Mussolini
underestimated the Greeks and
overestimated his own army...he had assembled only
nine divisions - some 100,000 troops. His own
generals were doubters; they told him it would take
an army more than twice that size to invade and
occupy Greece. To compound his error, Mussolin
was committing Italy to a second major
battlefront while he was heavily engaged in East
Africa.
Quite by accident I came across this
paragraph in the Partisans and Guerrillas
volume of the Time-Life series on World War II.
What a surprise, huh? Bet some of you out there
thought the missing words were Bush Iraquis Iraq
Bush America and Afghanistan....I take that
back...no resemblance at all...who could compare us
to some fascist clown?...we're the good guys.
Yeah...that's the sort of funny info
you come across when you read. More people should
try it. Just think if I'd sent copies of that book
to Cheney and Rumsfeld back in 2002. Iraq war
wouldn't have happened. But for want of a nail and
all that.
Read. Ya know, once people thought
they should read to understand the way life happens
by looking at how it happened before. Yeah...that's
so old world.
Oh, I don't believe history repeats
itself. As Mark Twain said, at best history
rhymes. And yet, just look at those blanks in that
paragraph. That, as Rummy said, is stuff happenin'.
I got to thinkin' about readin' and what can be
learned by readin' as a result of Halberstam's
mention of The Reason Why in the e-mail one of you
sent me last week. I read The Reason Why a decade
ago...about the charge of the light brigade and the
Crimean war more broadly. The charge was a
misunderstanding of orders. General ordered his men
to take the enemy cannon. But the officers who got
the message couldn't see the cannon the general
could see. They could only see cannon a way down a
long, broad plain, so that goin' at those cannon
would be like goin' after cannon at the end of a
handball court. While the cannon was shootin', of
course. Clear suicide. In fact, one of the
commanding officers was heard to mutter as he turned
his horse toward the cannon, "Here goes the last of
the Brudenells." And he did go, along with most of
the 600.
The Reason Why...the reason why was
the two commanding officers hated each other. They
could have conferred about an obviously insane order
and sent a messenger to get clarification. But they
hated each other, and so most of their men died.
They acted out of emotion, not principle or
rationality. Oh, heck, and how could anyone find
anything in a book like that that had anything to do
with anything today? I mean, this is a war like no
other...the white house crowd said so, didn't they?
This war clearly isn't like Vietnam.
Vietnam lasted most ten years. We got a long time
to go before anyone can compare this war to
Vietnam. Besides, this war is a bonanza, not a
quagmire.
No, I see this war as more like the
Revolutionary War. And guess what? We're the
British. Yeah. Ya see, the U.S. has had ten major
wars, counting this one. The Rev, 1812, Mexico,
Civil War, Spanish, WWi, WWii, Korea, Vietnam and
Freedom. This one now has lasted longer than any
other except Vietnam and the Revolutionary War. I
think the Revolutionary War lasted six. Well, about
readin'...one of my favorite books is about our
Presidents. In the section on Washington, the book
tells how when Cornwallis surrendered, the war
ended. But the Brits won most of the battles. A
British army was landing in New York just when
Cornwallis surrendered. George III wanted to keep
it up. But it was just too damn expensive. They
could have kept fighting. The fighting was very
much in progress. But they surrendered. Just wore
'em out. Nothing final. So I was hopin' to use
readin' to make some point about thinkin' about how
sompin went in the past and what that might have to
do with how sompin might go in the future....ah, but
it's a new woild.
In the new woild, people don't write
about history and facts...they write about
ideas...like there was a guy a decade ago who wrote
that because the soviet union fell, there would now
be no more history...really...this guy got his book
published and people bought it...and people think
P.T. Barnum was the king of malarky. people call
that writer a neo-con, although I don't see much
difference between neo-cons and what we used to call
reactionaries, bearing in mind that history at best
rhymes...ideas...the great thing about writin' about
ideas instead of history and facts is that you can
use ideology and opinions and wishful
thinking instead of logic and research...if people
get used to readin' and listenin' to ideas instead
of facts and history, then they'll fall prey to
pretty much any kind of manipulation or just plain
preposturous bullshit...like that we would be
greeted in Iraq as liberators...or that we have to
take out Iran before they attack us...I mean, we
just made that mistake, and we're still suffering
from it...in what terms can we describe human
behavior that repeats mistakes, mistakes only
recently made to boot?
Gee, I once loaned a girlfriend money
and didn't get it back. Then another girlfriend
asked me for money, and I said to myself, "Gee, I
think I made that mistake before." But I loaned the
second girlfriend money. I didn't get that money
back either. Can you think of any terms that might
be descriptive of my behavior? Think hard.
But readin'...I was lookin' in a book
titled What If? It's a book of alternative history,
like what woulda happened if the D-Day Invasion
failed? Or what woulda happened if the Mongols got
to Paris? Tripe, of course. Closer to fiction than
forecast. In fact, back in 1994 I started my own
sci-fi story titled The Moderns, in which explorers
travelled back in time to the Mexican Olmecs, who
existed at about the time of the Roman Empire. The
story was to be about what the time travellers
inadvertently changed. And as soon as they met the
Olmecs, two of the explorers would disappear, having
caused a change that prevented their own births.
The explorers would travel forward to the Mongol age
and find that they had done something which did,
yes, result in the Mongols taking Paris, and I
envisioned a scene of the Mongols riding their
ponies through Nortre Dame and stripping and raping
the women of Paris on the plaza in front of the
great church.
With disquiet, the explorers return
to the present. Well, their visit to the Olmecs
resulted in the Olmecs making the discovery of
Europe, and not vice-versa. The explorers are
arrested and led before some official. On his wall
is a portrait of Winston Churchill. Except
Churchill has eyes with epicenthalic folds and a Fu
Manchu moustache. They're condemned to be
sacrificed with their hearts cut out while they're
alive in front of thousands, ala the ancient Olmecs.
Improbable that human sacrifice would be retained so
long? Hey, Christmas started around the time of the
Olmecs. But I digress.
I brought up alternative history
because I thought about what if Bush had read the Partisans
and Guerrillas volume which I read. I
envisioned all his aides telling Bush he had to
invade Iraq. And then Bush would say, "Never! I
will not go down in history as the biggest
clown since Mussolini!"
Just kidding. Aw, come on, don't
take it so seriously. I'm just a guy who reads.
Here's somethin' else I read. From
Kipling. "Here Lies a Fool Who Tried to Hustle the
East." 24
Fifth Ave.,
Fri, 13 Jul 2007