With President Obama's decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, I thought it a good idea to look at another war that took place a long time ago. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned.
One summer day 995 years ago, the Byzantine forces of Emperor Basil II surrounded and destroyed the Bulgarian army of King Samuel. The battle took place in a mountainous Macedonian valley near the Struma River. A Hunnic people from the Central Asian steppes, the Bulgars began settling in the Balkan Peninsula nearly 400 years earlier. By the end of the first millennium they were challenging the old Byzantine Empire’s hegemony in the Balkans.
I have no idea if our modern lives would be any different today if the outcome of the battle had been different. One could make a persuasive argument that medieval history would have developed much differently than it did with a Byzantine defeat. Had the Bulgarians won, for instance, the Crusades might never have happened, since there might not have been a Byzantine emperor to request Western aid to fight the Seljuk Turks 85 years later. Without the impetus of the Crusades, the Renaissance might have developed much differently than it did, or perhaps not at all, as Western Europe might have remained isolated much longer from the far more advanced empires and caliphates of the Near East. But really, who knows?
Here’s what we do know. During the battle, King Samuel remained in his castle a hundred miles away. Facing total annihilation, Samuel’s army, numbering somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 men, laid down their arms and surrendered to the mercy of Emperor Basil. But Basil was not a merciful man. The entire Bulgarian army was blinded by their Byzantine captors. One man out of every one-hundred prisoners was left with a single eye to lead the pathetic remnant back to their king. When Samuel saw the defeated, blind army, he was overcome with grief and collapsed. Two days later he was dead. Thus was the fate of an upstart nation that would dare to challenge the East Roman Empire!
What does this have to do with our world today? What lesson could this obscure battle have for 21st century America? Only this: War begets atrocity. Not just some obscure war vaguely recalled from the mists of medieval history. Every war does. When we debate whether or not America should continue fighting in Afghanistan, remember that fact. War begets atrocity. When we hear American politicians and commentators casually toss numbers like 30,000 or 50,000 additional troops, remember that fact. War begets atrocity. It always has, and it always will.
“War is hell,” said General Sherman. And it still is.


Salon.com
Comments
I do think that the Crusades would have still taken place though. There was riches and land to be had in the Middle East and the Church wanted both. They would have come up with one excuse or another to go to holy war.
There's another old saying that no battle plan ever survives the first contact with the enemy. I thought Obama might have heard about that one, but I guess I was wrong. He really claims to believe that his "surge" can be completed within 18 months, after which the insurgency will dry up and Afghanistan will become a stable democracy that will look out for our interests. I just hope the Taliban receive the memo in time.
Rated.
my policy is, ask what is the motivation. the point of this war may simply be that you can not leave afghanistan and remain president, since the other party would seize on any terror attack with a "see what happens when you are weak!"
america is reaping what it's history has sown, bitter fruit indeed. too bad the rest of the world must suffer with them!
I just re-read Dispatches, Michael Herr's incredible book on Vietnam. (Knowing you, I'm sure you've read it too.) So much of what he wrote about his year covering that war resonates today. It worries me.
The U.S. will not be able to achieve its nebulous objectives in Afghanistan through Mr. Obama's application of blunt force. When the only tool in the box is a hammer, all your problems begin to resemble nails.
One million dollars per soldier per year in Afghanistan-- sheer insanity, unjustifiable and unsustainable.
-R-
Alan, we'll see how long the new battle plan lasts.
Al, your point is frighteningly plausible.
Boanerges, thanks. And I'm afraid I have not read that, other than a few snippets. Shame on me.
Carolina, I couldn't say it any better than you.
Roger, that's a shame, isn't it?
I agree with you all. War is hell.
Zuma, Washington is the roost of too many chickenhawks.
Stim, you'd think that script is ripe for some changes by now, wouldn't you?
Three Bush envoys met with Taliban in the summer of 2001 to work out an agreement for the oil pipeline but were unsuccessful. According to a media report the envoys warned that without an agreement, the US would begin bombing in October, 2001. The Republican co-chair of the 9/11 commission spoke here and I was able to ask whether the three had been interviewed by the commission. He replied that there were a lot of conspiracy theories. Actually, the three were interviewed and said they did warn Taliban to act right or they would be attacked but didn't mention the pipeline. Bush's war wasn't on al-Qaida, it was on Taiban.