Again with the British Empire!
Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at 11:29PM ■"Cowboys and Indians: An 85-year-old plan could rid Iraq of insurgents," op-ed by Niall Ferguson, New York Times, 24 May 2005, p. A25.
I like the title, just as I like it when Kaplan uses the imagery. Weird thing is, though, that the title has nothing to do with the piece. Typical, as editors pick titles and authors just have to take it.
Still, Ferguson has used the British Empire thing for so long now (two books, innumerable articles) that a different title slant is clearly in order.
I like Ferguson's historical take on SysAdmin work. I just wish he wouldn't be so literal about it. For example, he says that if America met Britain's troops-to-masses ratio from their time in Iraq in the 1920s, we'd have a million men there.
Yeah, and I guess if we still plowed with mules we could have 40 percent of our labor force still on the farm, just like in the 1920s!
You know I just finished David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" on the treadmill, and I thought to myself: instructive, but not exactly a blueprint.
Ferguson gets warmer when he says the Brits made do on manpower shortages by drawing elsewhere from the empire, like India, and insinuates we should be talking to the Indians themselves.
Hmmm. If I hadn't already written that op-ed for the Post last April I'd rewrite it again for the Times.
Ferguson's best point, typical of his wonderfully snarky style (which I do indeed like) is when he says Rummy's 10-30-30 standard (10 days to topple a regime, 30 days to get order, 30 days to be ready to move on to another regime) makes sense if you put it in terms of years. A bit hyperbolic, but closer to reality than Rumsfeld's fantastic notion.
Reader Comments