Complicit. Arrogant and presumptuous about his Western, Christian perspective, of course, but it’s probably unavoidable for human nature. So from that British perspective it may feel justified rather than dangerously mistaken or flawed. I don’t think you have the ability to override your own self-interest, human-relationships, and your related experience and perspective. It doesn’t feel to be in your human nature, and the things you do and say, and my experience supports this.

But that’s a general statement for many leaders like him. As to him personally, I think he was simpleminded about things outside his knowledge or experience. His goal and priority was to win a war, and he wanted to inspire his own people to that end while not necessarily prioritizing honesty rather than his message. I think more than anything he felt his duty and responsibility was met if it enabled a future for his own people.

So again, complicit. But it’s a moot point, because it’s not realistic to expect anything else.

All things considered, a coherent post at least.