A
New 100 Years War
Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.)
April
7, 2003
"We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for
the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies
are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you
— the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family — most fear:
We're on the side of your own people."
Is former CIA Director James Woolsey, rumored to be in line
for an important position in post-Saddam, U.S.-run Iraq, proposing
another 100 Years War?
That conflict between France and England, which ran intermittently
from 1337-1453, interlaced a number of critical issues: free
trade, English land claims in France and claims to the French
throne, and the struggle for European maritime supremacy. The
latter issue was quickly settled in England's favor, allowing
Edward III to invade France in 1345. France suffered two severe
defeats (at Crecy and Poitiers), in which the role of armored
knights was effectively ended. But unable to drive home his
advantage and seize the French throne, Edward agreed to peace
in 1360. Desultory fighting resumed four years later, ending
again in 1396 when Richard II of England married the sister
of Charles VI of France. Major war resumed in 1415, followed
by a short-lived peace treaty in 1420. In 1429, French forces
inspired by Joan of Arc lifted the siege of Orleans, and from
1435 to 1453, additional French successes combined with internal
English financial woes and indifference to continuation of the
war effectively brought it to an end.
Boiled down to the basics, the 100 Years War was fought for
dynastic power — who would rule France. The role of ordinary
people was to pay taxes, obey the monarch, and, especially on
the English side, fight when levied. Mr. Woolsey's new war represents
the inverse as it would threaten, in the name of democracy,
the continuation of regimes that strongly support U.S. policies,
even against anti-U.S. popular sentiment of their "street."
No American would wish to live under either a secular or religious
authoritarianism, nor wish that status on others. But the effects
of recent U.S. unilateralism, the current "war of choice"
against Iraq without UN approval, and the lack of the promised
progress on resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict, point to
another, more ominous reality: that democratic elections would
install a radical regime whose first step would be to create
a religious autocracy hostile to the United States. Such an
outcome, as happened to popular acclaim in Iran, arguably leaves
a country worse off because eventually it suffers from two tyrannies
instead of one. And for the United States, it would only increase
suspicion about and hostility to its foreign policy goals.
In fairness, Mr. Woolsey's central targets were two members
of the axis of evil and a neighbor — "the religious
rulers of Iran, the ‘fascists' of Iraq and Syria"
— plus "Islamic extremists like al Qaeda." Two
points are immediately striking about this list, particularly
when combined with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. All are Islamic,
and none possesses nuclear weapons. This is passingly strange,
to say the least, in that North Korea, the other part of the
axis of evil, has a secular authoritarian ideology that rivals
any in the Middle East, secular or religious. The regime is
solidly on the State Department's list of states supporting
terror and violating human rights. But it also is suspected
to have two or more nuclear devices. This alone seems to isolate
it from U.S. military action or even direct threats, a lesson
that others on Mr. Woolsey's list will be quick to absorb. And
undoubtedly more regimes will follow to preempt the possibility
that, further down the road, the U.S. will decide that the time
has come to spread "God's gift to humanity" to their
people.
Indeed, Woolsey spoke of a "move toward a new Middle East,"
echoing a familiar theme that permeates the Bush Administration.
Afghanistan, because its repressive regime harbored al Qaeda,
was the first to receive democracy from Washington. Iraq will
soon follow, even though the success of Afghanistan's experience
— really still very much an experiment — is shaky
at best. What Woolsey and others in or identified with the Administration
see is a grand democratic tsunami that, once unleashed and accelerated,
as necessary, by American military power, will sweep all else
before it, resolve the world's problems, and lead to general
peace and prosperity.
Never happen in a hundred years.
Daniel
Smith, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, is Senior
Fellow on Military Affairs at the Friends Committee on National
Legislation.
Reviewed:
09/06/2005
More
on Iraq
|
