Compare And Contrast The Us Invasion Of Egypt And Iraq

Both the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the French invasion of Egypt in 1798 demonstrated recurring themes and issues that take place when native populations are occupied by more powerful nations. Because the operations took place more than two centuries apart from one another, physical differences between the two invasions can be seen quickly and clearly, while more subtle psychological similarities between the two empires are harder to analyze. One would think that two hundred years of progress would put an end to the reappearing tragedies of violent conflict, but the personal qualities of humans constantly reappear. Throughout the events of both the U.S. invasion of Iraq and French invasion of Egypt, key differences between operational

One key difference between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the French invasion of Egypt was the procedural impediments that the U.S. constantly saw in their time occupying. As an emperor, Napoleon had no real restrictions on what he could decide to do to the lands of Egypt. Simply because he was the ruler, Napoleon decided that he and his french forces would, “go to this antique land, the cradle of sciences and arts, to rediscover the pharaohs’ indestructible monuments, the pyramids, obelisks, temples, and cities, the valleys where the children of Israel had wandered”. The United States instead saw bureaucratic red tape getting in the way of both simple and more complex procedures, “U.S. government regulations dictated that everything, even the water in which hot dogs were boiled, to be shipped in from approved suppliers in other nations”. Because responsibilities were complex and divided between several teams of U.S. personnel, a clear lack of efficiency presented itself. Even when the United States occupiers had a clear idea of implementations they thought could benefit the society of Iraq, international laws and other legal rules prevented them from taking action, “Although

forces were much more prepared to occupy Iraq when compared to French experiences in Egypt. When conducting a military invasion of a foreign country with a hot, desert climate, bringing necessary equipment is a must to ensure the vitality of infantry troops. However, early in the French invasion of Egypt it became clear that “Bonaparte had neglected to research the exigencies of fighting a war in such a place as the Nile Valley at such a time of the year, and appears not to have realized that water canteens were an absolute necessity. His troops had none”. Obviously, a late 18th century military force would enjoy far less equipment benefits than the United States in the 2000s, but failing to even bring adequate water supplies was a massive blunder. The U.S. occupiers, on the other hand, went above and beyond to set up a society within the green zone that offered freedoms and privileges that soldiers would typically enjoy back home, “Shuttle buses looped around the Green Zone at twenty-minute intervals, stopping at wooden shelters to transport those who didn’t have cars and didn’t want to walk. There was daily mail delivery. Generators ensured that the lights were always on. If you didn’t like what was being served in the cafeteria – or you were feeling peckish between meals – you could get takeout from one of the Green Zone Chinese restaurants.