A lost communiqué to Louis XVI has been discovered in an archive at Versailles in France. A confidant of the king had been traveling in the colonies and sent back this communiqué dated April 26, 1775, seven days following what we now call the Battle of Lexington.
The confidant conveyed little hope for the rebels whom he derided as farmers with diverse hunting rifles, and no military discipline, training or even uniforms. Politically, he observed, it's unclear whom the rebels represent. He estimated that from one-third to one-half of the populous either supports the British or just wants to be left alone. "There's no army, no commander, just rag-tag local militia," according to a translation of the communiqué. "The rebels fought successfully when they surprised the British outside Boston. Now that the British expect a fight, across all the countryside they will slaughter these farmers."
The confidant also described a murky leadership situation. "There seems to be no one to say what will satisfy the rebels, who scatter into 13 governments spread across this huge coastline. With no treasury or treasure among them, if they can find a single diplomat within, expect, my King, that they will seek your help. I advise against such help for three reasons: I cannot foresee how this could end well for the rebels; I do not see how the interests of France would be served; and, I am most uncertain about how these rebels feel about France and whether we simply would be helping a future enemy who had fought against us as British subjects."
The writer is not known to scholars, nor is there any indication of whether he stayed and continued reporting from the colonies or returned to France.
Even allowing for the dramatic differences that technology has wrought, revolutions have an enormous human component. Throughout our American Revolution, our military, diplomatic and government leadership capabilities evolved.
Despite all the variables at play in Libya, less than a week had passed following the passage of the Security Council resolution, before agitated commentators sought certainty about how it all would end. They hinted that it is wrong to start something without knowing how and when it will end. Because they can't tolerate uncertainty, some reporters and politicians act as if they believe transparency means everything must be revealed immediately to them, presumably to include how intelligence services might be maneuvering behind- the- scenes to undermine Colonel Khaddafy's rule or support the rebels.
Suppose the rebels need to learn how to fight, who to follow, how to manage their differences, and how to govern. Suppose even the rebels themselves can't tell us who they are and what kind of country they will produce if they succeed. Should we turn tail and curse uncertainty?
Comments are closed on this story.