Now this is Good Use of History to Inform

[Gian P Gentile]

To paraphrase St Carl (Clausewitz) history should inform the commander's judgment but it should never accompany him to the battlefield, the oped by Professor Brian O'Malley of Jones college, Lessons on Iraq from a Founding Father, to me is a perfect example of how to use history to inform thinking and judgment on current affairs and issues. The piece presents an idea of how George Washington thought about military involvement in a foreign country and spurs the reader to think historically about current American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Professor Jones deploys history to inform, and not to accompany.

Another superb example of the use of history to inform was an oped from last October in the NY Times by Professor Francois Furstenberg of the University of Montreal titled Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons.

I am jealous; I wish I had written either one of them.

gentile

[zenpundit]

Re: Lessons on Iraq

I agree, that was nicely done by Dr. O'Malley.

One of the best uses for history as a teaching tool is having students discern the patterns present in seemingly dissimilar scenarios, from which they can then extrapolate and develop analogies, which in turn, can be subjected to critical evaluation as to their soundness or wider applicability. The door is also open for using thought provoking counterfactuals for further reflection and discussion.

[Gian P Gentile]

...The door is also open for using thought provoking counterfactuals for further reflection and discussion.

So true, counterfactuals, or "what ifs" are great ways to break down complex historical problems by removing certain causes or conditions for the milieu which thereby allows to see a bit more clearly the actual historical problem at hand.

My favorite one when teaching ante-bellum American History is to pose the simple counterfactual that if slavery never existed in America, or at least had gone away in the early 1800s, can you imagine the north and south fighting a Civil War on the scale of the one that actually occurred?

Another favorite counterfactual of mine when thinking about Iraq and gauging the success of the Surge and considering why violence has dropped so precipitously is to consider three conditions for the lowering of violence: 1) the Surge with its so-called new Coin methods and increased number of troops; 2) Sadr's cease-fire; 3) The key decision to pay our former enemies the non-alqueda sunni insurgents to stop attacking us and co-opt them to become our allies in fighting alqueda. If you take the first condition out of the mix in this counterfactual, does violence still drop precipitously? I think yes. If you remove either of the latter two conditions then in my mind the answer is no. Understanding the true causes of the lowering of violence in Iraq is important as we consider paths for the future and force structure for the American military.

Hence the value of counterfactual analysis both in looking back at the past, considering the present, and speculating about the future.

gg

[jmm99]

I have no beef with using Washington's five "bullet points" as good general rules for occupations and COIN.

I suggest that some added thoughts be given to the first point: "First, if the citizens don't want us there, don't go." -- Those thoughts are in the context of facts that were or should have been known to Washington.

Note as to sources. I have included some Wiki links (superficial with some mistakes); but the primary sources are Canadian (in two cases, Canadien).


-------------------------------
1. Assassination of Joseph Coulon (1754)

Washington led the mixed Colonial-Indian force that killed Joseph Coulon at Jumonville Glen (1754) - "first shots of the Seven Years War" and all that. The Coulons were a leading French-Canadian military family (see bios below).

Washington's subsequent surrender document (in Franch, authored by Louis Coulon) was subjected to a fair amount of spin by his side (then and to the present) to absolve Washington of Coulon's assassination or murder (clearly stated in French). The French-Canadian perception was the opposite.

So, Washington was less than well regarded by the French-Canadian officer corps (most of whom remained in Canada after the British Conquest). Perhaps, Washington was ignorant of that; and/or believed the spin in his favor.

Disclosure: The Coulon brothers are/were my relatives (cousins by Jarret ancestry). They had many cousins - and their cousins had many cousins. Since Québec was something of a military establishment (regular and militia), adverse perceptions of Washington had many willing listeners. The French-Canadians were in many way tribal - not feudal - as Guy Carleton learned.

Refs:

Joseph Coulon de Jumonville

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_..._de_Jumonville

http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=35405

Louis Coulon de Villiers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Coulon_de_Villiers

http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=35406

Nicolas-Antoine Coulon de Villiers

http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.a...5&query=coulon

Surrender Document

brief discussion
http://www.pghhistory.org/Heinz_Cura...Summer2005.asp

in-depth discussion
http://www.jmu.edu/writeon/documents/2001/blosser.pdf


------------------------------
2. Reforms of Guy Carleton (1768-1778)

Guy Carleton turned around the original Brit idea of creating a British colony (settled by Brits), by co-opting the French Canadians (preservation of their law, property and religious institutions and commercial enterprises). Those were implemented before Arnold's invasion.

Carleton's goal was a situation where “... the Canadians are inspired with a cordial Attachment, and zeal for the King’s Government.” On that one, good luck, Guy. However, Carleton had succeeded in neutralizing the bulk of the French-Canadians. Apparently, Washington did not know that.

It is possible that he was influenced by some pro-Americans in both the French-Canadian and Brit-Amer communities. To what extent those folks influenced pre-invasion plans, I have not researched. They did exist to some extent.

"But while the militia was enlarged and ultimately proved more than useful, the support expected from the Canadians was never forthcoming. Indeed, many new subjects, such as Maurice Desdevens de Glandons, Clément Gosselin, and Philippe Liébert, as well as some British and American colonists, including Moses Hazen, James Livingston, Zachary MacAulay, and Thomas Walker, actively backed the rebels, in certain cases even to the point of joining their army."

Somehow, this scenario seems too familiar.

Refs.

Guy Carleton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Car...ron_Dorchester
http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=36432



--------------------------------
3. War of 1812 and Insurgency of 1837-1839

By 1812, the French-Canadian militia officers were on the Brits' side. Three examples (easily multiplied) are Eustache-Ignace Trottier-Desrivières-Beaubien, François-Amable Trottier-Desrivières & Joseph Beauchamp. The first two were 1st cousins; the third was a 2nd cousin to them (by Trottier ancestry).

By that time, the French-Canadians and British migrants had become intertwined in commerical interests and marriages. E.g., François-Amable Trottier became the principal heir of James McGill because of his mother's second marriage to McGill.

All was not well in French-Canadian and Brit relations after that; and the F-C's revolted in 1837-1839. The F-C community split (one reason for the insurgency's failure). In any event, that was 60 years too late for Washington's plans.

Disclosure: Joseph Beauchamp (my 4g-grandfather), was a very minor player in 1812 (as compared to his Trottier cousins). He died before the 1837-1839 uprising. His step son, Ludger Duvernay, was very much involved in that affair.

Refs.

Eustache-Ignace Trottier-Desrivières-Beaubien

http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.a...query=trottier

François-Amable Trottier-Desrivières

http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.a...query=trottier

Joseph Beauchamp

http://cgi2.cvm.qc.ca/glaporte/1837....che=BIOGRAPHIE

Ludger Duvernay

http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.a...query=duvernay
http://cgi2.cvm.qc.ca/glaporte/1837....che=BIOGRAPHIE


------------------------------
4. Conclusion.

I have some doubts as this one of O'Malley's conclusions: "American ideals won immediate support from the Canadians, but American misconduct squandered it." However, I would be happy to see what evidence (if any) supports that generalized conclusion.

I have not really looked to whether this factual assertion is correct: "Contrary to Washington's orders, some American commanders disrespected Canadians' religion, property and liberty." It seems plausible.

What relevance (if any) this has to Iraq, I defer to people who have been there.

[jmm99]

The F-C links for Beauchamp and Duvernay did not work on my home computer. So, here are the links from the National Assembly of Québec ( Assemblée nationale du Québec) - French only for bios:

Joseph Beauchamp

http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fra/Membres/...s/b/BEAUCJ.htm

Ludger Devernay

http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fra/Membres/notices/d/duvel.htm

Sorry for any inconvenience.

[marct]

Hi JMM99,

Thanks for the links!

As a general note, I suspect that the key strategy was in the 1760 Article of Capitulation of Quebec and, most especially, in articles II, V and VI (later reinforced in the Treaty of Paris {1763} and the Quebec Act of 1774). The guarantee of religious toleration actually made Quebec a better place for Catholics than England (or the 13 Rebel Colonies) - a fact that played in very well with a number of families in England, Ireland and Scotland.

Did

American ideals won immediate support from the Canadians, but American misconduct squandered it. Contrary to Washington's orders, some American commanders disrespected Canadians' religion, property and liberty.

?

Personally, I think this is a very biased reading of the situation. Why should the Canadians accept American "ideals" at the cost of their religious freedom? Did they "disrespect" our religion, property and liberty? Yup, Arnold and the rest of his insurgents got what was coming to them . And, if you pop ahead to the War of 1812, you an see a more accurate view of the American commanders intent (General Hull's Proclamation to Canada, July 13th, 1812).

In the name of my Country and by the authority of my Government I promise you protection to your persons, property, and rights, Remain at your homes, Pursue your peaceful and customary avocations. Raise not your hands against your brethern, many of your fathers fought for the freedom & independence we now enjoy Being children therefore of the same family with us, and heirs to the same Heritage, the arrival of an army of Friends must be hailed by you with a cordial welcome, You will be emancipated from Tyranny and oppression and restored to the dignified station of freemen. Had I any doubt of eventual success I might ask your assistance but I do not. I come prepared for every contingency. I have a force which will look down all opposition and that force is but the vanguard of a much greater. If contrary to your own interest & the just expectation of my country, you should take part in the approaching contest, you will be considered and treated as enemies and the horrors, and calamities of war will Stalk before you. [emphasis added]

I have to wonder if Hull was an ideological, or possibly pharmacological, ancestor of Doug Feith !