[lit-ideas] France, a Rogue State in 1801-05

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:33:56 -0700

I watched most of a presentation by Frederick Kagan on CSpan yesterday on
Napoleon.  The program first occurred on 7-20, I believe, and was just
re-aired.  Kagan has written the first volume of what he anticipates to be a
trilogy.  He argues that the political element in Napoleon's career have
been neglected by previous historians.  Indeed Napoleon used the military
solution when confronted with obstacles but it was his political theories
that got him into trouble.  He would impose treaties on nations he defeated,
but because the treaties were not acceptable, the nations would resume the
battle against him later on as soon as the opportunity presented itself.  No
single nation could defeat Napoleon so coalitions would come together to
make the attempt.  It was the fifth coalition that was finally successful.

 

Kagan defined Napoleon's France as a Rogue state.  A Rogue State wants to
overturn the current "World Order."  The World Order in Napoleon's day had
Britain in control of the seas and of commerce.  Britain was the Hegemon
that guaranteed the World Order of Napoleon's day.  Many acts of Imperial
Britain were unjust and Napoleon wanted to overturn it.  Napoleon, according
to Kagan thought that other nations suffering British injustice would rise
to his support, but while Britain was indeed unjust, it was not impossibly
so.  Other nations lived pretty well in the world order that Napoleon wanted
to overturn; so they didn't support him.  

 

It was impossible to listen to Kagan and not see the parallels between the
1801-05 period which was the subject of Kagan's book and the present day.
Present day nations like France, Germany, Russia and China may grouse about
the current World Order which has the US in the place of Britain, but they
aren't about to overturn it.  They are doing well enough and want things to
stay as they are.  Someone dealt with the simplistic objection that
improvements comprised a change to the world order.  That change is not the
sort that a Rogue State has in mind.  The World Order is changing slowly as
a result of many things but these changes do not involve Rogue States.
Improvements are not what a Rogue State has in mind.  A Rogue State's
desires to destroy the current World Order.  Iran wants to eliminate this
current world order and replace it with Islamism.  Iran is a Rogue State.  

 

Kagan says that historically Rogue States have always failed and the reason
is the same reason that Napoleon failed.  He overestimated the support he
was going to get.  This can already be seen in Iran's case.  Khomeini fully
believed in his revolution and planned to export it to the rest of the
Muslim world.  He expected to succeed, but the only nation in which he had
even marginal success was Lebanon.  There was a recent MEMRI report in which
other Muslim nations were seen to be critical of Hezbollah.  That is very
different from what Khomeini hoped.  He hoped they would rise to his banner
and help him create a new world order.  It would seem that despite the
Middle East's unhappiness with the current Hegemon, they are not so unhappy
as to want to overturn the World Order that this Hegemon guarantees and
replace it with one guaranteed by Iran.  

 

In the question and answer period someone asked about terrorist
organizations, but it was answered that terrorist organizations cannot
operate very well without a State.  They need a place to hide, a place to
train, a place to obtain money, arms, etc.  Otherwise they might engage in a
destructive act, but it will be a one of a kind destructive act.  Or it will
take a very long time before they can build up to another one.  Iran is more
to be worried about than Al Quaeda.

 

I should admit at this point that this view is different from one I have
held.  I have thought in terms of the large numbers of Muslims who have
supported Militant Islam as being the determining factor in what ought to be
our concern.  Kagan seems to be implying that the current World Order will
be victorious over this Islamism as a significant number of states do not
take it up.  Iran is the only Rogue State that has taken up Militant Islam
at present and the more militant among us believe Iran can be defeated; so
as long as no more states take it up we should be okay.  Perhaps the larger
number in Pakistan, for example, favor Islamism, but the Pakistani state
does not; so the Islamist impetus in Pakistan is largely muted and will,
hopefully, become even more muted as time goes on.  I'm just noting a
different idea here and am not saying whether I agree with it.  I shall have
to give it some more thought.

  

 

Here is Kagan's book at Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306811375/sr=1-1/qid=1155484101/ref=pd_bbs
_1/103-6770451-7464642?ie=UTF8
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306811375/sr=1-1/qid=1155484101/ref=pd_bb
s_1/103-6770451-7464642?ie=UTF8&s=books> &s=books 

 

Lawrence

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2006