Which of these things is not like the other? America’s Future, The Thirty Years War, and today’s Islamic World

“History is a cruel step-mother, and when it retaliates, it stops at nothing.” Lenin

History is huge, given that by definition it encompasses the story of the human race going back to before the existence of written records.  We grapple with the challenge of history by parsing it into digestible lumps on the basis of time periods, geographic location, linguistic communities, etc.  In order to understand it as something more involved than the simple accretion of facts in sedimentary layers, we use metaphors, such as the turning of a wheel or the flowing of water in a river, my own preferred image.  The message in the metaphor is that change is the singular constant across history even as it may slow down or speed up.

“History is written for schoolmasters and armchair strategists.  Statesmen and warriors pick their war through the dark.” Lord Esher Journal, 15 March 1915

Given the time spanned by human history, it is not surprising that people have long debated, and still do, whether or not history repeats itself.  The English historian G M Trevelyan summed up the debate this way:  ‘‘History repeats itself!’ and ‘History never repeats itself’ are about equally true… We never know enough about the infinitely complex circumstances of any past event to prophesy the future by analogy.”  However, George Bernard Shaw offered an interesting observation when he pointed out that “If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience!”  For me personally, the debate is moot because whether or not history repeats itself, it is more than evident from history that people clearly do.  Nations are often seen to behave like people, which might be at least in part attributed to the reality that they are made up of people and are governed or led by people.  Thus nations, like individuals, can be perceived to be engaging in bad behavior which others then try to adjust through punishments and/or rewards.

 “What experience and history teach is this—that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.”  GWF Hegel

The violence engulfing the Islamic world over the past decade or more, with growing conflict between Shi’ites and Sunnis, long ago brought to mind the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) when the emerging  Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church confronted each other across the courts, cathedrals, and battlefields of Europe.  General Sir John Hackett, in “The Profession of Arms”, described the Thirty Years War as “A period in which fervent Christians were prepared to hang, burn, torture, shoot or poison other fervent Christians with whom they happened to disagree upon the correct approach to eternal life.”  To me the parallel of a religiously fueled, politically complex expanding conflict is self-evident.

As Sweden’s King Gustavus Adolphus observed of Europe’s version, “all the wars that are on foot in Europe have been fused together and have become a single war.”  A parallel conflict in the Islamic world today might reach from the Atlantic Coast of West Africa to the islands of Indonesia or the Philippines, and from Central Asia to the deep Indian Ocean.

Much has been made of the failure of the United States to show evidence of national strategy in recent decades, and I have been among those critics.  A speaker at the Army War College earlier this year rightly corrected us by pointing out that the US today is a status quo power – and preserving that status quo has been our strategy.  Unfortunately, such an approach places the US in the position of King Canute telling the tide to go out when it’s coming in – both are doomed to failure.

I bought a copy of Peter H. Wilson’s “The Thirty Years War: Europe’s Tragedy” to refresh my knowledge of that conflict.  Wilson offers a thorough examination of the Thirty Years War, with excellent elaboration of its background and preliminaries.  He promises to tell the whole story of the war right down to its ending (often only summarized).  With some 850 pages of text plus some 75 pages of notes, I believe he will fulfill that promise.

Whatever happens today need not be an Islamic reenactment of the Thirty Years War, but the complexities of that past conflict resonate in the one potentially confronting us.  They both reflect a complex interaction of religious and geo-political motivations for conflict.  They are contests between both state and non-state actors. Individuals from around the world choose to join the conflict in service of one side or the other, often in contradiction of their own nation’s stance on the war.  Co-religionists end up in conflict with each other for political and geo-political reasons even as they also fight others because they were not of the same faith.

The principal players in Europe’s war were Spain, Holland, France, the German principalities, the Holy Roman Empire and its Electors (both Protestants and Catholics), and Sweden – with Lutherans, Calvinists, and Catholics all pitted against each other in various and changing combinations.  Many soldiers became mercenaries and fought for pay over religion or country.   How might we look for lessons from their experience to determine which nations might possibly play which original roles?  Is the USA in the role of France or Spain?  Is Russia or China the Ottoman Empire?  There is no papal style structure in the Islamic world, but perhaps Saudi control of the holy places of Mecca and Medina brings them close to such a role.

Reading Wilson’s chapter Pax Hispanica, it quickly becomes evident that Spain was then, as the United States is today, the principal status quo power – and almost the sole superpower by wealth and military capabilities, attempting to keep things the way they are.  The challenges facing Spain then echo those facing us today.  Both countries are the economic top dogs because of global reach and, for Spain, the influx of silver from the mines in its American colonies.  But this wealth led Spain to neglect development of a balanced economy that promoted both manufacturing and agriculture, and it contributed to inflation.

The US is struggling to deal with economic challenges intertwined with philosophical battles over its social, economic, and even political future.  These ongoing contests are preventing it from effectively applying almost any remedies at the present time.  Both Spain and the US were also spending massive amounts on defense, fighting extended foreign wars, and debates over perceived threats and responses dominated each nation’s strategic thinking.  And both countries were suspected by other nations of ambitious and expansionist intentions as they sought to shape the world into the desired form.  However, the mere hypothesis that the US now is playing a role similar to Spain during the Thirty Years War must be tested against events in the real world and measured against the events of some 600 years ago played out for Spain.  Spain began its decline as it failed to maintain the world order which it had come to dominate and failed to adapt to the new emerging world order.

The hard reality is that the American people have one choice to make (among many decisions facing them):

Will the United States remain the sole superpower and by definition the world’s policeman in pursuit of this imperial role as it seeks to shape the world in its own image?

Or, will the US concede sufficient authority and capability and autonomy to a supranational body that could act around the world without the US or US forces and with the inevitable result of shaping a world to some greater or lesser degree different from what the US might prefer?

“The future is hidden even from the men who made it.”  Anatole France

'Twas a Famous Victory - and who won again?

Those of you interested in military history probably recall that the Battle of Waterloo was fought on June 18, 1815 and that we recently marked its 197th anniversary. Bet that you didn't know that it is also an example of how history is often retold differently by different sources (and if you want proof of that go visit my friends at The Napoleon Series).

The English politician and poet Winthrop Mackworth Praed wrote this version of the Battle of Waterloo presumably after one or more visits to France in the decades immediately following the battle!


WATERLOO


Ay, here such valorous deeds were done
  As ne’er were done before;
Ay, here the reddest wreath was won
  That ever Gallia wore;
Since Ariosto’s wondrous Knight
  Made all the Paynims dance,
There never dawned a day so bright
  As Waterloo’s on France.

The trumpet poured its deafening sound,
  Flags fluttered on the gale,
And cannons roared, and heads flew round
  As fast as summer hail;
The sabres flashed their light of fear,
  The steeds began to prance;
The English quaked from front to rear—
  They never quake in France!

The cuirassiers rode in and out
  As fierce as wolves and bears;
‘Twas grand to see them slash about
  Among the English squares!
And then the Polish Lancer came
  Careering with his lance;
No wonder Britain blushed for shame,
  And ran away from France!

The Duke of York was killed that day;
  The king was sadly scarred;
Lord Eldon, as he ran away,
  Was taken by the Guard;
Poor Wellington with fifty Blues
  Escaped by some strange chance;
Henceforth I think he’ll hardly choose
  To show himself in France.

So Buonaparte pitched his tent
  That night in Grosvenor Place,
And Ney rode straight to Parliament
  And broke the Speaker’s mace;
“Vive l’Empereur” was said and sung
  From Peebles to Penzance;
The Mayor and Alderman were hung’
  Which made folk laugh in France.

They pulled the Tower of London down,
  They burnt our wooden walls;
They brought the Pope himself to town,
  And lodged him in St. Paul’s;
And Gog and Magog rubbed their eyes,
  Awakening from a trance,
And grumbled out, in great surprise,
  “Oh, mercy! we’re in France!”

They sent a Regent to our Isle,
  The little King of Rome;
And squibs and crackers all the while
  Blazed in the Place Vendome;
And ever since, in arts and power,
  They’re making great advance;
They’ve had strong beer from that glad hour,
  And sea-coal fires, in France.

My uncle, Captain Flanigan,
  Who lost a leg in Spain,
Tells stories of a little man
  Who died at St. Helene;
But bless my heart, they can’t be true;
  I’m sure they’re all romance;
John Bull was beat at Waterloo!
  They’ll swear to that in France.

Winthrop Mackworth Praed
(1802-1839)

Cultures Don't Clash - People Clash

I was participating in a seminar discussion recently on the issues that confront us today around the globe or may confront us in the near to medium future. One of the participants opened his comments on the Middle East with that now almost cliché phrase “clash of cultures.” And upon hearing the words, it struck me that this was a cop out – a sound bite that unburdened the speaker and listener alike from the risk of having to do any more thinking about the subject. There is a lot of this kind of thing going on these days – substituting a catchy sound bite for thoughtful analysis – for various reasons that possibly include our intensive use of electronic media rather than the printed page (pause here for the sound of irony).

This very idea of course was advanced first and most strongly by Samuel P. Huntington in the 1990s in a lecture and finally a book. Today it’s so clichéd that it has its own Wikipedia article and is regularly cited in jeremiads on how difficult it is for us (the superior West) to get along with these other (hidebound traditionalist) cultures and civilizations and their unacceptable demands that we change our ways (not to mention Western demands and hopes that the other “cultures” should change to suit our ways of thinking). Hearing the long arms of the windmills creaking as this breeze built up, I placed my shaving bowl firmly on my head, mounted my gallant Rocinante, and couched my lance.

My first thrust should be pretty obvious (even without the hint of my title above) – civilizations/cultures do not clash, they do not make war. People clash, people make war. Civilization/culture is an inanimate construct, an artifact of the human mind, without mind, body, or a will of its own. It consists entirely of ideas proposed and shared by the members of that civilization/culture. And being a product of the human mind it is mutable – it can be altered by the people who adopt, adapt to, and follow its mores – thus constituting a civilization. The history of any civilization will show that they change and adapt frequently over time, responding to the changing ideas of its members.

I also object to the phrase as I noted above because it eliminates thought in favor of a sound bite. In so doing, it suspends any requirement or expectation of further thought, study, or analysis. It’s too easy and too pat to be a real answer. It is a phrase that reduces an incredibly complicated subject (and in this case a whole complicated book!), i.e., the nature, means, and content of interactions and exchanges between social groups today usually called nations to a few syllables. And cynically, it does so with an added sense of inescapable inevitability to that “clash”. History, if you choose to study it, is replete with examples from the past in which the thought that a clash with another culture of civilization was inevitable after some period of time brought forth the reality of that up until then hypothetical clash.  The story of the years leading up to the long anticipated and expected “inevitable” war between Germany and Britain – 1914-1918 – should provide sufficient lesson to discourage anything that smacks of repeating this error.

According to some scientists, the human mind apparently comes already hard wired to put things in categories, a reality that perhaps inspired but which is certainly reflected in the Bible’s Book of Genesis in which Adams is called upon to give names to the beasts of the world. It would appear from what we know of human history, that having cataloged the beasts of the fields and the plants mankind began sorting out, its fellow man as well. There was family, kin, lovers, friends, acquaintances, all good, but eventually there were those who were “other” than any of these and sometimes were actually enemies. Sometimes they were the “other” simply because they were new and not previously known to those doing the sorting and labeling, and sometimes because there had already been incidents of violence between “them” and “us”.

The real issue is not that such mental behaviors exist, what is critical is what people do about them. Just like civilization itself, these labels, now days often called stereotyping, are human artifacts – human creations. History shows that the making of such distinctions can lead to bloodshed but they have also been overcome more than once in human history. The United States, with its experience of the melting pot, should of all countries be able to recognize that differences can be overcome if we emphasize the things we share.

Which brings us back to the original notion – civilizations don’t clash, people clash. Civilization is just the frequently used source of the justifications people use to explain the otherwise unexplainable reasons for their clashes.

Repitition is the Mother of Learning - even in History?

It is widely said that there is an ancient Chinese proverb to the effect that “a fool learns from experience, a wise man learns from the experience of others.” Whether or not this is correctly quoted, President Bush appears to have learned one way or the other about the uncertainties of war given his statement a while ago that “no plan survives contact with the enemy.” This phrase refers to a military aphorism attributed to the 19th Century Prussian Field Marshal and Chief of the General Staff, Helmut von Moltke (the elder). While von Moltke may not have said it in exactly those words, the idea is reflected in several places in his writings and the wisdom therein is thus on offer to the wise man who wishes to learn from the experience of others.


This brings us to the possibility of learning useful and even important lessons from the study of history, something long advocated for students of military affairs by figures such as Napoleon Bonaparte and our friend von Moltke. Many people, especially politicians, are demonstrably fond of citing various lessons from history to support whatever action – or inaction – they are advocating. But as most historians (and some politicians) know, history can be a slippery instructor and it is often hard to be certain that the right lesson has been learned.


For those interested in knowing more about the possible uses and abuses of history and its lessons, there are two books in particular that should be looked for:

“Historians’ Fallacies, Toward a Logic of Historical Thought” by David Hackett Fischer, (1970, New York, Harper & Row, LoC 69-15583), and,

“Thinking in Time, The Uses of History of Decision Makers” by Richard E. Neustadt and Ernest R. May, (1986, New York, The Free Press/Macmillan, ISBN 0-02-922790-9).


In the first book, historian David Fischer attempts to set out a disciplined and logical approach to the study of history and the analysis of historical events – and in the process examines the myriad ways in which historians and others can get it wrong. He hangs this attempt upon a list of fallacies that he has found committed by historians and the users of history, grouping this list into 12 categories each with some 10 to 12 member fallacies: Fallacies of Question-framing; Fallacies of Factual Verification; Fallacies of Factual Significance; Fallacies of Generalization; Fallacies of Narration; Fallacies of Causation; Fallacies of Motivation; Fallacies of Composition; Fallacies of False Analogy; Fallacies of Semantical Distortion; and Fallacies of Substantive Distraction. Personally, I find it difficult to find any of the listed fallacies that cannot be used in connection with much of the debate in recent years over the war on terror, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even the debate on who demonstrates the greatest support for the troops. Nevertheless, I would draw the special attention of the reader to the Fallacies of False Analogy, Fallacies of Question-framing, Fallacies of Verification, and Fallacies of Causation.


Richard Neustadt and Ernest May based their 1986 work, “Thinking in Time,” on their experience teaching an innovative course at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, in which they sought to instruct high-level public officials and their aides on how to use history in their decision-making. The book discusses some 30 historical case studies used in their classes to reflect upon the misuses of historical analogy and on proper ways to draw upon historical examples in addressing contemporary issues. The selected case studies range from the secession crisis leading up the outbreak of the American Civil War, the creation of Social Security in 1935 and separately its reform in 1983, the question of defending South Korea in 1950, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and the subsequent 1979 issue of the presence in Cuba of a Soviet military brigade, and a number of cases relating to different aspects of the conflict in Indochina that became the United States’ Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s. The book includes appendixes providing additional detailed information regarding the catalog of case studies, the analytical methods presented in the course of instruction, and discussion of the different courses that the authors have prepared and taught drawing upon these ideas.


A central argument almost inevitably raised in any discussion of the use of history in decision-making or the making of historical comparisons in discussing contemporary issues is the idea that history does (or does not) repeat itself. Personally, I am not in complete disagreement with either side of this debate. On the one side, I have to agree that history does not appear to have ever repeated itself exactly, despite the fact that people confronting the same or similar problem or challenge will often respond in the same or similar ways. But it is this very observation that leads me to counter-argue that “No, history does not repeat itself, but people do.”