its natural evolution, Russia has now been replaced by the threat of Islamic extremism. In this case also, the United Kingdom is a ``buddy, pal and friend`` of the United States. After the Islamic, there will be another threat and these threats are a generational affairs and will always exist. :)

It is like a waltz; the partners may change in a dance but the tune remains the same! :)

Ciao

Re: # 13

Yes, there was a marked streak of imperialism in United States and it was expressed under the idea of ``manifest destiny``, which would shape the the expansion of the United States in the nineteenth century.

The Monroe Doctrine was also a reflection of this idea, because by stating the western hemisphere was an American sphere of influence, United States was interested in consolidating its influence in the region. When the Monroe Doctrine was framed, the United States did not have the military means to compete with the Europeans in the imperial race and thus, adopted a diplomatic-moralism to keep the Europeans out of the Americas.

In answer to your question, the United States does have a jinoistic streak based on the concept of an American universalism, but it is not a military society per se. American military is the extension of American patriotism and it has always maintained a sense of idealism in its wars. The United States, does indeed wage wars, but it does on the basis of the ideals of the American revolution and not overtly, as the argument goess, for any territorial gains.

This doctrine, though in all fairness, has been pushed to the background since 1945, when the United States started to fight wars for territorial reasons, i.e. to prevent the communist from taking lands over ala ``the Domino Theory`` and now is fighting to prevent the Islamic fundementalist from taking over large areas of the Muslims world. The prevailing logic is the same, as it was under Woodrow Wilson and that is to make the Islamic world safe for democracy. The working synthesis of this idea was the Truman Doctrine, which combined American political idealism to a military posture in order to gain United States` strategic objectives in the world.

The only problem was, that in the present situation, the neo-cons simply ignored the political aspects in favor of a purely military option to gain United States` goals and therefore, what we are seeing in Iraq is the battle of American political idealism struggling with United States` political-military realism. :)

Ciao

Re: # 14

Yes, you are right. The intention is to slowly work towards the outbreak of the war in 1914. I have no set chronology, which I follow, but generally base my articles around a specific event and deal with the context; both before and after the event. Hence, there is a lot of over lapping in the series, but the many layers do help in the formulation of a comprehensive account.

First World War had many causes and though I am using the naval arms race between the Germans and British, it was by no means the only reason. Economics played a key role within the gambit of European imperialism itself and the process of industrialization. However, you are correct in the sense that access to markets was a very important consideration not only in terms of the war, but more crucially in the terms of fermenting the European tensions just prior to the outbreak of the war.

Actually, and I am getting ahead of the narrative here, the war happened due to the logic of ``military neccessity``. In fact, none of the diplomats ever lost the control of events and it was only when diplomacy appeased the military mobilization plans, that war became a distinct possibility. In fact, there was a proposal on the table made by the British to the Germans that if the Germans withdrew from Belgium, Britain would convince France to stop its own mobilization. Interestingly, Britain was the only nation in the crisis where the civilian political set up did not allow the military to influence the flow of events to the extent that the militaries of Russia, Austria, France and Germany were shaping the events.

The lesson of the British experience was the indelible impression that a strong civilian control of the military is a requiste for preventing wars and civilian political institutions should decide the issues pertaining to wars and peace and not the military. Sadly, we seem not to have learned this lesson as we keep repeating the mistake of appeasing the logic of ``military necessity``.

Ciao

Dear Mr. Khan

Its incredible! It was a pure joy to read you and I have not doubt in mind that you are a master story-teller too. I’ll have to read earlier chapters too. The content and the way you write should set the standard at chowk. Hats off to your knowledge and style.

Now, the last paragraph of Part IX seems to take us to roots of First World War, which I am sure you will detail. Don’t you think, imposition of tariffs by British, France, Germany and the US to secure profits of their respective countries and to some degree attempting to keep competitors out from areas where raw material was produced and idea of keeping the consumer-markets secured also, played more important role in the break out of 1st WW than means to meet the above objectives like naval strength etc.? Parentetically, the fact that industrialization had brought unprecedented market pressures to the fore.

I have asked above question out of my naïvete; please don`t mind if its too early to ask.
Regards.

Tahmed , Ferozk, et al

Germany is a young country compared to England and France so has not won or lost enough battles. Pre Bismarck all you had was the Prussian Junkers jousting for power after the demise of the Hapsburgs.

Napoleon was not just a military man. He did create things like Code Napoleon , opened the first lycee for girls etc. He is still to be admired for what he acheived, though not for everything he did.

As for Washington, the American revolutionaries also had millions of livres sent from France to support their cause. It was not done in isolation. The tacit assumption was that the revolutionaries would help France drive the British from Canada. That didn`t work.

The war of 1812 was never really a victory for the Americans. They lost all the major battles. It was just not economically viable for the British to continue this war, when they could make money in India. In fact in the Hansard there are recorded debates of people complaining that every pound of shot, sugar sent across the water to sustain the war was a waste of time.

I think the American founding fathers had imperialistic ambitions too. In fact there is a book by Howard Zinn that touches on some of these facts. Of course these are opinions advanced by people from certain readings.

I wish I had enough time to read some of these books.

Incidentally William came over from Normandy to England , one to get the English throne but also because the Mad Fox, Henry 1 of France was looking for a chance to get rid of him. Since Henry was his suzerain William was never quite sure of his position in retaining the Normandy Duchy.

Do you think the USA is not jingoistic? I think it is very jingoistic. It needs to be. It is a young country made of immigrants. It needs the jingoism, the raising of the Flag, the chanting of ``USA, USA``.

Tahmed sahib,

USA`s military glory is displayed outside USA- in Iraq, `Nam, Afghanistan

Regards

Feroze sahib,

(The rivalry between Great Britain and France is really interesting and it goes back to the days of the Norman conquest in 1066 AD and there are many reasons for it. Basically, what it boils down is a clash of British and French foreign policies. Throughout its history, France had to sought to dominate western Europe and Britain had sought to keep Europe divided and the rivalry was the result of this policy. I am simplifying it, but the generics are still valid. )

Rightly said. And after 1870 Germany replaced France as the prime European power so UK became pally with France against Germany. After 1945, US entered equation on UK side and Russia replaced Germany as the prime continental power.

Regards

You make a good point about the downplaying of military glory in the US. In Washington DC, there are a number of statues of generals, most of whom are actually non-Americans!! There are monuments to Simon Bolivar e.g. (the great liberator of South America after whom an entire country, Bolivia, is named) as well as some other Latin American heroes, to the frenchman Lafayette (who was GWs right hand man during the American Revolution) which occupies a place of prestige opposite the White House, to Gandhi, to Churchill, and to Einstein. The common denominator is that these were all men of peace or men who fought against tyranny.

And this is what makes America so great - the focus is on a set of universal ideals, rather than on nationalistic jingoism.

Also, independence day celebrations in the US are very different from much of the rest of the world - i.e. while other countries have a show of force (weapons, military formations) on that day, the July 4 celebrations in the US (including in Washington) have virtually no sign of the military anywhere - the parades are mostly school children playing bands and with the only ``military`` being men dressed up as revolutionary war soldiers, and the big event is a display of firewords.

Re: # 9

I think, I might have come across that book. My late grandfather had a book on Napoleon, which was quite similar to one you mentioned. It was about a thousand or plus pages with a very fine print as you have mentioned, which had black and white picture templates. It was of a darkish green color and very detailed. More books have been written on Napoleon than Jesus Christ, which goes to show the levels of megalomania we all aspire.

As to the tomb of Napoleon and of others, I ignore them and instead visit war cemetaries, which really impresses one with the true cost of glory. Tombs are the ultimate selfish act, because they seek to elevate a person on the basis of other`s achievment. Thousands died to make sure that Napoleon had his tomb and in fact, it would have been more fitting if Napoleon had been left buried in a simple grave on St. Helena where the British had buried him in 1821.

In this sense, I really respect the Americans. To the best of my memory, there is no tomb for any American general. The only expection might be George Washington, but he is commorated as a civilian leader - president of the United States and not as a military man. There are monuments to the soldiers, but not to the generals and the Vietnam War Memorial is good example of this practice. The British and the Germans also do not have tombs for their past great military leaders and in fact, I joke that nations which have lost more battles than they have won, have tombs for their military personalities.

A visit to the British Museum of War in London will show that all the great oil paintings there mark British military disasters and not victories.

The iconology of war and its remembrance is unique to each nation.

However, as a wit once said that most truest monument to the vanity of man was the concept of wars and in a sense, it is the calculated justification of the costs of war, which is the real measure of our meglamania.

The idea of having military forces is the outward symbolism of the vanity of our own sense of meglamania.

Ciao

ferozk: When I was in school (so you know we are talking the middle ages here!! or the 1960`s to be more exact), I once checked out a book from the Army Library in Rawalpindi on Napoleon. It was written and published in the 19th century by a man named Abbott, who as I recall had actually met Napoleon. The book was about a thousand pages of fine print. I dont know if that book is still preserved there - but you might want to check it out. It provides a detailed account of his various wars, and what I still recall as an inspiring speech he made at sunrise on the day of the Battle of Austerlitz.

Of course, I am older and wiser now, :-) and have no use for such ``heroes`` who created so much bloodshed in the name of glory. If you have seen the garish Napoleon`s tomb in Paris, you will agree I think that it is is a true monument to megalomania.

#3 I saw a fascinating account on the anglo-saxon invasion on the history channel i think the other day - it had to do with the legend of king arthur which was originally built up around the resistance of the local britons to the invasions by angles, saxons, jutes around 5 century AD. The anglo saxons won. Britain became England (from Angle-Land, land of the Angles). The To add insult to injury, the victorious anglo-saxons took to calling the defeated Britons ``foreigners`` (i.e. ``welsh``, and that indeed is the orgin of the ethnic group ``Welsh``, who were pushed into is now wales). Some defeated britons fled across the channel and settled in Brittany, France.

1066 was in a sense the Revenge of the Britons, since they were included in William`s forces that beat the Anglo-Saxons in 1066 and the french influence took over.

Someone needs to write an article on this on chowk. But for now, I think the napoleonic wars are fascinating enough. Thanks for the article, ferozk.

Glad to see an article on something different than the usual chowk chakh-pakh.

#6 ```m curious as to role of the French Navy during the American War of Independence since I`ve heard varying accounts. ``

As I recall, the French Navy played a decisive role in the Battle of Yorktown by preventing re-inforcements from reaching Cornwallis from the sea. The Battle of Yorktown was Britain`s Waterloo in the War of the American Revolution, and Cornwallis surrendered and later moved on to India to create mischief for Tipu Sultan.