A Time of Chaos?
by
Tim Case
by Tim Case
DIGG THIS
"Coercion
cannot but result in chaos in the end."
~ Mahatma Gandhi (18691948)
While watching
President Bush’s January 11th "Surge
Speech" I bristled when he emphasized himself in his statement:
"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people
– and it is unacceptable to me." However, by
the end of his diatribe I was sure that George Bush no longer thought
of himself in any terms other than those of a god.
Indeed, my
suspicion seems to be confirmed when just today (January 15, 2007)
George Bush decreed that he is going to send more troops to Iraq
regardless of Congress,’ or for that matter, the American public’s
insistence otherwise.
Observing President
Bush, as the false god of state, bumble foreign affairs, devastate
economies, feign the security of nations, preach his canard of freedom,
ululate the canon of democracy, and mock moral law with the shameless
torridity of a street prostitute, one has to wonder if the American
empire isn’t about to revisit the chaos that accompanied Rome in
the 3rd century AD.
Certainly,
there are some parallels to be drawn between Rome in the 3rd
century and what has occurred or is on America’s horizon.
Beginning in
about 235 AD and lasting for about 50 years, Rome was racked with
a failing economy which quite literally brought Rome to the brink
of extinction. This was partly due to the excesses of emperors of
the first and second century and the resulting inflation: by now
what had once been "silver" coins were for all intense
and purpose entirely bronze.
However, natural
disasters soon added to the empire’s misery. Earthquakes left whole
regions of the empire unproductive and in some cases uninhabited.
Following the devastation of the earthquakes were plagues which
resulted in disease. A further result of these plagues was that
the foundation of society, agriculture, collapsed bringing on famine.
With the people no longer able to buy or grow food, food riots resulted,
and the army was no longer paid.
Adding to the
Rome’s despair, in the northwest, the Franks, Jutes, and Germanic
Alemanni crossed the Rhine River and began taking back their ancient
lands. In the mean time the pressure continued from the Vandal and
Goths who invaded the empire from the Danube River in the empire’s
northeastern providences. However, the greatest and most present
threat to Rome was from the east and the ancient empire of the Persians.
As the Roman
legions began to suffer, they mirrored the people’s frustration
concerning the impotence of the state to "solve" the empire’s
problems. This grew into massive unrest among the Roman military
and ushered in a group of Roman emperors known as the "Barrack
emperors."
From late 235
AD until Diocletian took the title of emperor, November 20, 284
AD, Rome saw at least 23 emperors rise and fall. Of these flash-in-the-pan
emperors, 13 were murdered, mostly by their own troops; 4 died in
combat; 1 committed suicide; 2 died of natural causes including
the plague; 1 died of unknown causes; 1 was struck by lightning;
and 1 died a prisoner of the Persians.
| |
 |
| |
Valerian
on coin |
| |
|
It is the emperor,
Valerian, who died as a Persian prisoner that has some relevancy
to George Bush’s ambitions of empire and his much vaunted "war
on terror."
Like GW, Valerian
was born into privilege and social status as a member of an old
Roman senatorial family. Also, as with GW, Valerian made his name
via family ties with the state and his appointment to government
positions.
However, unlike
GW, Valerian in 253 AD was commanding legions in Raetia [the Roman
province that included present-day eastern Switzerland and western
Austria] and Noricum [the Roman Empire south of the Danube River
in present-day Austria west of Vienna] when he was ordered to bring
his troops to Italy for a fight against the forces of Emperor Aemilianus.
The whole argument
was somewhat analogous to the hanging
chad problem GW had in 2000 but instead of the problem being "settled"
by legions of lawyers, and a decree of a supreme court, the Roman’s
during this period counted military legions and hanging swords.
There wasn’t a fight. The decree of supremacy came from the point
of a sword. Thus, Emperor Aemilianus’ troops murdered him when they
saw they could not defeat Valerian and his legions.
As a side note
don’t think for one moment that the 2000 court cases between Bush
and Gore weren’t about who could muster enough federal and state
weapons to become president. Not much has really changed in the
affairs of "choosing" which denizen of the fiery abyss
will be elevated to a position of leadership.
Having killed
their commander, Aemilianus’ legions joined Valerian's forces and
together they crowned Valerian as Rome’s newest emperor.
Weak and irresolute,
Valerian’s abilities were unequal to the difficulties Rome faced
at this critical time. Like GW, Valerian saw the world in black
and white, holding a civilized or barbarian view of all those who
were either Roman or not. Thus, while the Persian threat was minimal
to Rome, the fact that more barbarians were infringing on the Roman
world was not to be tolerated.
Valerian undoubtedly
saw the threat to Rome’s empire being from his "axis of evil"
with, like GW, the kingpin being that great boogeyman Persia the
same as GW’s Iran.
As mentioned
earlier, the Persians were more than a little fed-up with the Roman
occupation of ancient Persian lands and since about 252 AD they
had made insurgencies into Roman territory having conquered and
plundered Antioch in Syria in either 253 or 256 AD.
Valerian saw
his answer in a troop surge that was designed to stop this blatant
disregard for civilization and to free the world of barbaric acts
of terrorism. So Valerian marshaled his army but unlike GW, Valerian
led his armies eastward to fight the last dynasty of Persian kings,
the Sassanid.
Initially Valerian’s
armies met with success, even recapturing some of the lost Syrian
provinces. With his success Valerian saw a chance to finally solve
his "eastern" problem once and for all, so he marched
to Carrhae [the ancient Mesopotamian city of Haran] and Edessa where
he hoped to defeat the Persian army under the command of King Shapur
I.
While history
doesn’t give us a record of the battle we do know the following.
In 259 AD, Valerian’s army numbered 70,000 including the elite Praetorian
Guard. This superior Roman force was facing a Persian force of nearly
half its size of about 40,000 Persians led by King Shapur I.
When the fight
was over the Romans had suffered heavy losses including the capture
of the Roman Emperor, and a host of high-ranking Roman officials.
It was a humiliation the like of which Rome would not see again
until Rome was sacked by the Goths towards the end of the 5th
century AD.
Emperor Valerian
had sealed his fate with a war against the Persians. His armies
decimated, the once proud Pontiff Maximus of Rome was reduced to
serving as a foot-stool for the king of Persia as he mounted his
horse. Upon his death this Roman "god" was used to further
humiliate Rome, for Lactantius
says that Valerian was skinned, then stuffed with manure to produce
a trophy which hung in a Persian temple as an example of Roman submission.
Will a failing
economy, further adventures in Iraq, weather, and natural disasters
bring the American empire to its knees with chaos on the magnitude
that ancient Rome experienced?
It is certainly
a possibility given recent history and the folly of our "leadership."
There is certainly a strong probability that this "surge"
of troops the President will insert into the Iraq debacle will exacerbate
the unrest of the American population and very well could be the
catalyst for a war with Iran.
In his recent
article Paul
Craig Roberts makes a chilling analysis of the President’s sending
more troops to Iraq. He states: "If Bush is unable to orchestrate
war with Iran directly, he will orchestrate war indirectly by having
US troops attack Iraqi Shi’ite militias. Bush has already given
orders for US troops to attack the Iraqi Shi’ite militias, who oppose
the Sunnis and have not been part of the insurgency. Obviously,
once Bush can get US troops in open warfare with Iraqi Shi’ites,
the situation for US troops in Iraq will quickly go down hill.
Bush will be able to blame Iranian Shi’ites for arming Iraqi Shi’ites
that he can say are killing US troops."
I pray Mr.
Roberts is wrong but I fear he is correct.
Of two things
we may be certain.
First, President
Bush although much younger will never have the backbone that the
69-year-old Emperor Valerian had when he accompanied his troops
to fight the Persians.
Second,
as long as the state continues to coerce, manipulate, force, bully,
or intimidate peoples we will stand on the razor edge that separates
social chaos from social order.
The only question
left is what will tip the scales and plunge the American society
into chaos?
January
18, 2007
Tim
Case [send him mail]
is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the
first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: “Only the educated
are free.”
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Tim
Case Archives
|