|
This came over the internet
tonight. Wasn't it Keynes that suggested war as a way of
controlling the economy? Maybe Cheney and Bush are, like Nixon
was, closet Keynsians. What do you
think? Also the Brits on this list could check out the
history since it was theirs and not mine. What do you think/
REH
Crib Sheet for Mr. Cheney: The First Hundred
Years’ War
12 December 2002
Whatever it is we are doing…
making war on terrorism, seeking dominant control of Mideast and Central Asian
oil reserves, or conducting a get-even vendetta against folks like Saddam whom
we helped to power only a few decades ago … word is out it’s going to take a
long time.
The Vice President is reported to have referred to this
adventure in the sand as a Hundred Years’ War. Last June, Israeli Prime Minister
Sharon used the
phrase; Robert Novak and others mention it, and it seems to have legs in the
political arena, especially in “let’s reshape the Middle East in our image”
circles.
As a product of the public schools, I don’t know much about
history, so I had to study up on the first Hundred
Years’ War, running from 1337 to 1453. Well, that’s actually more like
116 years, but if we can’t fudge numbers, we shouldn’t be working at the
Pentagon.
I have to say, those smart guys leading us to war picked a
good analogy, that’s for sure!
To start out with, it was
both economic and personal. The first HYW, I mean. England drank a
whole lot of French wine, partly because they liked it and partly because
England couldn’t grow enough grapes to meet domestic consumption. This
import dependency was tolerable, but then in 1340 after a lot of threats, Edward
III, King of England, claimed that through his mother’s lineage, he was the
rightful heir to the French throne (and vineyards).
Edward III was only 18, but
had Texas-sized ideas on who should rule the world. Naturally, France
didn’t really see all the finer points of Edward’s claim, and invoked the Salic
Law (circa 480 A.D.) that prohibited inheritance through female
lines. Kind of like an early version of international law and about
as effective.
We too have a boyish king, er…, I mean, President, energetic
and hungry for war. He’s not afraid to open up some cans of whup ass, and
he can talk the
talk (if not the actual English language). Just yesterday, the
administration said we’ll pre-empt anyone we want with WMD, like
nukes, if we feel like it.
In early battles at Crecy
(1345) and at Poiters (1356), the English took lots of French territory, and
made the French cry like babies. By 1360, prostrate France had to accept a
very harsh treaty dictated by England.
Now, as then, the strong, as
represented by President, er…, Vice-President Cheney, and his elderly cohorts in
the Pentagon, and their elderly cohorts in Tel Aviv, all know how to dictate
terms and lay down the law. And when you are implementing Biblical
prophesy, holy righteousness, and the American Way of Life, who in their right
mind would have it any other way?
But as the first HYW
progressed, things started to unravel.
It started with little
things. Turns out, more and more English warfighting was done by
mercenaries. And with all the budget problems the war was causing, these
guys weren’t getting paid enough, and started fundraising directly through back
channels with English politicians, and through abuse and confiscation of French
assets.
Then the French got their religious fervor up with inspired
charismatic soldiers like Joan of Arc. This helped them in battle, as did
improved tactics and methods. Those who lose time after time sometimes
learn more about winning than those who win, over and over.
And domestic problems in
England started to get worse. In 1381, not even 50 years into the HYW, the
English peasants revolted! This revolution was especially powerful because
merchants and industrial classes made an unusual alliance with the peasants
against an increasingly rapacious government.
Mercenaries and
military-congressional-industrial entities profiting from all angles in
continual war, domestic economies squeezed to pay for military adventurism while
domestic security suffers sclerosis, near-sightedness and dry rot, and the
“enemy” taking long deep draws on the pipe of religio-righteous
nationalism. Mr. Cheney, please read this part twice, it will be on the
test.
You know the rest of the story. The impact of the
English war eventually galvanized the French, setting the stage for a radical
and new concept of French nationhood. It didn’t happen immediately, but
when the HYW was over, the French were back in place, stronger than ever, with a
new and badder attitude. Heck, the French attitude still annoys us, 600
years later.
To make war a national way of life, you must have ambitious
political myth-makers, strategists behind the scene with murky and constantly
changing objectives, and lots and lots of the precious treasure of peasants and
merchants, er… taxpayers. People might be surprised to find
that war as a way of life is not a new concept at all.
Even more surprising – and scarier – is when you discover
that the end result is so terribly predictable.
|
