Gung-Ho To Be The Romans
By Steve Hynd Monday Feb 16, 2009 6:00pm
In an op-ed in Sunday's WaPo, CJCS Admiral Mullen advanced the theory that America is a reluctant Empire, a hegemon only because its allies trust it and want it to rescue and protect them...just like ancient Rome. To accomplish this slight-of-hand, he kicks off with a lengthy quote from Thomas F. Madden's book "Empires of Trust: How Rome Built - and America Is Building - a New World" in which vassals of Rome are shown by a Roman account as trusting Rome as a whole even while Rome's appointed overlord is robbing and enslaving them.
It's significant that Mullen chooses as his historian-of-choice a man who appeared in many rightwing venues in the wake of 9/11 explaining how the War on Terror was to be a "defensive war"...like the Crusades, according to Madden. But when it comes to Rome, Madden's revisionist thesis is that Rome, like the United States is so mistakenly believed to be, was an isolationist culture that preferred alliances to the use of force, and was pushed reluctantly into empire building by the desire to defend itself and its friends...because they were just trying to help the poor blue-painted barbarians by crucifying them. (To do this, he has to rely pretty much solely on Roman accounts, almost never hostile ones.) Note he doesn't deny America's empire exists - just the obvious reasons for it. It's simply a retelling of the British Victorian "White Man's Burden" fable for a New American Century. British Imperials compared themselves favorably to Rome too, and often depicted themselves as new, more noble, Romans just like Mullen is now doing.
Neoconservatives loved Madden's version of Empire. David Frum, for instance, noting glowingly how understandingly civilized Rome must have been to have waited 50 whole years before finally burning Carthage, enslaving its populace and ploughing the ground with salt. Others weren't so happy, especially with Madden's conclusion:
If you think the insurgency in Iraq is bad, Madden writes, then you should have lived in Jerusalem in the first two centuries and dealt with Jewish terrorists who believed that their allies the Romans represented an evil that must be destroyed at any cost.
The Romans, after much bloodshed, finally dealt with Jewish factionalism with brute force - legions retook Jerusalem, destroyed the Holy Temple and forced Jews to focus their religion more on synagogues and rabbinic studies than the Temple itself, blunting some of the messianic zealotry responsible for the violence.
Madden believes that the lesson for America from this ancient insurgency is that the war on terror must be fought on the religious front as well. The only way to win both militarily and politically is to modernize Islam as the Romans changed Judaism to fit into their empire.
That is, by sword, flame and exile.
That the senior uniformed officer of America's military is a fan of Madden's feeble excuses for the cruelties of war and empire is worrying. That Mullen is writing neocon-style "Hoo-ah! we're the Roman Empire - and we're proud of it!" op-eds is downright scary.
(Nicole): It's odd to me that these historical analogies seem to stop before their logical conclusion. Doesn't Mullen know that the Roman Empire didn't end so well for the Romans? Is that where he thinks we should go?
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
to invade or coup them, Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Grenada, Chile, Philippines, Iraq, Iran... and the many others.
true, but our sacrifice in WW2 restored a lot of moral authority.
but then in the interest of expanding influence by any means, and in the name of Cold War, we resorted to some despicable, anti-democratic tactics, which we're not going to live down for a few more generations of good behavoir.
great post, Cernig
But then again, if you start counting countries that we only tried to subvert, the list would be endless.
We gained political capital during WWII. Our account was down to zero by the time LBJ was running the Vietnam war, and George Jr. has put our political capital account so far into the red it makes the national debt look like a service charge. The only reason Obama is there is because we all know our credit has collapsed, and nobody will lend us any more capital.
out of the bag. It's like he is proud of America's meddling history is a good thing. It's like American exceptionalism?
Rome was in Britain. Why? Tin. When Tin production peaked in the mid 300s, they began to withdraw.
Rome split in two. Why? Think about. To the West of Rome? France, which was largely settled, but not very rich. Spain was a mess. England? Full of crazy people who paint themselves blue and throw rocks at the Romans. Smart bunch there... North? Germany - barely civilised, and beyond that, scary people.
To the South? The Mediterranean Sea and a Giamungus desert. To the East? Persia. India. China.
Now, where are YOU going to put your money? Rome didn't fall - it was pushed by its own ruling class who had disinvested and moved their money to Byzantium. Rome had burned through its local resources and was no longer sustainable.
Same with the USA. USA Oil peaked in 1970, and since these chowderheads decided to build their ENTIRE civilisation around it, they had to go find it elsewhere. This resulted in Resource Wars. Read the book on it by Michael T Klare. As a consequence, they are now stuck with an out of control military machine (like rome) and a collapsing economy (like rome) and a diminishing resource and landbbase (like rome).
Religion and all that rot is just the ciing on the cake. Keep your eyes on the resources - wher ethey go will tell you what's going on. This makes more sense, since following the money doesn't mean anything anymore.
although betting against the U.S. has historicaly not been very wise. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.
US Oil peaked in 70
OPEC saw this and threw its weight around - gas crisis.
Nixon leaves in 74
Vietnam goes commie in 75
Hostage crisis 1979
Reagan elected in 1980 and very quickly the USA goes from creditor to debtor nation as all the money flows out and into the Middle East and later, Japan, and then China.
Recession of late 70s, early 80s collapses oil prices, removing USSR's main cash cow at the moment it is stuck in Afghanistan. USSR collapses within a few years.
Europe develops EU, the USA develops a series of ponzy schemes - first the SNL debacle, then tech stocks, then housing.
Frankly, I don't care what people THINK or DREAM or HOPE about America. You CANNOT under any circumstances live outside the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Period. It's like living outside the law of gravity. Doesn't happen. Period.
........and everybody that attended History 101 knows how the Roman chariot was driven off the cliff.
The neocon idiots want to see history repeat itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaE3EaQte78
That the country the US most resembles now, Rome in its final days. And for exactly the same reasons.
The Rome analogy is VERY appropriate when talking about the US.
Hannibal invaded the empire with a few elephants and scared the hell out of Rome. That was what spurred the Romans to start a 150 year campaign of conquering and theft across Europe.
It may have only been seven years in the case of the US, but Osama bin Laden's airplane are a hell of a good comparison for Hannibal's elephants and what transpired afterwards.
the roman empire bit off more than they could chew. sounds famaliar doesn't it. then they started having cheaper labor produce their products. as the empire grew so did it's enemies. at times they pretended to be a republic.
white man's burden, redux. wonder how that sits with the commander-in-chief?
i have read the concerns of the department of defense trolls over at huffpo.
they endlessly bring up nukes and lunatics.
i couldn't agree more with their concerns. which is why pouring gasoline on the fire is about the worst possible thing we can do.
when we can start openly discussing the pipeline and the heroin, i'm all ears.
and one more thing: while we're talking about rome, let us remember the pope told us to STAY OUT OF IRAQ.
Rome and Judea, 10s of millions vs maybe 1 million.
USA and Islam, 300 million vs 1.5 billion.
Traditionally territorial dominance is foot troops on the ground overwhelming the locals, good luck US of A.
Of course the current goal of the US MIC is robot airborne sentinels, death from above for anybody who dares to step out of line.
Hence the no nonsense name of the armed UAV 'Global Hawk' a world wide hunter of dissidents or trouble makers.
Neocons seem to be fascinated by paternalistic, warlike cultures that used power and force to control the population. Power and force appeal to them since they have no time or patience to master the subtleties of diplomacy and negotiation, preferring instead to dominate and control by brute force. Thus, their endless references to situations being a "war" on________ (you fill in the blank) and simplistic us/them politics.
Funny how they celebrate the militaristic might of Rome but conveniently forget their cruelty that enslaved and impoverished millions and put people like Jesus to death. In reality, these Neocon political misfits are para military control freaks who like an incurably rabid dog, need to be put out of their misery for the benefit of society.
That's a bit of hyperbole. I'd venture to say interest in military history isn't the sole province of Neocons, it tends to be a male thing more than anything.
Any decent reading of Rome's history--as a Republic and an Empire--the Romans using diplomacy as much as force.
They certainly weren't any more cruel than other peoples or civilizations up to that time. Even during the Empire cities from Spain to Ephesus conducted elections for local cities for centuries.
That they were the same as their counterparts does not diminish the fact that they were cruel and despotic. And to your male thing comment please note that I did reference paternalistic, I do agree with your statement.
Certainly the neocons could learn something from Rome regarding the judicious application of diplomacy, but that they glorify this regime as something admirable or worth emulating is despicable and is indicative of their moral bankruptcy. I guess it would not be possible for Neocons to imitate leaders like Gandhi or Buddha, who advocated simplicity, peacemaking, and humility. No, they admire militaristic empires like Rome because of their institutional paranoia and control freak mentality which they use to snuff out any opposition.
are odierno and petreaus really the well-read military scholars they claim to be, or are they fundamentalist end-timer idealogues?
if tyree was here, he would be the 1st to tell you what you do when the captain of your ship is so much of a bloviating gas-bag that he's going to get the whole crew killed.
if the captain's lucky, he gets locked up. if he's unlucky, the crew throws his @$$ overboard and makes up a cover story.
it's like the good man brian wilson once sang:
I FEEL SO BROKE UP, I WANNA GO HOME!
taken down a peg or two and made to realize that Obama is commander in chief now. Either that or try them for treason.
Stop using the word treason. The fascists accuse dissenters of treason and have thus ruined the word.
For a chain of command the word is insubordination.
are seeking to countermand the US President, that is treason. They should not only be removed from office but also tried for it. Otherwise, they will just go out and become lobbyists for the arms industry or worse run for office. There is apparently a media campaign to pretend that Petreaus should run for President. I shit you not.
Chapter and verse please.
Why are military men, supposedly subordinate to civilian command, writing politico/ideological op-eds at all?
No more op-eds, no more political tract writing from Officers who are sworn to carry out the President's orders. Not to undermine his authority.
The captain, bless his soul, succumbed to small pox.
Anyone who wants to advance this idea seriously should read "Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire" by Edward Luttwak (yeah, I know he's loony these days, bear with me for a sec, he once wrote a number of very interesting books)
There Luttwak makes the argument that Rome was successful only so long as they were able to maintain a ring of client states on their border who participated more or less willingly in empire (think Europe, the west in general) and a further ring of barbarians who they were able to oppurtunistically buy off (think dictators).
Luttwak then points out that Rome never had the military capacity to garrison its empire or guard its borders without this political structure and failed only when it actually started to garrison the borders and worse still tried to suppress the barbarians with military incursions (Scotland, Germany east of the Rhine).
At this point Iraq and Afghanistan should be popping to mind.
Now there's a parallel that is more appropriate.
I think that's fairly accurate. Rome relied on the outer clients sending their "tributes". It was mostly a fair exchange. In return those states got Roman laws, technology, big-time trade, and the wealth flowed.
In the waning years, the military were mostly the BlackWater types led by would-be Senators that only wanted a name for themselves that ended with Caesar. They turned out to be big trouble for everyone.
Bush-Caesar? Hows that sound? mmmmm - nah.
do so many crazy people end up in so many positions of power?
Normal people do not spend every waking hour obsessed with attaining power and wealth. Normal people take their kids to the park or buy a dog.
"The Romans, after much bloodshed, finally dealt with Jewish factionalism with brute force - legions retook Jerusalem, destroyed the Holy Temple and forced Jews to focus their religion more on synagogues and rabbinic studies than the Temple itself, blunting some of the messianic zealotry responsible for the violence.
Madden believes that the lesson for America from this ancient insurgency is that the war on terror must be fought on the religious front as well."
Shorter Madden:
The heck with Iran.
Bomb Mecca!
Brought to you by the Neocons. It really would do for more C&L'ers to stay up with postings on ********.org. Much like C&L, ******** presents some fascinating articles. It's archives are eye-opening and jaw-dropping. But I'm just another paranoid progressive, so no of this could be true. One last thing, f*ck bipartisanship.
We reluctantly invaded Iraq by using a reluctant method known as a reluctant preemptive strike. And the perpetrators of this war crime felt very reluctant about it. You can tell by the deep abiding reluctance they felt by making this decision. Sheesh.
The coalition (that means other nations than just the United States) invasion of Iraq was sanctioned under UN resolution. There was nothing illegal about it. If you wish to say that the UN was convinced to vote for it based on the argument that something should be done before something happens you may have a point but remember that every major intelligence community down to the Russians and even Chinese agreed that there was a danger there. There was no crime but as Hitler said if you repeat the same lie enough times it becomes the truth.
What the resolution number was? As far as I'm aware there was one proposed but never passed and the US-led coalition had to instead rely on highly adaptive reinterpretations of previous resolutions dating from the first Gulf War.
Certain, the UN recognised the US and UK as legal occupiers ("The Authority") after the fact, but that's not the same thing. Kofi Annan has been explicit that he feels the war itself was unauthorized and illegal.
Resolution 1441 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on
8 November 2002
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661
(1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15
August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and
1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its
intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as
a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international
peace and security in the area,
There is more to it and you can look it up yourself but basically it finds Iraq in material breach of the cease fire and advised of serious consequences. With the coalition armies sitting in the desert with their motors running the UN would be hard pressed to deny what those consequences were intended to be in this case. It's true lawyers have disagreed with the interpretation of the coalition governments but the UN itself never condemned the invasion but as you have stated sanctified it. Also, in regard to Kofi Annan, since you don't mind guilt by association his involvement in the oil for food program as it's ultimate overseer should leave him with little credibility on the subject of legality. Maybe you could opine on some of his excuses for that situation?
A war of aggression is illegal under international law.
Manipulating evidence to make a case for such a war is illegal.
Presenting evidence obtained through torture to sell that war to the world through the UN is illegal.
Also, to say that every major intelligence bureau agreed that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat is bogus. I live in Norway, and almost NO ONE believed the NeoCon propaganda here in Europe. At the time of the US invasion, around 90% of Norwegians, Swedes, Britons, Germans etc. knew that the reasons for invading was bogus and that it would be an illegal and unjust war. Many European cities saw some of the largest demonstrations in modern history in the weeks leading up to the war. (Thus the need for NeoCons to create spin like "old Europe" (Western European countries with at least some integrity not to get fooled) and "new Europe" (Eastern European countries whose leaders sucked up to the USA regardless). I'm also sure you remember why "Freedom Fries" was coined.)
It's only you, who lived under a much stronger propaganda regime, who was so gullible and authoritarian minded as to believe the spin.
Also:
When Germany persecuted Jews, blacks, gypsies, gays, handicapped etc. it was legal according to their laws.
Laws and resolutions can be written to cover for illegalities and immoralities. That doesn't mean we can't look back on it and say that this and this was illegal according to other, maybe higher, laws and principles.
Rare to see real neocon hacks make it in the C&L forums. Don't believe the propaganda still. It makes you look stupid. Especially 5-6 years after it has been debunked.
There is no more MONEY to pay off the "US Legions" AKA "US National Defense".
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/node/6916
What do we do Next?
-Printing more money (paper)?
- Developing the "Defense Economy" (A trillion Yearly)?
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com...
- Financing and Arming the MINI-ME Aka Lite Israel Empire?
None of the Above.
You missed one.
- Loot and plunder.
Tell them it's just the cost of freeing them.
I'm sure they'll understand.
... could be sowing the land with depleted uranium. Monster-babies.
Closing Publics Schools, Cutting off Social Security , Leaving Health Care at is etc.
Because we need to be protected against "Terrorists"
Signed Exis of Evil:
Dick Cheney- Mullen-Bush & the NEOCON SUNSHINE BAND
What is with these republican revisionists? They just come up with the strangest historical interpretations to soot what ever agenda they are pushing at the moment. The really sad part is that some Americans are so ignorant of history that they buy into it.
Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:
Just paraphrasing but the idea is correct. It lasted a lot longer than anyone else. Gibbon points to the Praetorian Guard as primary source of the initial decay.
History is replete with the decline and fall of empires. We will be latest in a long list and we are going fall relatively quickly, given the present indicators.
Cernig--thanks for the info about the grave and unfortunate analogy of Mullen's. i find it incomprehensible how ignorant are so many right wing zealots. real numbing stuff. this is where Billmon would come to the rescue and make those painfully appropriate analogies that would cause visceral pain.
instead, we must slog ahead in this sea of mind-numbing idiocy from the bottom (Plumber Joe) to the top (Mullen). i spend so much effort and time to get access to the best available information and the 24/7 media and so many high-ranking clowns are sucking real hard on the cesspool plumbing
I'm reading Chalmers Johnson's trilogy "The Sorrows of Empire", "Nemesis" and "Blowback", all very interesting, eye opening.
Also, Andrew Bacevich's "The Limits of Power", fantastic.
valletta--you want to read a painful book on american history, try Alan Taylor's The Divided Groud--on what we did to the Native Americans in the Northeastern US.
Chalmers Johnson's work is impeccable. he's my go to guy in regards to what's going down in the Good Ol' USSR.
That's The Divided Ground
appy poly logies
that's USSA
Long History there, that Rome thing. 4-5 Hundred years is a long time to be summarized by Jerusalem alone.
Rome’s expansion happened relatively quickly. In my opinion, the expansion peaked with Hadrian and the Empire started its long decline into stagnation then. But that first 100 years or so – WOW.
I tend to think of being “defeated” by Rome in those first 100 years akin to being Microsoft’ed in the late ‘80s and early ‘90’s. Everybody bitched about it, but everyone also wanted it to happen to them next.
As barbaric as the Romans seem to us today, those times have no real parallel to the modern world relative to barbarism. Rome was different. Rome was big, beautiful, cultured (remember the standard), and RICH! Many tribal communities resisted Roman “overtures” (the Germans were none too keen), but the vast majority that fell under Roman rule hardly resented it. Most felt they were much better off.
So now a US Admiral wants to be a Roman, huh? Holy anachronism Batman!
The only resemblance the US has to Roman expansion was on this continent where there was nothing but stone-age populations of nomadic tribes and wilderness – from coast to coast. We didn’t conquer this continent, we flowed into it like water rolling downstream. It was perfect for us, and relatively easy, but it WAS NOT similar to Roman expansion those first 100 years. Every attempt the US has made to expand beyond this continent and away from our two shores since has been either so-so or horribly BAD.
We are NOT Rome. Only fools with egos bigger than their assets will pretend to be.
I have no idea why? I guess it compensates for their unsatisfying sex lives.
Italian Fascists day-dreamed about rebuilding the Roman Empire.
The Nazis used all sorts of Roman symbolism for propaghanda.
Now dellusional Republicans are fantacising about Rome.
Well I guess that is nothing new for republicans.
Richard Nixon had all sorts of dellusional fantasies about Rome.
Go look at anything vaguely related to a US gov office.
You mean those GREEK revival gov office thingies?
Looking to Rome hasn't been limited to fascists or neocons, it's been a theme throughout European history.
The French revolutionaries who separated Marie Antoinette's noggin from her body were anything but neocons or fascists. Overthrowing the old aristocracy was their thing. Marx wrote that they patterned themselves after the Roman Republic while Napoleon draped himself in empire.
It's troubling, although not surprising, that CJCS Admiral Mullen has views like he does about America, Rome, and history. He is after all a holdover from the Bush administration. Reichwingers have a sick fascination, and fantasy about the Roman Empire. They don't see it for the corrupt, greedy, murderous, and warmongering mentality. They don't see it for the enslaving, murdering, raping, and torture of other nations. What is surprising is how easily they ignore how it was the Romans who persecuted Christians. Reichwingers see the Roman Empire as glorious in it's military might, and conquest.
A couple years ago I worked at a liquor store. The business owner was a greedy, small man, who has limitless ambition, and a disgusting admiration for the Romans. He hated me, blamed me for his liquor store not bringing him the wealth that he desired, and refused to even give me a 25 cent raise even though it had been more than a year since my last pay increase. I was very happy when I found a new job, and walked into his store on my day off to tell him in person that I quit. :)
The proper way to quit a job from a douchebag employer is to call in sick for a week straight. Let them pay out the over time. Let them worry about whether or not they will get sued for firing you.
That maybe would have been fun if he had ever actually paid his employees overtime, and if I hadn't been friends with my coworkers. It's funny though, I run into many of his former customers at the liquor store inside Fred Meyer when I buy a six pack, or bottle of wine.
As a hardcore Liberal and a professional medieval historian, I think I've got more perspective on Thomas Madden than the author of this article. Madden is a very well-respected medieval historian, who specializes in the crusades and the history of medieval venice. He also has training in classical Roman history. Regardless of his politics, his views on the crusades deserve a great deal of respect, but his views on ancient Rome somewhat less so, given that it not his focus. His claim that the "Crusades" (laying aside a very complex debate about what the term might actually mean) were a defensive and not offensive activity has a great deal to recommend it, and he is not the only historian to make such claims. To the extent that such claims may have modern political uses, such claims must be viewed carefully, but the fact that Madden is politically conservative does not render his analysis of the Crusades invalid. It is easy for a non-specialist to take cheap pot shots at Madden's argument by pointing out that the Romans burned the city of Carthage, but doing so doesn't prove Madden's argument about Rome wrong.
Having said all that, for Madden to build a political argument about modern America through an analogy to a completely different culture centuries ago is a specious misuse of history. Whether Rome was or wasn't a defensive empire (and there is something to commend that claim, particularly after the reign of Augustus) tells us nothing about whether America is a defensive empire.
With all due respect to a professional medieval historian, the fact that Madden has consistently written op-eds in rightwing venues like National Review to push his flawed political-historical analogies really is the most important part of the story.
But you don't have to tell us you're a hardcore Liberal, even if you did just register. It's somewhat like being a punk (as in Punk Rock). If you have to keep claiming you are one, rather than letting your words and actions speak for themselves, then you aren't one.
Regards. C
But my point is that if you want to disagree with Madden, disagree with his politics, not with his scholarship. Your suggestion that his claims are false because he views the Crusades as defensive is a faulty argument. It has nothing to do with his claims about ancient Rome and it displays a lack of awareness about the currents of crusade scholarship. Madden's decision to make analogies between American foreign policy and either the Crusades or Rome is where the flaw in his argument lies.
you missed the fact that, having questioned Cernig's point, he attacks you personally, by comparing you to a wannabe punker.
I am usually a gadfly in this place, but I have taken a special interest in Cernig's work.
The main thrust of his post, it seemed to me, was an attack on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen, for writing an op-ed piece in which he cites a story told by Madden in a book. Rather than relate to readers of this blog what Mullen was saying, he attacks Mullen by attacking Madden. That is what he did to you.
Here, with obvious editing, is the crux of Mullen's op-ed piece.
"We are not Romans, of course.... But we in the U.S. military are likewise held to a high standard. Like the early Romans, we are expected to do the right thing, and when we don't, to make it right again.
We have learned, after seven years of war, that trust is the coin of the realm -- that building it takes time, losing it takes mere seconds, and maintaining it may be our most important and most difficult objective.
That's why images of prisoner maltreatment at Abu Ghraib still serve as recruiting tools for al-Qaeda. And it's why each civilian casualty for which we are even remotely responsible sets back our efforts to gain the confidence of the Afghan people months, if not years.
It doesn't matter how hard we try to avoid hurting the innocent...it doesn't matter how proportional the force we deploy..... What matters are the death and destruction that result and the expectation that we could have avoided it. In the end, all that matters is that, despite our best efforts, sometimes we take the very lives we are trying to protect.
You cannot defeat an insurgency this way."
If Cernig was a neocon he would have loved the claim that Obama associates with terrorists because he once sat on a board with a man who engaged in terrorism. Mullen is the sinner for quoting a man whose work Cernig can twist.
I find it usefel and enlightening to follow Cernig's links. They often reveal something quite different than what he claims they do. I suggest others read all of Mullen's op-ed piece.
Actually, the story of Locri was interesting. The Italian city of Locri was being treated harshly by a lieutenant in charge of their occupation after Hannibal came through. They complained to Rome about him, and after an investigation, the guilty lieutenant was removed and the Locrians were given twice what was stolen from them. This was AFTER they sided with Hannibal in his own rush to glory.
Good for the Romans. Like I stated earlier, the Romans were not the barbaric Christian killing militaristic blight on Europe that people often make them out to be. They had a very long and very varied history.
Mullen goes on to say that we fucked up in Pakistan the same way the Romans did in Locri, and we need to fix it. Well, he’s right on that too.
As for the crusades and the other stuff... meh.
"In an op-ed in Sunday's WaPo, CJCS Admiral Mullen advanced the theory that America is a reluctant Empire, a hegemon only because its allies trust it and want it to rescue and protect them...just like ancient Rome." or
"That Mullen is writing neocon-style "Hoo-ah! we're the Roman Empire - and we're proud of it!" op-eds is downright scary."
Did you find that? Maybe I missed it.
Yes, the 2nd link written in 2001, and the 4th link. I can see from those where Cernig is getting his material from, and it does slant towards we are great like Rome so let's have our 4th Reich kind of thing.
Not to my taste.
The crusade piece from Mullen was written before the Iraq invasion. Though I can't comment on the accuracy of his interpretations, I do wonder if the piece would have been written differently were it done today.
is that the two links you cite are works by Madden, not Mullen. Nowhere in Mullen's op-ed piece is there anything advocating what Madden advocates, only the use of a story told in another book. This is akin to accusing someone of atheism because they write an op-ed piece which quotes from Tom Sawyer and then backing up the accusation by linking to other works by Mark Twain on religion.
What Mullen did is the equivalent of quoting a particularly atheistic piece from Dawkins as the lead and central theme of an op-ed and then you arguing that he doesn't favor athesism just because of that.
It only makes sense to assume that Mullen read Madden's book, understood the thesis, agreed with it, and then quoted from the book and referred implicitly to that thesis in his op-ed. Any other interpretation is grasping at apologetic straws.
Edit: change implicitly for explicitly - Mullen says "we're not the Romans" - well obviously, none of us are 2,000 years old - but also says plainly how much like Rome he believes America is.
Mullens editorial uses the quote from Maddens book to make one point. America is expected to recognize and redress its' mistakes by the world at large no matter what the intent or circumstance and he agrees with that position. The author then implies that Mullen probably identifies further with Maddens positions but gives no basis in fact for that implication. Mullens article is really about the value of trust in a successful resolution of hostilities in Afghanistan where success is defined as peace and security for the afghan people. No where does Mullen claim to be or wish to be like the Romans. Cernig you are without a doubt ascribing Maddens theories to Mullen with out any confirmation of fact. Simply quoting to illustrate a point is not proof that one believes everything an author has written. I have quoted many people that I do not agree with in totality.
My own personal gadfly.
If you don't see the "we are like the Romans, a nice Empire" message in Mullin's op-ed - one he certainly spotted in Madden's work, since it's laid on so very thick there - or if you believe he just happened to choose Madden's book as his lede even though he disagrees with Madden's central thesis...
...can I interest you in buying a bridge just outside Peshawar? Or a White Man's Burden, barely used?
Regards, C
I find it usefel and enlightening to follow Cernig's links. They often reveal something quite different than what he claims they do.
The last two times you said that was the case, and I responded with an argument for why they showed exactly what I said they did, you didn't reply. I had assumed that you'd accepted the points made once evidence and workings had been shown. Obviously not. I'll try to remember that silence means you stubbornly don't accept the argument but cannot prove it incorrect.
people actually get some sleep and don't pick up the next day on an old blog. I'll check it out and get back to you.
Update. I checked back on our most recent exchange, over reports on weapons in Afghansistan. I criticized whether the report you cited and the links you provided justified the conclusions of your lead.
You responded and I responded to that. There was no silence on my part or indication that I bought into your response.
the lede that said "can be presumed sold onto the black market"?
The lede that you then set out to prove didn't say what it didn't say?
The one about which you just got finished saying this:
"you didn't reply. I had assumed that you'd accepted the points made once evidence and workings had been shown. Obviously not. I'll try to remember that silence means....."
Yes the one in which you state I didn't reply when I did.
Yes, the one where you state "I assumed" in error.
Yes, the one where you infer meaning to "silence" even if silence is non existent.
You have it nailed.
Ricky,
I'm very open to being told I'm wrong or over-reaching. It happens all the time, and I'm often told so by friends more politically apart than thee and me. (James Joyner, for one :-)
But I tend to fit my answers to the attitude of those doing the questioning...
Regards, C
in your post. Let me try it with your style and see if you like it.
By carefully leaving out quotes that indicate Mullen is concerned that the United States military, by killing civilians or using torture at Abu Ghraib, is undermining its mission, Cernig is able to take Mullen's use of a story about the Roman occupation of an Italian city state and project on to that an endorsement by Mullen of every idiotic point made by the original source of the Roman story.
If you don't think that is intellectually dishonest, I will link you to transcripts of the House Unamerican Activities Committee hearings from the 1950's.
Can I interest you in a list of communists in the State Department?
It is easy to play that game.
Regards
As a professional medieval (and Roman) historian myself (and newly registered, just to get that out of the way), I do have to take issue with Madden, his politics and his scholarship. Yes, he's respected. Yes, some of what he has written doesn't appear to be tinged with his conservatism.
However, I agree with Cernig that Madden's ideology IS the important issue because it does call his scholarship into question, or at least makes his interpretation(s) suspect. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that many of the crusaders took up the cross in "defense" of Christendom, but that they also knew full well that there was a Venetian boatload of (material) benefits to be had (which implies something other than altruistic motives). For a Crusades apologist ("they weren't that bad"), the "defensive" argument is like Rome's "bellum iustum" argument: it removes aggressive, self-aggrandizing motives and makes the Crusades more politically acceptable. One only has to read Madden's other articles at the National Review to see how he has tried to rehabilitate troublesome episodes in history (Crusades, Inquisition, and now Roman Imperialism). Thus, though his scholarship (in the strictest terms...i.e. archival research) may be impeccable, his massaging of the source material to achieve his desired (presumably predetermined) result IS questionable.
Two examples may suffice: First, in terms of the Crusades being defensive, how does one account for the many versions of Pope Urban II's speech in 1095 which clearly indicate temporal benefits (land, glory, remission of sins, wealth)? If the cause was so just and Christendom really needed to be defended so desperately, why did the first crusaders need these incentives? I'm not saying their motives have to be either/or, but rehabing the crusaders thus is a bit dishonest. And the modern political connection is: if they weren't bloodthirsty medieval colonialists, then the Crusades weren't as bad as "they" say, which means similarly packaged US endeavors are likewise not as bad. Justification by revisionist proxy.
Cernig's point is to use Madden to get at Admiral Mullen.
"That Mullen is writing neocon-style "Hoo-ah! we're the Roman Empire - and we're proud of it!" op-eds is downright scary." That sentence may be a valid critique of Madden, but it is a total misrepresentation of what Mullen wrote.
At the risk of creating a thread about the minutiae of Crusade scholarship, I would have to disagree with your point about Urban's sermon. We don't have the original, only other authors' later impressions about what Urban said, so it's hard to know if Urban actually made such arguments. Assuming he did make those arguments, one could reasonably claim that he used them as a way to motivate his audience to undertake an extremely expensive and dangerous campaign on behalf of other Christians--after all, the people being attacked were not the people Urban was preaching to. Nor I do think that Madden must be making his argument about the defensive nature of the Crusades because he is conservative; he may well be persuaded that the crusades genuinely were defensive, and therefore he desires to set a popular misconception straight. That's certainly the way he presents himself in his popular writings on the crusades. I would not want to reject his scholarship simply because it can be used for political purposes; I would want to reject it because it appears to be wrong as scholarship. Part of the problem here is there is a great deal of faulty scholarship about Crusading that gets tied into modern political debates about the Middle East. One can argue that crusading was not a form of colonization (for example) without being a neoconservative.
I do, however, agree that Madden's decision to use scholarship for neocon purposes is inappropriate.
Bohemond,
I agree about the reliability of the source material. And I'm not saying that we should scrap Madden's work altogether. There's much to be said for challenging popular interpretations of events such as the Crusades or inquisition (Spanish or otherwise). I'm simply saying that we need to assess his conclusions in light of his National Review articles which are clearly meant to rehab such topics and make them palatable for neocon consumption.
We're in agreement about the false analogies that link vastly different eras, though it does seem to be a quick and easy way to get published (though not useful for tenure!).
in light of your late night blog postings proving you can't leave your work behind for a moment?
What? I can't multitask? Thanks for setting me straight.
Pax Americana est aegri somnia.
We've finally managed to get rid of Caligula, so why do we still have Incitatus running the Joint Chiefs of staff?
Oh yeah, and if we're supposed to emulate the Romans in their attempt to Romanize the Jews, I seem to recall that it took them about two centuries. I hope nobody minds spending 25+ years in the American Legions, wearing caligae and eating hard tack, because that's what it will take.
Woe is me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29224756
Gates and Obama's magical new Afghan surge.
or hunting season will soon be open !
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29226669
I can't believe the choice we are now faced with are support murder and genocide with our money and in our name or openly fight the government with every fiber of our being.
That's a damn hard choice.
Sorry...hit the save button too soon...
Second example, this time with Madden's Rome argument: If Roman imperialism can be likewise rehabilitated, then the impression of American imperialism might improve as well. When Madden writes about how great Rome was for unifying Italy (and David Frum seconded this idea in his review) because it created this cooperative system with Rome simply being "first-among-equals", he is leaving out a LOT of grief, warfare and bloodshed between Romans and Italians that resulted in a savage "Social" War in the last century of the Republic. But wait, I thought Rome started incorporating Italians way back at the beginning of the Republic? They did, but didn't give them full rights of citizenship for centuries (some cities they did, but the rest chaffed under Roman "benevolence" for generations). So demeaning was it for the Italian allies (giving their blood for Rome, but not having complete control over their affairs, esp. foreign policy) that they took up arms against their former ally and thousands died. Not so benevolent after all.
So, like the Crusades, this rehabilitation of history, even though based on parts of the historical record, quite clearly seems aimed at deflecting charges that American foreign policy (esp. in the Middle East) is dangerously imperialistic.
Sorry for the long (first) post, but I wanted to make sure that Madden's political ideology IS seen as inseparable from his historical interpretation (which naturally comes through in Mullen's vision of our armed forces as Roman-like 'peacemakers').
Mullen wrote but neither was most of Cernig's post, so you are at least on thread.
One wonders how many articles, school papers, essays and books have been written on the comparison between the two in the last century.
The Romans as rulers do have a lot to teach us in a general sense; both good and bad. The pity here is the attention paid to the Empire and not to the Roman Republic, it's expansion and implosion. That, I think, is where the better lessons are to be found.
Our ruling aristocracy really believes this Rome/America bullshit. Don't you find it odd that the ruling class of America is so hell bent upon building an American Empire. It's not a rational way of thinking. You look at all the shit we get involved in. Would it not be so much easier or smarter to just walk away or ignore it. Who really gives a shit if a bunch of fundies take over Iran. It's not my desert. It's not like the Mullahs are taking over Arizona. It's not like the Mullahs are going to not sell oil to the West. Who else is going to buy it? What about Cuba? Who really gives a crap if they decide to be commies. Why would this prevent us from buying cigars, cuban stockings, or sugar from them; could we not make a profit by trading them tractors? The American Empire is not rational. Our actions make no sense at all. Our pursuit of Empire is more than financial. It's fanatical. This idea that we are the reincarnation of the Roman Empire is the driving force behind the constuction of our Empire. This is almost or maybe it is a religous belief of our aristocracy. I thought it was a bunch of wooh-wooh psycho-babble, until I started listening to the Nixon tapes. Litterally every decision he made; he made in the context of what the Romans did or didn't do. I hear references to this slip out all the time from people in high places. They are so used to talking in these terms that they slip up and make these kinds of comments by accident to commoners or the press.
Doesn't Mullen know that the Roman Empire didn't end so well for the Romans?
Man, you're a tough crowd! Your comment above is a bit like saying the five-times-in-a-decade NBA champs--Chicago Bulls--aren't a team anyone should pattern themselves after because they eventually had a losing streak.
I druther have Roman hands.
Mullen makes claims that have no purpose and he says very little or nothing at all. First of all, America is not a military empire, or is it? Second, the US military does not build roads, schools or clinics in Afghanistan, the phony US contractors built shit or nothing, and that doesn't matter anyway because building schools is not the US military's job.
As for Mike's contention that training the Pak military is a good thing, well, I wonder who invested him with that prerogative, and didn't anyone teach him about the Soviet war in Afghanistan or the US role in training the people who hit America on 9/11? And, he thinks training more of them will make America safer? Has Mullen even considered how badly Afghanistan has gone under the tutelage of Karzai, who is there at our behest. Lastly, why doesn't he, or the Washington Post, explain that the US military has been cultivating the Pakistani military for 60 years, except when 'we left' in 1990 until we got hit in 2001 and then we went back to the same terrorists that now Mullen thinks we should train again? Why doesn't he also tell America how Gen. Kiani is being cultivated and for what exactly is anyone's guess, except to empower the corrupt oligarch that runs Pakistan, which I gather is what Mullen prefers. Sir, it's the absolute wrong thing to start training the Paks or giving them weapons. They and you are the problem, not the solution.
in detail: The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, by Chalmers Johnson.
He published this about 5 years ago and laid out the trajectory we have been following with pretty good accuracy. After reading this, it will be no surprise why George Tenet was hung out to dry and why Dept of State and CIA have largely been absorbed into the Pentagon, why we have placed troops where we have and why it's so scary that the default occupation of choice for the underemployed is the military.
He also points out that military empires (we presently fulfill 8 of 9 criteria for this) are inherently unstable, and that the usual collapse is economic... ... ...
...Dept of State and CIA have largely been absorbed into the Pentagon...
Just a quick comment on this portion.
In all my years in the Army and having seen the above two organizations in action I've never seen them co-operate with the Pentagon smoothly on anything.
I think anyone who's worked in State and/or the military in a capacity where they have to co-operate could tell you it's a difficult task in the best of times.
Rummy was famous for non-cooperation with the State Department and the CIA as well as for ignoring advice from most of the Army's leadership. "Absorbed" would not be the word I'd use, more like State and the CIA "isolated from" the Pentagon.
It is interesting that although our Founding Fathers didn't plan for us to become an Empire, they used the eagle as our symbol reminiscent of what the Romans used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8
dead parrots, you link to Monty Python and birds are used by Cleese, Jefferson and many Diocletians. Not to mention the snake allegories and Field Marshall Montgomery allusions.
Mullens editorial uses the quote from Maddens book to make one point. America is expected to recognize and redress its' mistakes by the world at large no matter what the intent or circumstance and he agrees with that position. The author then implies that Mullen probably identifies further with Maddens positions but gives no basis in fact for that implication. Mullens article is really about the value of trust in a successful resolution of hostilities in Afghanistan where success is defined as peace and security for the afghan people. No where does Mullen claim to be or wish to be like the Romans.
.
Do you really think Mullen read the book and decided to use a chunk as his lede without understanding and agreeing with Madden's thesis? His entire context is of the use of trust by an Empire in its foreign policy - "like the Romans".
It does not matter what I think if I have no facts to back it up it is conjecture. If you will admit your position regarding Mullens point of view is conjecture on your part then you could say what you wish. Personally, I would engage the admiral and ask him if he agreed with Maddens positions before just concluding that it must be so because I think it is. Your empire analogy has a big hole in it as well. Everywhere America has used its military has eventually either joined us or become independent without a fight or paying tribute but peacefully through votes and law.
I think you pretty much summed it up, Mullens point was lost in all of this. It's a pity really. Part of his stance is one of taking responsibility for our screw-ups and making it right.
Truth is generally not all that sexy. Innuendo is titillating and the formula for success in news media,politics, blogging and advertising.
...should be shitcanned yesterday. Holy crap! (pun intended)
Login or Register to post comments.