Juan Cole on another Invasion of the Middle East: Napoleon in Egypt (1798)

Readers of this Blog often see my Informed Comment-faves on Iraq and the Middle East in general. Their author, history professor Juan Cole, gets a biographical note below. I borrow the following text from a recent post in the FireDogLake Blog by Swopa.

You should go there and read the interesting discussion of the book between Cole and some readers.

Juan Cole was one of the first and most valuable voices to vault into public attention from the political blogosphere. As America blindly stumbled into Iraq in 2003, Cole's analyses and daily summaries of Arabic-language news at Informed Comment became an essential counterweight to government-dictated propaganda in the U.S. media for tens of thousands of regular readers.

But as an outstanding and experienced historian, Dr. Cole's knowledge ranges far beyond Iraq. In Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East, Cole provides the same perspective and keen insight regarding a military incursion that occurred two centuries ago -- the French effort, led by then-general Napoleon Bonaparte, to invade and occupy Egypt.

Cole’s fluency in both French and Arabic enabled him to scour and compare contemporaneous sources in each language, and the resulting account gives equal weight to each side of the awkward collision of cultures (including attempts to discern the truth when different retellings conflict). And the tone, although well-informed, is scarcely academic -- because Cole's sources include numerous eyewitness journals, letters, and other firsthand reports, he is able to weave a rich, complex narrative that is as involving as any novel on the subject could be.

Although he almost never makes a direct connection, Cole doesn't have to mention Iraq for several elements of his story to resonate with modern-day news junkies. It's hard not to hear the echoes of neocon self-absorption in Napoleon's efforts to blend Enlightenment philosophy with brutal military conquest, or Iraq quasi-viceroy L. Paul Bremer's clueless egotism in Bonaparte's hamfisted communications with the people of Cairo, or especially the similarly dogged, draining insurgencies that result from a distant nation's attempt to impose its will on millions of people.

The details Cole gleans from his research (some of which he continues to post at a blog devoted to the book), though, make Napoleon's Egypt a unique and personal tale worth reading in its own right. With that, I am delighted to be able to introduce Juan Cole, who is joining us to answer questions about the book.

My appreciation: Juan Cole succeeds in doing two things that, on top of one another, normally are above the forces of a normal human being.

• 1. He publishes one or more daily inside-informations about what is going on in Iraq, summarily put into the context of his vast knowledge of the Middlke East political, social, economic and historical landscape. Informed, quick and oblective.
• 2. He continues his in-depth studies, like this one, and plays a role in defending academic freedom against conservative, biased intrusions by the actual US Government, its services and satellite watchdogs, like the AEI & c.

Asked last year, during a brief visit to Holland, how he manages doing so many things in one day, his reply was, that he types very, very quickly on the keyboard... :-)

The Book
The Napoleon book (click on the image to see its Amazon.com page) is reviewed on Amazon by Reed Elsevier as follows:

In July 1798, Napoleon landed an expeditionary force at Alexandria in Egypt, the opening move in a scheme to acquire a new colony for France, administer a sharp rebuff to England and export the values of French republicanism to a remade Middle East.
Cole, a historian of the Middle East at the University of Michigan, traces the first seven months of Napoleon's adventure in Egypt. Relying extensively on firsthand sources for this account of the invasion's early months, Cole focuses on the ideas and belief systems of the French invaders and the Muslims of Egypt.
Cole portrays the French as deeply ignorant of cultural and religious Islam. Claiming an intent to transplant liberty to Egypt, the French rapidly descended to the same barbarism and repression of the Ottomans they sought to replace. I
slamic Egypt, divided by class and ethnic rivalries, offered little resistance to the initial French incursion.
Over time, however, the Egyptians produced an insurgency that, while it couldn't hope to win pitched battles, did erode French domination and French morale. Perplexingly, Cole ends his account in early February 1799, with Napoleon still in control of Egypt but facing increasingly effective opposition. Napoleon's attack on Syria is only mentioned, not detailed, and his return to Cairo and eventual flight to France are omitted altogether.
In a brief epilogue, Cole makes an explicit comparison between Napoleon's adventure in Egypt and the current American occupation of Iraq. Though at times episodic and disorganized, this doesn't detract from the value of Cole's well-researched contribution to Middle Eastern history. Illus. (Aug.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Georg W. Bush is everything opposite to the 1798 Napoleon. He has no enlightenment objectives. Compare the fate of the invaluable objects robbed from the Iraq National Museum in April 2003 under the eyes of the American invaders with the way Napoleon's expedition opened the way, (through the 3-lingual Rosette Pyramid) to understand ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs.
I stick to my Caligula comparison. Which is sad enough.
But interesting parallels can be found in the disastrous military history of the temporary occupation. It is there, that Cole applies his "micro"-approach (known from his Informed Comments" on Iraq), citing an abundance of letters home from French participants in the expedition.
The book doesn't describe the end of Napoleon's expedition. However, the way Napoleon and the top generals abandoned the thousands of lesser soldiers they brought to the country, when their defeat became apparent, may forebode the way, in which Bush will end his Iraq adventure.

Buy and read the book.
European readers: On Amazon, switch to Amazon.uk, Amazon.de or to Amazon.fr, to get delivery for a more reasonable charge. Belgian and Dutch readers may prefer to try Proxis, that has an excellent English language books store. French translation of this Post to be published on HUIBSLOG and L'Europe Chez Soi.

Wolfowitz: "Shaha told me that Iraqi oil would pay for the Iraq occupation"

Wolfowitz and Riza (photo msn)

I am disappointed.

I had expected Wolfie to come up with a better justification for his wasting of public money on a pay rise for his 'long time companion' at the World Bank staff, than this:

"My girlfriend forced me to grant her that salary increase".
(Huffington Post, introducing a Washington Post comment, May 15, 2007).

How mean! How insipid! Even Bill Clinton, when blamed over Monica, never went as far, as to blame her for his break of ethics.

Remembering, how, as an assistant-defense minister in 2003, Paul Wolfowitz got the American Senate to accept another irresponsible spending of public money, saying that "Iraqi oil wealth would compensate largely" for the 31 billion dollars, the Pentagon was going to 'invest' (mostly via Halliburton's KBR and Bechtel) in Iraq, I expected an equally creative and original statement over this new unethical overspending issue.

Wolfowitz got a week extra to respond to the blame of the World Bank investigation commission over the exceptional pay rise he gave to his girlfriend Shaha Risa, when she had to leave the World Bank staff over the incompatibility of her function and her relationship to the newly appointed president.

He did not spend that week well. I suspect, he quarreled endlessly with Shaha, over the kitchen table. She can be terribly "intractable", when she is "extremely angry and upset".
(Quotes are from the 15 page written response by Wolfowitz to the WB investigation committee, as quoted by Peter S. Goodman in the Washington Post.)

Wolfie should have followed his own analysis of the reasons why the Bank's Ethics Committee did not want to deal with the harpy themselves: "It would only be human nature for them to want to steer clear of her." (Wolfowitz in his written response).

The bitch! She even scares to death a complete and very ethical consistory of bankers! Why, by all means, did you stay with her in such "a longtime relationship", Paul?

Maybe, Paul's famous 2003 Iraqi oil statement will provide a clue to that burning question. Few people know it, but I know for sure, that, basically, Paul D. Wolfowitz is a timid intellectual, absolutely unfit for a role within the jungle of dominating males that populate the Washington Administration and the Neocon cabals. Shaha, the untractable bitch, compensates for that otherwise potentially lethal handicap.

(Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in the Defense Secretary's office at the Pentagon, March 21, 2003, Photo D.H. Kennerly. [This is a placeholder for the copyrighted photo I will buy from that photographer, if it is not too expensive...] It illustrates perfectly the the relation between the two men. Wolfie arrives with a problem, gesticulating. Rummy, annoyed, stands up and starts arguing, dominating the scene with hard words words and broad gestures. It will take the genius of BagNews Notes to interpret the scene correctly. Note the little statue of Theodore Roosevelt in the corner. Th. Roosevelt was, during the first years of the XXst century, the first American president who extended the Monroe Doctrine to other parts of the world, colonizing the Philippines, for instance.)

When Donald Rumsfeld, his boss at the Pentagon (photo) had, once again, verbally abused his egghead assistant, urging him to speak plainly and strongly and not giving lectures, but to be quotable and soundbiting, a subdued Paul went home to his Washington suburb house, wanting to quit altogether and go fishing.

This is where Shaha comes in. She is indeed an intractable housewife, never doing the shopping for the household herself (that would be a "career break"). So, she started sending quivering Wolfie to the local supermarket to buy dinner.

It was at one of those many occasions of hubby been sent shopping, that a writer for the Dutch left-leaning weekly "De Groene Amsterdammer" met him and got charmed by Wolfowitz' helpless intellectual behavior. (Article, in Dutch, by the Washington correspondent of the weekly, May 2003).

Apparently longing to "stay clear" for a moment, from the company of dominating males and females, Paul D. had a little chat over coffee with this intelligent young man and was happy to make a show of his vast intellectual luggage, suggesting at the same time, how open he is to discussion with people from different intellectual and cultural horizons.

Wolfowitz' mood thus being restored, he could live up to go and see Shaha again. He told her his nightmare of having to meet with the Senate committee over the 31 billion dollars for Iraq (correction: for the Pentagon and its contractors). And how Donald Rumsfeld had offended him.

Shaha, probably entering once again into a fit of "extreme anger", then must have lectured Wolfowitz as follows: "I am the Middle East expert of the World Bank!", she cried, "I know everything about oil. For that is what the Middle East is about! Donnie Rumsfeld is right. Do like him! He told those sissy European diplomats the difference between 'old' and 'new' Europe. A truth, so embarrassing, that nobody dared to discuss it. That is how he got away with liquidating NATO. You, you try to get your way all the time by being nice, by trying to convince people. Sometimes, you have to be a nuisance, you have to offend, to shock, telling them the untold truth!"

"But, Shahi-dear," replied Wolfowitz, "we have been told by Cheney, that we should strictly avoid to use the word 'oil' in relation to the occupation of Iraq. If, ever, we are in a situation that we cannot avoid the o-word, we should say that we are talking about the protection of the property of the Iraqi people...".

- He couldn't finish his explanation, as Shaha Risa interrupted him: "And that is exactly what you are going to say, dumbhead! Tell the Senate, that the Iraqis are going to pay themselves for our occupation of their country. I am a banker. I can tell you that it is a clear-cut win-win situation. Your 31 billion will flow back into the American economy through the extra profits our oil companies are going to make on Iraqi oil."

"You know, there are many things they know,and also a lot that they know they do not know. There are even more that they do not know they do not know. But the most effective for you in keeping them quiet, are the things they know well, but do not dare to say! "

And she added: "Just as nobody is going to expect you to mention the embarrassing oil side of the question, nobody will dare to follow you on that tricky field. You'll have your famous quote. I give you a soundbite (this time, exceptionally, for free) that will ashame even Donnie. - And now, Paulie, do the dishes. You're interrupting my career."

And this is why I believe, that, when, some time soon, an investigating committee into the ethics of misleading the American people, Congress and the world, over the Iraq occupation, will grill Mr. Wolfowitz, he will again excuse himself, saying:

"It was Shaha who told me that Iraqi oil would pay for the Iraq occupation!"