British military historian John Keegan writes about how the media needs to drop the drama and take a lesson from history. We could have either bombed the Iraqis into totally submission as we did to the Germans and the Japanese at the end of WWII, or we deal with the chaos that ensued by occupying a land that was not totally subjugated and demoralized in defeat. Clearly the latter would have been unjust, so we’re left with the former. That isn’t Keegan’s point, however. He says not all wars ended neatly and what is happening in Iraq is to be expected.
…the serried ranks of self-appointed strategic commentators who currently dominate the written and visual media’s treatment of the Iraq story, have a duty to stop indulging their emotions and start remembering a bit of post-war history. Iraq 2004 is not Greece 1945, not Indochina 1946-54, not Algeria 1953-62 and certainly not “Vietnam”.
Read the whole thing – it’s quite good! Link via Fr. Mattew at SoDakMonk
John Keegan is worth reading, no matter what the subject. He is lucid and fair-minded, and every book I’ve read by him has improved or changed my way of looking at the world.
We should never forget that the goal in Iraq was to replace a regime that was a threat to world peace. This task has been accomplished at a relatively small cost. Even if liberal democacy fails to take root in Iraq, the war has been a success.
I think the President should tone down the rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East. We may not be able to accomplish this. In the final analysis this is a problem for the Iraqis.
Very cool article. Hope you don’t mind, but I’ll be posting it on my blog too! Cheers,