Still looking for that historical parallel that works

September 1, 2005

Let’s see, in recent months, in trying to draw a comparison between Iraq and other historic military campaigns, the Bush gang has referenced Korea, the Revolutionary War, WWI, and the Civil War.

Now, the president has settled on a new favorite: World War II.

Invoking the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Bush on Tuesday cast the war in Iraq as the modern-day moral equivalent of the struggle against Nazi fascism and Japanese imperialism in World War II, arguing that the United States cannot retreat without disastrous consequences.

On its face, this is obviously the wrong way to go. The two are in no way similar. Iraq had not attacked the United States, Saddam was not poised to take over a continent, and FDR didn’t launch a war under false pretenses.

But Slate’s Fred Kaplan exposed the real fraud behind Bush’s latest analogy. It has to do with a real sense of sacrifice.

From December 1941 to August 1945 — the attack on Pearl Harbor until the declaration of Allied victory — the United States manufactured 88,430 tanks and 274,941 combat aircraft. Yet in the two years after the invasion of Iraq, much less the four years since the attack on the World Trade Center, the Bush administration has not built enough armor platings to protect our soldiers’ jeeps from roadside bombs.

To fund World War II, the United States drastically expanded and raised taxes. (At the start of the war, just 4 million Americans had to pay income tax; by its end, 43 million did.) Beyond that, 85 million Americans — half the population at the time — answered the call to buy War Bonds, $185 billion worth. Food was rationed, scrap metal was donated, the entire country was on a war footing. By contrast, President Bush has asked the citizenry for no sacrifice, no campaigns of national purpose, to fight or fund the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, he has proudly cut taxes, heaving the hundreds of billions of dollars in war costs on top of the already swelling national debt.

If this war’s stakes are comparable to World War II’s, the entire nation should be enlisted in its cause — not necessarily to fight in it, but at least to pay for it. And if President Bush is not willing to call for some sort of national sacrifice, he cannot expect anyone to believe the stakes are really high.

Note to Bush: We knew Roosevelt, Roosevelt was a friend of ours, and you’re no Roosevelt.

It has to do with a real sense of sacrifice.

When are the congressional Dems going to start talking about this loudly and proudly? Are they so afraid of the American people’s sense of self-entitlement? I think if they challenge the American people, the independents will rise to that challenge and begin to question the GOP and their control of all the branches of government.

  • Not only did Bush ask for no sacrifice, he told us after 9/11 that the best thing Americans could do in the face of national tragedy was to go shopping. Similar instead of dealing head on with the current gas crisis by crafting a citizen-friendly energy plan, unlike the one he just crammed through Congress that was written by the industry, and by removing the tax incentive to buy gas-guzzling SUVS, Bush said on GMA this morning: “I would hope Americans conserve if given a choice,” he said.

    In Bush’s bizzaro world, self-indulgence is sacrifice.

  • A little off topic but in the same speech, Bush said:

    “Do we return to the pre-September the 11th mind-set of isolation and retreat, or do we continue to take the fight to the enemy and support our allies in the broader Middle East?”

    Israel, I assume, is one of our allies in the broader ME. Who are the other allies and what are they doing that they need US support for? Those other allies must be Muslim countries – how does a US military presence in Iraq help them?

    If any of those allies happen to be oil-rich countries, shouldn’t they be kicking in with some money if the US war in Iraq helps them?

  • Looking for historical parallels?

    How about when Caligula declared war on the sea? Except that that war ended eventually, so nevermind.

  • Whattaya mean no sacrifice? Don’t New Orleans and Southern Mississippi count? And don’t forget, they’re red states, so they count double.

  • There has been a great deal of sacrifice from the
    middle class on down. It’s just not in the traditional
    way. The enormous cost of the war, coupled with
    the huge tax cuts for the rich have put an immense
    burden on the lower 80%. It’s just that the MSM
    aren’t going to point this out to the American
    people. Indeed, they tell them that there has
    been no sacrifice.

  • I’m afraid that if there was a call to buy war bonds, that the funds would go support another tax cut for the wealthy.

  • Actually WWII is a very apt comparison. I bet Hitler had very compelling evidence that Stalin had WMD.

  • I just wrote a long diatribe about this on a forum for pilots. There was considerable bellyaching about fuel costs and said simply, take the President at face value.

    WWII, Iraq, epic struggles

    Then asked, ‘Does anyone expect a society to engage in an ‘epic’ struggle without major sacrifice?’

    We made decisions, we sent troops, we diverted funds, and we put business and development ahead of a fragile shore line. Now, we have gas prices soaring through the roof. For the middle class down, that is the beginning of sacrifice – blown up in a tin humvee or drowned in LA? No, but when we’re rationing sugar, we’ll know its public sacrifice on the order of WWII.

    With a big push to elliminate the ‘Paris Hilton tax’ underway it is clear that we aren’t all suffering. After all, what does she care if it costs $6 a gallon to fill her Hummer rather we elliminate the estate tax or not? But sooner or later, the credit card bills for current GOP policies will all come due, and one way or another, we’ll almost all pay (hey, the spoiled @#$% still has to drink water and breath air doesn’t she?)

    -jjf

  • prophet: Thanks for the link to the Weekly Standard article. I haven’t read anything quite so incoherent in awhile.

    According to the authors, we are fighting violent Sunni radicalism and because the war is “bipolar”, it is the same as the Cold War when we fought “Soviet-style communism based in Moscow”. The writers are of the opinion that Asian style communism was not part of the Cold War since it still exists and everyone agrees that the Cold War ended in 1991. I have no idea where the Vietnam war fits into their scenario.

    The authors contend that if Democrats blame Bush for the mess in Iraq, they are anti-war and don’t understand that Bush’s Iraq blunder is “the intense pressure point of a far larger conflict.” Therefore, when the violent Sunni radicalists commit another terrorist attack in the US, everyone will forget that Bush failed to prevent the attack and remember the anti-war Democrats.

    According to the authors, Bush now believes that democratic reform in Saudi Arabia will prevent Wahhabist Saudis from financing the violent Sunni radicals with oil money. Morons – If Bush believes that Saudi money is financing terrorist attacks that kill US troops, he should put an immediate stop to it, using any and all available means. Waiting for reform that may or may not happen is not acceptable, period, and Bush should be held accountable for his failure to act.

    I could go on but it is just more of the same nonsense.

  • Not WW , not WW II, not Korea, but, hey why does he not compare it to Viet Nam? Sure doesn’t want to use that does he?

  • Perhaps World War II is an instructive analogy – with a different perspective:

    The Pacific Theater of WII began when one of the Powers, plotting to acquire sustaining energy sources, embolden by radical war planners, and sustained by a culture of nationalistic hegemony with a moral certainty of purpose, attacked her perceived adversary with a brutal “shock and awe” surprise.

    The attacker did not understand the culture of their chosen adversary, thinking that terms were certainly imminent from such devastation, from these terms securing prosperity and infuence in the region, and by them affirming the cultural nationalism of the homeland.

    In spite of the initial tactical successes, the stategic plans were, as history records, poorly conceived , as the War galvanized the adversary, entered a phase of unsustainable economically driven conflict, and ultimately resulted in defeat for the attacker.

  • I’m afraid that if there was a call to buy war bonds, that the funds would go support another tax cut for the wealthy.

    • Comments are closed.