What did Friedman mean with his statement about Napoleon invading Egypt

[Quixote1818]

and how it relates to Bush invading Iraq? Someone give me some history please. Was he being sarcastic? Thomas Friedman just said this on Meet the Press.

[UTUSN]

1. Just More Attempted- Glorifying of Shrub

Like comparing him to CHURCHILL (Tweety), or calling him "a war president," or all of those absurdities.

[robbedvoter]

2. Napoleon did well with Egypt. Stumbled in good ol' Russia.

Friedman takes his history lessons piecemeal.

[Me.]

3. Napoleon Cut & Run

he lost the Egyptian campaign. I don't know how Friedman referenced this to ***H, but Napoleon did a skip leaving his troops holding the bag.

[ScrewyRabbit]

4. Napoleon's campaign there ended when Lord Nelson

hammered the French Fleet in the Med. At that point the French had to sue for peace, because they were stranded.

[robcon]

5. Napoleon bit off more than he could chew in Egypt.

He lost his fleet, and he personally left Egypt, leaving most of his troops stranded there, with nothing to do. The French archaeologicval studies of Egypt were worthwhile (e.g., Rosetta Stone uncovered) but it was a military disaster.

[GarySeven]

6. Not to mention the ill feeling generated ...

Not only did the Arabs he fought feel the sting of being invaded by a European conquerer, they felt the insult of being decimated by that conquerer's superior military skill. That only convinced them that they must build up their armies to defeat the infidel, to whom they now had even more reason to hate. Thanks a lot, Boney.

[necso]

7. After invading Egypt,

Napoleon (not personally of course) lost the fleet that transported the French there (one of Nelson's great victories -- and an incredible piece of incompetence by the French) -- and the French lost also thereby (for a time anyway) any real chance of controlling the Mediterranean -- and any practical means to support Napoleon's army in even the medium term.

So Napoleon booked (after various victories over those unprepared to deal with a then-modern army) -- the troops and their officers be damned.

The last part sounds about right.

[Quixote1818]

8. Why did Friedman make it sound like what Napoleon did was successful?

Is Friedman just a dork or was he being sarcastic?

[Me.]

10. Don't Know

but comparing ***H to Napoleon was not a favor to ***H, unless Friedman was being prescient about ***h's future. Napoleon had a pattern of running out on his men when the going got tough. He did it at Egypt, he did it in Russia and he did it at Waterloo.

[necso]

11. I would hate to conjecture.

The last time that I checked, Friedman was still delusional about Iraq.

I do seem to remember that he confessed to divided loyalties, and given that when this fiasco is finally over there will be a great many pissed-off, armed and experienced new fighters in the area (and the more countries that we invade, the more fighters and the larger the area effected), he may well have cause for concern.

Wishful thinking then can be understood -- if not excused.

And, of course, I could be wrong and he could be right -- things may work out.

But that isn't where my money is.

[Blue Wally]

9. Modern army??

The Mamelukes who governed Egypt at the time had an army that was as well equipped technogically as the French (flintlock smoothbore muskets and iron smoothbore artillery pieces). They were much like Saddam's army in 1991, hopelessly outclassed in tactics, training, and leadership.


By the way, Nelson's victory at the Nile (against a superior force) was sealed when the French flagship caught fire and blew up leading to a truly dreky poem about "the boy stood on the burning deck..." which legions of schoolchildren were forced to memorize and recite.

[necso]

13. Well,

much of what makes an army modern is modern force structure, tactics and military practises. In these arenas, the French army was greatly superior -- as any reasonable account of the fighting should illustrate.

[KG]

12. always premise anything the comes out of tom friedmans mouth with this

he is a moron.

[judy]

14. Maybe he compared what the troops are doing in Iraq,

the cradle of Modern Civilization to what Napoleon's Army did in Egypt, like use the Sphinx at Gizah for target practice with their cannons, which is in part why it is so disfigured.

Napoleon is also known for decimating the male population in France by sending all young and older men into battle for Empire building, and for practicing cronyism and nepotism to the hilt.

There are however many differences. Napoleon was, for most of his time in power a brilliant strategist and statesman. Napoleonic law is still the basis for French law to this day.

[dave123williams]

15. Take a good look at the face of the Sphinx, and realize that invasions...

...have lasting consequences, leave indellible marks, and ultimately boil down to the hubris of the man in charge.