On further reflection, the author of that comment is alluding to a pattern that is most troubling. I am a casual student of Roman History. Although I am more interested in Roman social forms than the wars that Rome prosecuted, I can hardly ignore the wars in those studies.
Much of Roman history seems to be a constant, rolling conquest with armies sent out to pursue and defeat enemies - real and perceived - year after year. The parallels between the rhetoric used to justify invading Iraq and the words of Cato with respect to invading - and ultimately destroying Carthage are striking.
But Cato was so struck by the evidences of Carthaginian prosperity that he was convinced that the security of Rome depended on the annihilation of Carthage. From this time, in season and out of season, he kept repeating the cry: "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam." (Moreover, I advise that Carthage should be destroyed. - Plutarch, Life of Cato)Cato (the elder), in many ways echoed what became a driving force in Roman politics - the constant search for enemies outside the Roman realm. Peoples whose presence on Rome's ever expanding borders were perceived or twisted into being threats. (It is far from clear to me that all of the lands that Rome made conquest of were in fact threats, especially in the regions we now call the Middle East.
Is Iran the Carthage of today? Perhaps. Right now the Americans are making noises about "diplomatic" channels, and are trying to avoid the talk of war. (Of course, one must consider the source in this conversation - it's hardly reassuring to have C. Rice "disavowing" war - she has shown herself to be decidedly hawkish, and more perturbingly, willing to make policy based on religious belief. (it doesn't help that GWB has made it clear that his alleged faith is a key driver in any policy decisions he makes)
Short of a massive mobilization of troops (by means of a draft), it seems fairly clear that the United States Army cannot afford to actively occupy both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as open an offensive on a third front like Iran. It's not the actual defeat of the standing government of the invaded realm that is their problem, it is the post-invasion mop-up that takes years and thousands of troops to carry out.
Bush and his bunch of hawks will point to Iraq's recent elections and claim that they will be able to bring "democracy" to Iran even faster, since they won't repeat their mistakes in Iraq. It is sad that the Iraqis are going to pay the price for the American hubris that equates democracy with freedom.
In some respects, Rome was a form of democracy. Certainly the "executive" branch leadership were elected by the "tribes", but I'd hardly accuse it of being a "free" society. It engaged in slavery; the pater familias still had absolute rights over the lives of all in his household; it was a very cast-driven society, with the lower casts having much less say in their treatment and governance than other classes. Some of the Dictators and later Emperors would brutally suppress those that challenged their supremacy. Yet, the "elected" government persisted for years. (Arguably, today's Roman Catholic Pope is elected through a means very reminiscent of the elections in ancient Rome...)
The United States may be immense; and may well be the dominant military force in the world, but we would do well to remember that "Democracy" does not equate to "Freedom" per se.
No comments:
Post a Comment