Document created: 20 August 02
Air & Space Power Journal - Fall 2002

Rolling the Iron Dice: Historical Analogies and Decisions to Use Military Force in Regional Contingencies by Scot Macdonald. Greenwood Publishing Group (http://info.greenwood.com), 88 Post Road West, Westport, Connecticut 06881-5007, 2000, 247 pages, $72.50.

Scot Macdonald, who lectures at the University of Southern California, specializes in analyzing the rationale behind the employment of military force in regional contingencies. This book is a culmination of years spent writing about and teaching this subject. Leaders often rely on historical analogies to formulate policy and reach decisions regarding the use of force. They also use history to persuade allies and their own government of the righteousness of their cause. Macdonald looks at four foreign interventions, starting with Korea and ending with the 1958 Anglo-American intervention in Lebanon and Jordan. Each of these cases offers a unique perspective on how history is used to justify or argue against military intervention.

The first part of the book provides short biographies of the decision makers involved in the different crises featured. They include Prime Ministers Anthony Eden and Clement Atlee of Britain as well as Americans John Foster Dulles and Dean Acheson. Readers will be surprised to know that a few of these people neither had a passionate interest in history nor derived any precedent from it. Some were hard-nosed lawyers swayed more by facts than historical analogy; many others saw themselves and their actions in a historical context that would be judged by future generations.

The second part begins with the Korean War, in which the events of World War II influenced the allies into making a decision to commit forces. Historical analogies included the appeasement of Hitler in Munich and the notion that the United Nations would not fail, as had the League of Nations before World War II. History played a pivotal role in American involvement in Korea, resulting in the commitment of US forces to the peninsula. 

History also had a hand in dealing with the nationalization of Iranian oil by Mohammed Mos-sadegh in 1953. President Harry Truman wanted no part of foreign adventures in Iran despite British pressure to assist in the removal of Mossadegh. With the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower, British Intelligence and Foreign Office personnel conjured up the illusion of a Red scare, using recent analogies such as the loss of China to communism and the instability of Mossadegh to predict the encroachment of Iran’s Tudeh (Communist) Party into Iran’s government. Mossadegh, however, was a popularly elected prime minister and ardent nationalist. The coup to topple him succeeded and bought 25 years of a government friendly to Anglo-American interests under the Shah. However, the price for action was the backlash of the Iranian revolution of 1979, manifested in the Ayatollah Khomeini and the use of historical analogy to create an unyielding distrust of the West. It is interesting to note that the British argued for direct military action but were swayed by a more clandestine approach that used the Central Intelligence Agency and British MI-6. 

The Suez crisis of 1956 saw president Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt nationalize and seize the Suez Canal, refusing to allow Israeli shipping to pass through. Nasser had been a thorn in the side of England and was the chief architect of dismantling the Central Treaty Organization, composed of members Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and Jordan, and designed to encircle and contain the Soviets. Nasser’s anticolonial and antimonarchy message was also heard on radio broadcasts that destabilized the Iraqi, Saudi, and Jordanian monarchies. Furthermore, he was involved in clandestine operations against the French in Algeria through his support of the National Libera-tion Front. The British compared Nasser to Mussolini and Hitler, even likening his book Philosophy of Revolution to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Anyone who took the time to read both works would have found the claim absurd since Nasser strove toward Arab self-determination and his rhetoric was a response to Arabs’ feeling that foreign powers controlled their destiny. This galvanizing atmosphere led to the planning of Operation Musketeer, which called for an Israeli invasion of the Sinai up to the eastern side of the Suez Canal and military occupation of the canal by Anglo-French forces under the guise of a peacekeeping force. The problem was that the three governments left the United States out of their plans and did not consider the Cold War danger of Soviet intervention to assist a client state (Egypt). The invasion went ahead, but the Soviets protested, and Eisenhower issued ultimatums to France and Britain, resulting in a political victory for Nasser and a lesson on the abuses of historical analogies in formulating policy.

The book ends with Anglo-American intervention in Lebanon and Jordan in 1958. With the toppling of Iraq’s monarchy that year, Baghdad was up for grabs, and Nasser inflamed the Iraqi military regime’s socialist and anti-Western feelings. Also, Syria had concluded a union with Egypt, forming what became the United Arab Republic. The Jordanians and Lebanese felt it would be only a matter of time before a coup stimulated by Nasser would occur, so they asked for Western help. The most influential historical analogy used in this crisis was the West’s loss of China to communism after spending millions of dollars propping up the nationalist forces of Sun Yat-sen. However, Lebanese Christians represented a ruling minority among the Sunni and Shiite Muslims sympathetic to Egypt, whereas the Chinese civil war involved two parties, and Lebanon had several spheres vying for power. Nonetheless, on the strength of this analogy, Washington sent marines into Lebanon; and Britain, stinging from the Suez crisis, needed little prodding to commit British forces to protect Jordan’s monarch. 

Rolling the Iron Dice offers many lessons on the use of history to justify policy, and Macdonald urges decision makers to use caution when they compare crises to past events. Since people, time, and technology do not stand still, one should not place a blanket label on petty dictators or strongmen by labeling them Hitlers or Mussolinis. Doing so will prevent analysts from truly understanding their adversaries. In short, the author has done a commendable job, and I highly recommend his book to readers interested in strategy and policy.

Lt Youssef H. Aboul-Enein, USN
Washington, D.C.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.