Ciao!

Oh, please draw those parallels for me cos I don't see any.

Do you know the story of the 300 Spartans? The parallel just draws itself out. It's first mentioned in Herodotus, but has since become popular off and on.

Essentially, the Spartans (and a few other allies) fight about 300,000 soldiers of the Persian Empire (under Xerxes). Because of the terrain at Thermopylae, a handful of Spartans can fight off the entire Persian army in a small bottleneck. They battle lasted three days. The Spartans fought to the last man, giving the rest of the Greeks enough time to regroup and form a larger army to fight the Persians later. In the end, the Greeks won the war and retained the little city-state experiment. Most historians credit this as a key turning point of Western Civilization. W/o the Spartan stand at Thermopylae, the Greek city-states would've been overrun by the Persian Empire. No Athens, Corinth, Sparta. And, hence, no Rome. Subsequently, no development of democratic and republican philosophical traditions. In short, no West.

The Iraq war was a stand for the values of the West against the forces of anti-liberalism (throughout the world, even the US and Europe). And a small army really (just about two divisions) made a bold statement to the world. The West is here. It will not go down on our watch.

That, more or less, is the parallel.

For more information, read Frank Miller's 300 Spartans.

Here's some historical information on the Battle of Thermopylae.

Don't get me wrong, I know the story. I just didn't see 300 Americans fighting off an invading Iraqi army which was a thousand times stronger.
I thought Iraq invaded someone 13 years ago. In this war I must have missed that.

The Spartans died heroically after fighting successfully due to their bravery and the bottleneck position. The two brigades you mentioned won because they hardly faced an enemy while they themselves invaded.
Either the enemy had been bombed back to stone age when the troops reached Bagdad or Saddams army wasn't strong in the first place. So it wasn't like 300 against 300 thousand.

The Spartans did not strike preemptively.

Hope I wasn't unclear: by bombing into stone age I did not mean that US bombed civilian targets massively. I am not saying that.
I just meant that American technology is so much more advanced that the enemy's troops apparently were bombed effectively enough so that they wouldn't (or couldn't) fight anymore.

Bombed back to the stone age? Did you see Baghdad? The vast majority of it's still standing. Please don't back up your argument w/ only hyperbole.

The parallel's not perfect. It's not meant to be, not in terms of fact. It's meant to be in terms of ethos. Iraq stood for something: It stood for the idea that the spirit of man can be crushed by the image of a tyrant hailing a cab (the megalomania of a Hussein or a Stalin or a Kim Jung Il is no different than Xerxes declaring himself a god) . It stood for the idea that a tyrants right to sovereignty is greater than the right of free peoples to depose him. It stood for the idea that a threat to the values of the West should be appeased, that peace at any cost is preferred to war, that freedom is not worth an ounce of blood.

And that's why I think the coalition forces resembled the Spartans. There they stood, and were faithful to their duty. While many in the West closed their eyes and preferred peace at any cost to a war of liberation on behalf of a long-suffered people, they marched into uncertainty. And many of them bled for it.

U mean us global nomads? = )

Yes, and that's another parallel. The Spartans fought so well against such odds because of their superior training and technology. The Hoplite was a better warrior than the Persian or Mede. But also ... why was the Hoplite better? Why did he fight w/ more tenacity? Herodutos reports that the Spartans, at the end, their swords and shields shattered and broken, the Spartans fought w/ their teeth and nails! Why?

Because a free people - a truly free people - will always field a better army than a despot. That's something Rousseau knew so well. The German Wehrmacht was considered the best army in the world. But it lost to a bunch of over-fed, undisciplined, ragtag Americans. Why? Because a society based on freedom (free speech, religious tolerance, etc) is a creative society. It will always defeat a society that is highly centralized and ruled only by force.

Yep, Steph, my nomad friends! I'll be a nomad again soon (I leave for Bolivia in September). But then again, in the big scheme of things, aren't we all nomads? I think people are like turtles, we carry our homes wherever we go - in our hearts.

Another comparison: about the Wehrmacht and the US forces. It just isn't that easy.
The Wehrmacht may or may not have been the best army but it couldn't take on the whole world. Then there were strategic mistakes being made, like attacking russia late in the year, like letting a whole army die at Stalingrad instead of breaking the siege, there was plain stupidity on Hitler's part in believing that he could ally with the British cos they are Aryans as well.

(TBC)

Besides, America didn't get involved in the war until Pearl Harbor. It wasn't really fond of fighting Germany cos the Nazis killed so many Jews or invaded half a dozen countries. I mean, after Pearl Harbor America got involved in the pacific as well as the atlantic battlefield. But not solely because of the Jews or the German people or the French or the Poles but because they were attacked. (ok, i admit that pearl harbor isn't the whole reason as well, but the initial spark to get involved it was nonetheless)

So saying, that America won just because they were a free people is plain wrong. It MAY have been a factor but it is not THE reason.

Marco:

See, now you're drawing parallels I didn't mean to. Parallels. Parallels. To be fair, you did use the phrase "back to the stone age", which has a specific meaning in terms of what kind of bombing campaign. I think we hit their military assets well enough, but the guys on the ground were still surprised at how uncoordinated any resistance was. The real reason (in my humble opinion) for the ease of this war was that Iraqis had no will to fight. And it wasn't just that they knew they'd lose (that's never certain in war), but because they had nothing to fight for. Stories of soldiers fighting only because Baath officials would kill their families are too common. The Iraqis surrendered as soon as they could. I even remembers stories of Iraqis surrendering to American forces after shooting their officers (the bodies were found, executed, in the trenches the Iraqis abandoned).

You're right, the US didn't get involved in the Second World War because of the Jews or any other "noble" reason. But there was such a movement in the US. Not to mention many Americans who volunteered in the British armed forces (especially the RAF) and even China (the Flying Tigers). And FDR wanted to get the US in the war very early, but needed popular support. Pearl Harbor gave him that support. Some might argue that many in the US wanted to wage an unrelenting war against terrorism, but few Americans noticed the threat. 9/11 gave us that impetus. We're not at war against al Qaida. We're now at war against terrorism. And that's a very good thing.

I never claimed that the parallels about the Spartans were perfect. But the spirit is the same. Few philosophers think highly of the Spartans. They had no real culture, art, science. They were brutal to the helots. And yet. They saved Western civilization. Sometimes the unpopular guys end up saving the rest of us.

My claim about Americans winning because they are a free people had more to do w/ soldiers than anything else. Several military historians have pointed this out. The key moment was the Battle of the Bulge. That should've been a dramatic German victory. It might've ended the war. Or dragged it on much longer. German crack units (yes, they were still crack units) broke through the Ardennes. American troops panicked and fled at first. But little pockets here and there stood up to fight. And they fought hard. By the second day, resistance was stiffening everywhere (my God, Bostogne!). The Germans were surprised. These were undisciplined troops, some weren't even front-line troops (much of the defense of small towns was done by cooks, jeep mechanics, etc) and yet they fought. Leaderless groups of men, just fighting.

And the reason is that they weren't an army. They didn't think like an army (not the fighting GIs anyhow). They hated the army. They hated most of their officers. But they were a community. And there was always this sense that, if we retreat or surrender, someone else will have to come back and do it again. And those are my buddies over there fighting. I'm not leaving my buddies. "Hey, Joe, you gonna fight that tank? I'll help. C'mon Mac, we got some fight in us yet!" That kind of attitude.

And it's still alive and strong in the US armed forces today. Look at any army unit in the field. It's sloppy. Americans don't wear their uniforms well. They don't march beautifully on parade (heck, it's one of the few armies in the world that doesn't goose step). And yet they fight. I read a story in the paper of a wounded soldier carried away on a stretcher. He shed most of his gear, but not his shotgun. He laid down cover fire - from his stretcher! - for the medics who carried him to an aid station. "I'm still in this fight!" he told the nearby reporter. Why? Because those were his buddies. Not comrades, not fellow soldiers, his buddies.

That's a citizen army. A volunteer army. No conscript army on earth can match that kind of esprit de corps.

Hey, Miguel, I really like your comparisons to teh storyy of the 300 Spartans. It's funny, because when you read the book, your criticism was that it held dramatics over facts...and here you are getting all...poetic about it.
Naturally, the numbers angle does not add up. Coalition forces vastly out weigh Saddams guys, so that part of the story doesn't work. However I like the idea of soldiers fighting for the ideals of freedom for potentially the wrong reasons. Leonidas may not have been trying to save democracy, he may well have just been trying to see if he could beatthe other toughest kid on teh block. Just like GWB may not be fighting to free Iraq, he may be doing it to make himself feel like a big man (or a rich man) but the....

Got cut off....
the result is the same. The ideal is preserved. And maybe the parallel is deeper than that....Lots of peopel were worried that this fight in Iraq would stir anti-US sentiment and encourage terrorists. Think of these invisible terrorist legions as the persians. Like the Persians, they are an unfaceable army, un beatable. And yet teh coalition forces march out to fight them.
It reminds me of the story the story-teller told in 300, with the moral "All Greeks know what is the right thing to do, but only the Spartans DO it."
No, it isn't a perfect comparison, but I think it's a good one, I just wish I could trust GWB's motivations.
Josh

I am not so familiar with the battles on Germany's Western Front in WW2. Truely, the battles in the Ardennes were crucial in some way.

Let me add that German propaganda wasn't really helpful to the Nazis this time. I mean, yes, the Americans were portrayed as lazy soldiers, so maybe they were underestimated. Germany's army was torn, though, between the east and the west. Propanda had portrayed the Russians as devils who wouldn't take prisoners, rape wives and children and so on. German resistance therefore was much stiffer in the east than in the west.

Personally, I think the war was decided east of Germany. But maybe, we shouldn't drag this topic into WW2 too much. It is hard to find historically exact parallels. (TBC)

Basically, I see the parallels you draw from the Spartans to this war. I believe that some of them are valid. Other aspects are not correct.

The 300 Spartans story is a great legend. A heroic legend about facing the odds willing to die defending your home. I can't help it, I just don't see the same kind of heroism in Iraq even if we believe that this was a fight to let freedom prevail.
1. Coalition attacked, the Spartans defended.
2. Coalition probably had less soldiers in Iraq than Saddam but they greatly outnumbered Iraq in fighting power and technology. The odds are completely reversed in the Iraq conflict compared to the Spartans.
3. The Spartans lost. Dying heroes for a greater cause, that is what makes a legend.

You may argue that each soldier who died in Iraq is a hero but that is not what I meant.

The parallel would have been more accurate if Saddam won the war but in the end was defeated because the world had finally agreed on fighting him together.

Failing heroes who - while bravely failing - ensure final success. This is at the heart of the Spartans-legend, in my opinion.

Herodotus made the battle legendary. It is too early to judge on the heroism of the Iraq invasion, I believe.

I never said the 300 Spartans was an analogy, only that it has parallels. Important difference. But read the Herodotus account again, let me know what parallels jump out at you.

If you want to see a near-perfect analogy to the Iraq situation, go out and rent the classic movie "High Noon" (w/ Gary Cooper).

I only have a faint memory of watching "High Noon". I don't remember any similarity with the Iraq invasion. But now I am curious, so I 'll try to watch it again asap.

Abt, parallels: Well, Xerxes was a "dictator", Saddam as well. The Spartans famous warriors. I think it is safe to say the same abt the US army.

Everything else is at least slightly different, I think. Like Sparta being an oligarchy, the question who attacked, the amount of troops or the result of the battle.

Last but not least the motives are different. The Spartans didn't try to bring their lifestyle to Persia nor were they after Persian resources, they just defended Hellas. For me the differences outweigh the parallels. Therefore I wouldn't emphasize the latter.

For me the parallels are in spirit, not in the tactical similarities between the two events (as I've already stated). My friend Josh Dahl said it best by pointing out to a line from Herodotus (also in the Frank Miller comic): "Every Greek knows what is right the right thing to do. Only the Spartans do it." Another parallel is that the Spartans were not well liked (considered cocky, self-sure, people were skeptical of their motives), but they fought on behalf of their entire civilization nonetheless. Little things like that.

The point, we can be inspired by little things from different events. They don't have to be exactly the same. At least, I'd like to think that history (which is modern man's mythology) transcends the rudimentary facts of an event to teach us something about the human soul.

Oh, and watch high noon. The villain is Frank Miller (who's riding into town w/ his gang) once he arrives on the noon train. The retired Marshall (Gary Cooper) tries to get people to help him face the Miller gang down. No one wants to help. All for good, moral reasons of their own. My favorite is when a townsperson jumps up at the church (the UN) and blurts out: "How do we even know Frank Miller's on that train?" Watch the movie. When I think of Europeans (i.e. Chirac) calling Americans "cowboys", I think of that movie. To be called a cowboy is a badge of honor.

I believe that bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq is the spirit for your support of the Iraq war.
I believe that the reasons for Russia and France to disagree are spirited (at least in sizable parts) by their national interest and bot by the cause of humanity.

However, I also believe that bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq is not the spirit which drove the Bush administration to conquer Iraq. Nor the threat of Iraqi WMD.
I have a hard time supporting the war if it is done for the wrong reasons. Also, it seems likely to me that democracy will not prevail in Iraq except by force. An Ayatola regime appears to be wished by most shiites instead. What happens if such a regime will be elected?

Again, a democratic Iraq IS in our nation's best interest. And I actually believe Bush when he argues for that as a reason for the war. Are other interests involved? Sure. I've never denied that.

I'm just surprised at the Euro-cynicism that dominates the argument -- the disbelief that anyone could act for a more complex reasoning than short term self-interest. If that's supposed to be the mark of a more "enlightened" civilization's mind -- cynicism and disbelief in progressivism -- then count me out.

I'm sick of the war "just for oil" argument -- no matter how subtly it's phrased. There's a slight chance (but only a slight one) that the "oil" argument is correct. If so, I'll admit it. I expect you to do likewise if the evidence demonstrates you are wrong.

And I don't think Iraqis will elect an "Ayatola" regime. I have more faith in the Iraqi (and Arab) peoples I guess. I see no reason why they can't govern themselves. Only a truly Eurocentric mind would argue that all Arabs are incapable of ruling themselves democratically. Most observers recognize that Iraq is a highly secular society. I doubt it'll elect religious fanatics into office. If they do, that's their right of course. But let's give them a little more credit. Let's not be always cynical of everything. Let's dare to hope!

And I don't think Iraqis will elect an "Ayatola" regime. I have more faith in the Iraqi (and Arab) peoples.

But I would not rule out the possibility that it happens either ...

"Thousands of protesters marched through downtown Baghdad after Friday prayers to denounce the U.S. presence in Iraq and demand that an Islamic state replace the fallen secular government of Saddam Hussein." (San Francisco Chronicle)

... and that justifies Marco's question: what IF that happens?

Oh, I also don't rule out the possibility of Iraqis electing an Islamist state. But I wonder if they'll really do that. Protesting is one thing, doing it is an another. It's a country of 28 million. W/ a HUGE secular middle class and intellectual community (especially w/ all the returned exiles). I doubt they'd let a religious minority do that.

Again, let's not always limit ourselves to the most pessimist of news. Especially when they've had a recent track record of being so wrong.

I am sure we all hope that democracy will be successful in Iraq.

Optimism is good, I generally am an optimistic person, too. As far as I have experienced Americans are usually very optimistic as well, especially when it comes to the future of their own country.

Every serious politician will not limit himself to optimism, though. It doesn't make sense to plan with the best case scenario, only. Everyone should be prepared for mediocre and worst case scenarios as well.

I just wondered if anyone would like to share some ideas about what is to be done in such a worst case scenario... ?

The war was fought for regime change. Would another one like that follow in case of an Iraqi Ayatola regime? What do you all think?

Having spoken about parallels for such a long time, I would like you to read one that struck me today while I read in Steph's log.

Please feel free to comment.

You all seem to have read history badly, Or at least interpreted it wrong.
First the battle of thermoplyae was not fought by only 300 spratans. There were about 3000 greeks from many city state, including the thespians who were all killed trying to defend the spartan's back. Also the Phocians who were killed defending the pass that the persians got around the back of the greeks.

Second, although the legend is a neat one, thermopylae was not the battle that saved greece. The battles were Salamis and Platea. at salamis the persian fleet was destroyed and at platea the army was finaly destroyed. By the way the persian army included many "freedom loving" greeks as well.

Third the idea that the battles were fought for some love of freedom is just plain wrong. The spartans were one of the most non freedom loving poeple that ever existed. Their society was more like the Nazis than any vision of the a american.

any how more later!!

William:

Well aware of the "true" histories of that event. Not the point I was making. Not the point at all.