Historical analogies gone awry

At various times, administration officials and their allies have offered a variety of historical comparisons for the war in Iraq. To hear war supporters tell it, the conflict is like World War I, World War II, the U.S. Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, and the Korean War.

Yesterday, Bush looked a little further back.

Facing renewed wrangling with Democrats — and possibly some Republicans — over continuing the Iraq war, President Bush on Wednesday took Independence Day as an opportunity to hark back to another bloody war with no apparent end in sight.

Reading aloud from an article about the first Fourth of July celebration, in Philadelphia in 1777, and its “grand exhibition of fireworks,” Mr. Bush told the audience of Air National Guard members and their families at the base here, “Our first Independence Day celebration took place in a midst of a war — a bloody and difficult struggle that would not end for six more years before America finally secured her freedom.”

Addressing National Guard members with the 167th Airlift Wing who were gathered in a cavernous airplane hangar here, he said, “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.”

Alas, this isn’t the first time the Bush White House has alluded to the nation’s first war. Conditions in Iraq have deteriorated since the downfall of Saddam? Things were bad here for years after we broke free of the British. We’re suffering tragic military setbacks in Iraq? The Continental Army lost plenty of battles. Conditions in Iraq look bleak? George Washington probably heard the same talk.

Except, as Fred Kaplan explained not too long ago, comparing Iraq to late 18th-century America “should only intensify the hackles and horrors.”

America’s Founding Fathers shared the crucible of having fought in the Revolutionary War for the common cause of independence from England. This bond helped overcome their many differences. Iraq’s new leaders did not fight in their war of liberation from Saddam Hussein. It would be as if France had not merely assisted the American colonists but also fought all the battles on the ground, occupied our territory afterward, installed our first leaders, composed the Articles of Confederation, and organized the Constitutional Convention. The atmosphere in Philadelphia, as well as the resulting document and the resulting country, would have been very different. […]

Sectarianism did not exist in early America. Yes, there were sharp regional differences between mercantile New England and the agrarian South, as well as moral splits over slavery. But no groups exacerbated these tensions by asserting an exclusive claim on God.

Early America saw armed revolts, notably Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. But they were protests led by debt-ridden farmers against rising taxes — not pervasive or murderous insurgencies against the entire established order. They were also put down fairly promptly — Shays’ by a state militia, the Whiskey Rebellion by a mere show of government force.

If the White House is really anxious to find some historical analogy that works, there is one available, but I don’t think the Bush gang is going to like it.

If I recall, the revolution was fought in favor of rights like habeas corpus and the rule of law, and against foreign occupation. It is outrageous for the guy who is on the wrong side of all those issues and who instituted torture as our official policy to get up and draw comparisons between the revolutionary war and his war of convenience.

  • When I heard on the radio that Bush had drawn this comparison, I wondered who are the British and who are the Americans in this analogy, and arrived at a conclusion unflattering for the United States.

  • Before long Dear Leader is going to tell us that Iraq/nian National Security is American National Security. They’ll just leave out the part about Iraq/n being a Cheney Protectorate of the American Corporate Empire.

    Too bad we didn’t have a Democratic majority in the Congress and someone other than Keith Olbermann offering leadership.

  • Da Whar Prez sez: “you’re fighting a new and unprecedented war”

    Uh, no. Unprecedented? You kidding me. The cradle of civilization has been and probably always will be the battlefield of humanity. War is about the only real constant in the Middle East.

    New? Hell no. This is what happens when you send a military force into a nation of ethnic groups who hate each other. Raygun’s intervention into Lebanon comes to mind (except in scale and scope.) It has the added bonus of invasion which just amplifies the killing.

    As for W, he’s just another in a long line of puppet kings who refused to listen to sage advice and let his ego, incompetence and stupidity get the better of him.

    If we have to go with bad historical analogies then I nominate W as the henpecked Napolean III and Dick Cheney as Napolean III’s prussian hating wife who henpecker her husband into the farce now as the FrancoPrussian War of 1871.

  • Bush: “Like those early patriots, you’re fighting a new and unprecedented war…”

    Is he saying that our soldiers are fighting an “unprecedented” war just like the one fought by our founders? Such idiocy would not surprise me…

    And secondly, as #4 said, getting stuck in a sectarian civil war in the Middle East is about as old as history itself.

  • Can you imagine how the Founding Fathers would have reacted if the French decided to stick around after the British left?

  • Even compared to Vietnam Iraq is the worst war we’ve ever gotten into.

    We’re trapped in a centuries old civil war, where multiple religiously fanatical factions are backed by millions of people in surrounding countries, NONE of which we seem to be able to understand, much less control or influence to any significant degree. Add to that that the sticky black lifeblood of the global economy comes from these countries, and by launching the war the way they did, BushCo lowered our already-very-low approval ratings in the region.

    So they hate us, they hate each other, we can’t speak their language, and we need what’s under their land for our economy to survive.

    So yeah, it’s not just FUBAR, it’s FUBAR CUBED. And No, it’s nothing like the Revolutionary War.

    But of course that won’t stop the Bushies from making the claim, because they’re from a planet where logical argument is just a game of Calvin Ball.

  • Is it any wonder that Bush praised Revolutionary War Major General Adam Stephen in his Fourth of July speech? Stephen’s early career was distinguished however, he finished by being cashiered in 1777 for off-duty drunkenness as well as misbehavior during the withdrawal of his army after the unsuccessful attack on Lord Howe’s forces at Germantown, Pa.

    The difference is that Bush’s early career was as bereft of positive accomplishments as his later career as President. All of his actions now seem to be guided by the principle that if he makes a big enough mess of things, his successor won’t look much better than he does.

  • i suppose it is unprecedented to be lead in war by such an astoundingly incompetent commander in chief.

  • If little Georgie-Porgie wants to compare his invasion of Poland with the American Revolution, he needs to figure out which George he is – analogically speaking – and it sure as hell isn’t G. Washington.

    As Pitt the Elder said in 1777:

    November 18, 1777: William Pitt, Earl of Chatham; Spoken in the House of Lords, London, England:

    My lords, this ruinous and ignominious situation, where we can not act with success, nor suffer with honor, calls upon us to remonstrate in the strongest and loudest language of truth, to rescue the ear of majesty from the delusions which surround it.

    The desperate state of our arms abroad is in part known.

    No man thinks more highly of them than I do. I love and honor the English troops. I know their virtues and their valor.

    I know they can achieve any thing except impossibilities; and I know that the conquest of English America is an impossibility.

    You can not, I venture to say it, you can not conquer America.

    Your armies in the last war effected every thing that could be effected; and what was it? It cost a numerous army, under the command of a most able general (Lord Amherst), now a noble lord in this House, a long and laborious campaign, to expel five thousand Frenchmen from French America.

    My lords, you can not conquer America.

    What is your present situation there?

    We do not know the worst; but we know that in three campaigns we have done nothing and suffered much.

    Besides the sufferings, perhaps total loss of the Northern force, the best appointed army that ever took the field, commanded by Sir William Howe, has retired from the American lines.

    As to conquest, therefore, my lords, I repeat, it is impossible.

    You may swell every expense and every effort still more extravagantly; pile and accumulate every assistance you can buy or borrow; traffic and barter with every little pitiful German prince that sells and sends his subjects to the shambles of a foreign prince; your efforts are for ever vain and impotent—doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely; for it irritates, to an incurable resentment, the minds of your enemies, to overrun them with the mercenary sons of rapine and plunder, devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty!

    If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms — never — never — never.

  • The way Americans gaily followed Bush into Iraq brings to mind the way Paraguayans followed the even more feckless Francisco Solano Lopez:

    From p.256 of “Chances Are”: “In 1845, Paraguay passed into the hands of Francisco Solano Lopez. Plump, flattered to be told he resembled Bonaparte, he felt destiny strong upon him. In 1865, Lopez provoked simultaneous wars with Argentina and Brazil; Uruguay joined a Triple Alliance against him. What followed was one of the bloodiest conflicts on record. Lopez’s army was gone – killed, wounded or captured – within eighteen months. Every male Paraguayan had been conscripted: ten-year-olds ought and died beside their grandfathers. The new armies marched half-naked, their colonels barefoot. Naval infantry units attacked Brazilian ironclads armed only with machetes. As the allies advanced, Lopez’s paranoia grew: he tortured and killed most of his government, the civil service, five hundred members of the foreign diplomatic corps, and two of his own brothers. [Wikipedia says 200 diplomats, and adds that “During this time he also had his mother flogged and ordered her execution, and also attempted to have himself canonized by the local bishops”] And yet Paraguayans continued to fight for him with suicidal bravery. Finally, he was cornered by Brazilian troops on the banks of the Aquidaban and was shot as he attempted to swim to freedom. Lopez’s last words were reported as: “I die for my country” – but it would be more accurate to say that his country died for him. Paraguay lost 90% of its male population: for years afterward, polygamy was tolerated. By any reasonable standard, the choice Lopez made was senseless, yet the whole nation followed him into the abyss. The power of war binds individually rational judgements together in irrationality.”

    How can usually reasonable countries be so vulnerable to morons and outbreaks of mass stupidity?

  • If the analogue for the Iraq conflict is our Revolutionary war, then Tom Cleaver’s comment yesterday quoting William Pitt is the prefect summary of our situation there: the war is unwinnable and will only serve to bleed us of strength and treasure. Bush’s vainglorious attempts to characterize himself with the true winners in history betrays the fact that Bush’s own history has been one of being a total loser.

    Only a complete idiot couldn’t see that a Revolutionary War analogy would make the Iraqis throwing off the mantle of a foreign occupier into the Continental Army, who just like the jihadis used snipers as the IEDs of their day to harrass British troops as the moved about the country, the American troops in Iraq would be the equivalent of Howe and Cornwallis’ British Redcoats, with Blackwater being the Hessians of our day.

  • Antonius @ 2

    To extend the analogy, I suppose the German Hessians have already been withdrawn by Kaiser Tony Blair and the french Ayatollah is bolstering the Valley Forge crew to put the final kibosh on King George the Forty-Third.

    Kindly remember, this was Bush’s analogy, not mine.

  • If we’re harking to 18th century and, by implication, comparing Georges… I wonder if this King George also pisses in purple. In that King George’s case it was a symptom of an illness, which, eventually, affected his brain.

  • Comments are closed.