Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Why insurgents win

Edward Luttwak, in Harpers: (via Yglesias)
The very word “guerrilla,” which now refers only to a tactic, was first used to describe the ferocious insurgency of the illiterate Spanish poor against their would-be liberators, under the leadership of their traditional oppressors. On July 6, 1808, King Joseph of Spain presented a draft constitution that for the first time in Spain’s history offered an independent judiciary, freedom of the press, and the abolition of the remaining feudal privileges of the aristocracy and of the Church. At that time, abbeys, monasteries, and bishops still owned every building and every piece of land in 3,148 towns and villages, which were inhabited by some of Europe’s most wretched tenants. Despite the fact that the new constitution would have liberated them and let them keep their harvests for themselves, the Spanish peasantry failed to rise up in its support. Instead, they obeyed the priests, who summoned them to fight against the ungodly innovations of the foreign invader. For Joseph was the brother of Napoleon Bonaparte, placed on the Spanish throne by French troops. That was all that mattered to most Spaniards—not what was proposed but by whom it was proposed.

By then the French should have known better. In 1799 the same thing had happened in Naples, whose liberals, supported by the French, were slaughtered by the very peasants and plebeians they wished to emancipate. They were mustered into a militia of the “Holy Faith” by Cardinal Fabrizio Ruffo, coincidentally a member of Calabria’s largest land-owning family, who led his men forward on horseback. Ruffo easily persuaded his followers that all promises of material betterment were irrelevant, because the real aim of the French and the liberals was to destroy the Catholic religion in the service of Satan. Spain’s clergy did the same, and their illiterate followers could not know that the very first clause of Joseph’s draft constitution had not only recognized the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church but stated that it was the only one allowed in Spain.
Read the whole thing, dammit.


Shani said...

It's certainly an interesting article, but ... sloppy, IMO. Particularly in the 'Theory' section, where he not-so-subtly conveys that those crazy rabble will go along with the insurgents in spite of the deeply impressive benefits invaders might offer. Take candy from strangers, Billy!

(He pays lip service to the tendency to distrust said invaders, but it was hard to even get through the article because my brain kept interrupting with 'Come on, Luttwak, would you trust an invasion force? Particularly one that's already done considerable damage?')

I'd like to think this was all left out because it's so obvious he figured he didn't need to bother, but I honestly can't tell - and clearly, it isn't obvious to everyone.

Anonymous said...

Luttwak seems to be Harper's token neocon.

The Weekly Standard could probably find space for him.