Pick your analogy
President Bush and other administration officials have been casting about for an historical parallel that best explain and rationalize its war in Iraq. And they’ve traveled all over time to find them.
In a speech to the American Legion last year, Ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld compared this time to years leading up to World War II:
It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else’s problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.
Just before the war began, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz told the Veterans of Foreign wars (pdf file) “The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator. They know that America will not come as a conqueror.” A few days later Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert of NBC that the Iraquis would greet US troops as liberators. And President Bush has given the same war some nods by using the words “axis of evil” and “Islamic fascists” to describe our enemies.
Or maybe the global war on terror is like the Cold War. That’s what President Bush suggested in his commencement speech last year at West Point.
Fortunately, we had a President named Harry Truman, who recognized the threat, took bold action to confront it, and laid the foundation for freedom’s victory in the Cold War.
President Truman set a clear doctrine. . .President Truman acted boldly to confront new adversaries. . .
President Truman acted boldly to help transform old adversaries into democratic allies. . .
President Truman transformed our alliances to deal with new dangers. . .
President Truman positioned U.S. forces to deal with new threats. . .
President Truman launched a sweeping reorganization of the federal government to prepare it for a new struggle. . .
President Truman made clear that the Cold War was an ideological struggle between tyranny and freedom. . .
Likewise, Bush argued, this administration has taken similar actions and is laying the groundwork for eventual victory in the global war on terror.
But maybe its not as general as the Cold War, but something more specific like South Korea. Here’s how the Press Secretary, Tony Snow, explained it back in May:
Q Tony, on Iraq, for the gaggle you were asked about U.S. troops and just how long the presence would be there, the vision. And you compared it to the Korean model. Can you explain that?
MR. SNOW: Yes. It was actually a question that Helen raised and Helen used to create an analogy, but the President has used it before. . . .
. . .MR. SNOW: Here is — what the President means by that is that at some point you want to get to a situation in which the Iraqis have the capability to go ahead and handle the fundamental matters of security. You have the United States there in what has been described as an over-the-horizon support role so that if you need the ability to react quickly to major challenges or crises, you can be there, but the Iraqis are conducting the lion’s share of the business — as we have in South Korea, where for many years there have been American forces stationed there as a way of maintaining stability and assurance on the part of the South Korean people against a North Korean neighbor that is a menace. . .
Or, there’s no analogy. Vice President Cheney told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Israeli lobby)
An enemy that operates in the shadows and views the entire world as a battlefield is not one we can fight with strategies used in other wars. An enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for negotiations. Nor can we fight to a standoff — (applause). Nor can we fight to a standoff, hoping that some form of containment or deterrence will protect our people. The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive, facing the threat directly, patiently and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed. (Applause.) [my emphasis]
And just a few days ago, the President gave us a paradoxical take on the analogy question–simultaneously, there is and isn’t an historical parallel. Today’s troops are like our revolutionary soldiers in that they are fighting an unprecedented war Independence Day speech to the West Virginia Air National Guard:
You’re the successors of those brave men. Those who wear the uniform are the successors of those who dropped their pitchforks and picked up their muskets to fight for liberty. Like those early patriots, you’re fighting a new and unprecedented war — pledging your lives and honor to defend our freedom and way of life. In this war, the weapons have changed, and so have our enemies, but one thing remains the same: The men and women of the Guard stand ready to put on the uniform and fight for America. (Applause.)
One analogy that simply won’t do, though, is Vietnam.
Written by Ayschlay
Guss Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 9:24 amVisit Guss
Ayschlay,
I hope you don’t mind but I moved your post below the Biden post just to keep everyone happy.
Ayschlay Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 9:30 amVisit Ayschlay
That’s fine. I couldn’t figure out how to do that, so thanks.
~J~ Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 10:22 amVisit ~J~
To everyone who thinks the war in Iraq is all bad I ask you to just read this site. It paints things as they really are from someone who is there and in the thick of the battle reporting and not sitting in the Green Zone typing whatever gossip he hears from someone else.
I don’t know what analogy to use for this war, but I know the fanatic Muslims want us all killed and that includes Democrats, Republicans, Independents, I Don’t Cares, and our children.
We need to stop looking behind and start looking beyond our noses because this is something that affects every one of us. Laugh if you want, but if we get a president who is determined to stop this war you’re going to long for President Bush.
Ayschlay Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 11:31 amVisit Ayschlay
I’m not sure why Yon’s reporting is supposed to change my mind about the war.
Yes, he gives us great, moving stories from the front. He gives a window onto the soldiers’ courage, the immense challenges they face, the complexities of trying to rebuild and make war at the same time, and the horrific tactics of the insurgents.
His stories don’t prove that we should have gone to war, or that we’re conducting it properly. I don’t think that’s his intention anyway.
He explains that he wants to be accurate, and hopes that accurate reporting will help the US win the media battle (what we honestly called propaganda wars up until the 1970s) because, as General Petraeus argues, “complex counterinsurgency warfare can only be successful when the media battles are decisively won.”
I’m not sure what is meant by that except to guess that accurate reporting would better serve the morale of the troops (since they’re not being romanticized nor demonized), and elicit more understanding from people on the homefront. I buy that, but it doesn’t help me with the big picture and long term worries and questions I have about this war.
Finally, the implication of this and other postings about getting the real story is that opponents of the war somehow have it in for our troops, that we wish them ill, that we want them to lose. There might be some war opponents out there like that, but I’m not one of them.
The Vietnam debate generated a lot of knee-jerk anti-militarists who despised their fellow men and women who served in that war. There’s nothing close to that sort of thing happening today and I would guess that many of us who oppose the war do so because we thought it was bad move from the start, and just continuing it, muddling along (see Yon’s description of the “surge”) at the expense of thousands of American lives, and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, isn’t going to somehow make the war right.
So, more power to Yon and his excellent reporting. Thanks for leading me to his stories. I’ll read them. But rubbing my face in the reality of this war will not turn me into a supporter any more than watching the opening of Private Ryan made think war was really cool.
~J~ Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 11:53 amVisit ~J~
Ayschlay,
I’m not trying to rub your face or anyone else’s face into being a supporter if you are not.
The point of sending anyone to that site was to show everything is not as reported in the major media. No more and no less.
Those who are opposed to the war have been for a long time and will not change their minds. I have no illusions about that.
I do think those who oppose this war are doing so at the risk of the American people because I’m not foolish enough to believe if we leave there everything will be sweetness and light, and there will come the day, if we do leave before we wipe out this scum of the earth, that we will wish we had President Bush back in office to complete the job people like you and Congress want stopped.
Then again some people are pacifists and nothing will ever change that because they believe they can love their way out of any situation.
I’m not saying you are one of them. I’m merely making an observation as to the gullibility of people. 9/11 is too distant for anyone to remember. What happens when another one happens to our country? Are we going to kill them with love?
Sue Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 11:58 amVisit Sue
“But rubbing my face in the reality of this war will not turn me into a supporter any more than watching the opening of Private Ryan made think war was really cool.”
I did not realize you felt that posting a Michael Yon piece was rubbing your face in anything. I am sorry you feel that way but I know I will continue to post his dispatches until J tells me otherwise. The fact that he posts things that are positive from time to time seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way, perhaps that is why the MSM chooses not to publish his work.
As for accurate reporting, it would serve this country well if the media told a fair story of what is taking place in Iraq, not their “version” and certainly not all negative.
~J~ Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 12:03 pmVisit ~J~
J won’t stop anyone from posting anything, especially about Yon, since I think he is very honorable in his reporting.
Ayschlay Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 12:12 pmVisit Ayschlay
Excuse my communication. I didn’t think you all were rubbing my face in this war. I used it as an expression of getting a close-up view of something. My “more power to Yon” was not sarcastic. I’m glad you put me on to him.
As for war being necessary in the larger war on terror. I’m yet to be convinced that we have to fight there (especially this kind of war) to protect ourselves here. I need more evidence, especially from an administration that was so very off base in its initial rationale for going to war. Seems to me to be questionable, imperial logic.
As for accurate reporting, I think views of accuracy are in part based on one’s predisposition. Support the war, and one likely thinks the main media’s false or too critical. Oppose the war and one likely distrusts government press conferences and thinks the journalists defer too much to their official sources.
~J~ Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 12:17 pmVisit ~J~
A-
You don’t need to apologize for your words unless they are spoken in anger. This is an open forum and the purpose is to bring about both sides of an issue.
~J~ Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 12:21 pmVisit ~J~
Ayschlay,
Do you think in the recesses of your mind that Saddam actually had WMD and shipped them off to, say, Syria? Why do you think our troops found so many chemical warfare suits the Iraqi troops were prepared to wear? They knew we were going in to destroy WMD and not to use WMD, so why were they prepared to use these suits?
The very fact they are attacking Britain and threatening to attack us again tells me we aren’t going to stop them in Iraq, but I also think if we leave Iraq we have given them a home and training ground to launch their missions of death with the help of the maniacal Ahmadinejad.
~J~ Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 12:24 pmVisit ~J~
If this war was based on faulty intelligence we can’t call it a lie. That’s what gets me. The senators had the same intelligence the president had but didn’t read it. He was told it was a slam dunk by the CIA director who has now written a book denying he said it in that context. So, what to believe? I doubt any president would send troops to die for a lie.
If we can get past the lie part we may be able to have a decent discussion, and I know you didn’t say it was a lie.
What about the trucks observed by satellite crossing over into Syria at the run-up to the war? Were they carrying Saddam’s gold or his WMD? Or maybe his family. Knowing what we know about the tyrant, what do you think they were carrying?
Ayschlay Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 12:38 pmVisit Ayschlay
It wasn’t just faulty intelligence, it was massaged intelligence, along with other things like bureaucratic infighting within and between the Pentagon, CIA, the State Department, and the White House, according to Imperial Life in the Emerald City (Chandrasekaran) and Hubris (Isikoff and Corn), which I’m reading now, and which I gather are similar to arguments in Woodward’s State of Denial and Ricks’ Fiasco.
The reason I don’t trust arguments like He-must-have-secretly-shipped-them is that it seems like just another in a series of desperate attempts to make up for the inability to find any WMD. Who’s arguing that line these days? If you can steer me to sources I’d welcome it.
Why should we assume that if the US pulls out, Iraq (if it even holds together) will produce a regime that welcomes Al Qaeda?
~J~ Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 12:44 pmVisit ~J~
A-
I’ve got to go do some other things, but one resource would be your own memory of seeing the aerial photos of the trucks going to the Syrian border, if you saw them.
I disagree with your massage theory and I disagree with your sources, but you disagree with my theory and my sources. That’s fair.
There are enough Al Qaeda in the Mid-East right now that if a country fell they would swarm it like a swarm of bees.
That would be their launching post. They already have a foothold there, but if you don’t believe my theory I won’t be able to convince you, and I’m not trying to. I’m just giving you my beliefs as you are giving me yours and that too is good.
I really have to go now for a few hours.
~J~ Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 12:48 pmVisit ~J~
One thing is for sure. If we pull out of Iraq we’ll soon enough know which of us is right. I hope it’s you, but I’m afraid it’s me. We will just prove bin Laden (may peace be upon him
) was right when he calculated we are a paper tiger and don’t have the stomach to fight back when attacked, and I fear we will be attacked again. How hard is it to drive a car into a building full of people? How hard would it be to carry a suitcase bomb and set it off in a major city?
I don’t live in a major city, so maybe it won’t affect me personally, but it would affect my countrymen and I care about them.
Ayschlay Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 12:50 pmVisit Ayschlay
Adios.
~J~ Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 3:23 pmVisit ~J~
A-
Just here for a quick break, but I asked why you thought the Iraqi soldiers had chemical suits when we first went into Iraq and you didn’t give me your theory on that.
I’m asking again, directly, why do you think they had chemical suits at the ready if there were no threat of WMD?
Ayschlay Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pmVisit Ayschlay
J, don’t know about the chemical suits. What’s your source? I’ll see what I can find out on my own as well.
Ken Larson Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmVisit Ken Larson
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak. I believed another Vietnam could be avoided with defined missions and the best armaments in the world.
It made no difference.
We have bought into the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). If you would like to read how this happens please see:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703
Through a combination of public apathy and threats by the MIC we have let the SYSTEM get too large. It is now a SYSTEMIC problem and the SYSTEM is out of control. Government and industry are merging and that is very dangerous.
There is no conspiracy. The SYSTEM has gotten so big that those who make it up and run it day to day in industry and government simply are perpetuating their existance.
The politicians rely on them for details and recommendations because they cannot possibly grasp the nuances of the environment and the BIG SYSTEM.
So, the system has to go bust and then be re-scaled, fixed and re-designed to run efficiently and prudently, just like any other big machine that runs poorly or becomes obsolete or dangerous.
This situation will right itself through trauma. I see a government ENRON on the horizon, with an associated house cleaning.
The next president will come and go along with his appointees and politicos. The event to watch is the collapse of the MIC.
For more details see:
http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/inside-pentagon-procurement-from.html
Ayschlay Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 4:57 pmVisit Ayschlay
Thanks for the visit Ken Larson and I will check out your links.
~J~ Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 6:30 pmVisit ~J~
Here’s an AP story published at Global Security.org
The applicable paragraph from this AP story is this:
~J~ Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 6:35 pmVisit ~J~
Here’s a Jan. ‘04 AFP article claiming WMD were transferred to Syria, and if you check the link at the bottom you will see photos of what were or are believed to have been WMD sites.
Ayschlay Says:
July 7th, 2007 at 3:37 amVisit Ayschlay
Regarding the Global Security article, published in April, 2003, this is when US officials and other backers of the war were still expecting to find evidence of WMD, and beginning to get anxious about the lack of it.
The US weapons inspector at the time, David Kay, had been telling the press that US troops would no doubt uncover this evidence, but in his 2004 testimony before Congress, he had to report finding practically nothing that indicated existing WMD, or even much of a program to build WMD.
My big question still is who is still making the WMD case now? I think those who were trumpeting WMD in Iraq are now focused on Iran. Life just ain’t worth living unless we have a boogeyman.
As for the AFP report–what’s AFP? I wonder if this Syrian journalist is standing by his claim 3 1/2 years later, or if others have substantiated them?
~J~ Says:
July 7th, 2007 at 3:47 amVisit ~J~
Isn’t AFP Agence French Press? A general, who was the Iraqi Air Force second in command stands by it and has written a book, which I have but have not yet read.
I have other sources but thought you would think them too partisan.
Big Mo Says:
July 7th, 2007 at 8:42 amVisit Big Mo
My long posts have been convoluted lately, so I’ll keep it short
We went to Iraq with the best of intentions, with too much of an emphasis on WMD, as there was certainly enough reasons to resume the war with Iraq (I can expand on that if you wish);
The intel was totally wrong, for whatever reasons. I do not and never will believe it was manufactured, or that it was a lie. It was just WRONG.
The intial mission has long since been accomplished, e.g., getting rid of Saddam and his evil regime.
What we’re doing in Iraq NOW is something different — and that IS central to the war on terror. How we got there is, believe it or not, regardless to the situation now. Our enemy is fighting hard to make Iraq its own. Because we went into Iraq, and stayed, it has now become THE battleground.