True grit?

Jamie Kirchick published an email this morning he received from an “internationally-renowned journalist” whose parents endured World War II, and who suspects we — Americans, the British — aren’t tough enough now.

After detailing the incredible challenges faced by her family in 1940, even after a German bomb destroyed their home, Kirchick’s emailer explained that “they never for one moment wanted to give in or make peace and they never doubted ultimate victory.” Apparently, it’s because that generation had “grit.”

It seems nobody much has it now. But unless the US and UK – the two countries that really matter – have more grit than Al Qaeda, we could lose. This doesn’t mean we have to stay in Iraq forever. We have to box clever too. But the one thing I am sure of is that these two countries have to be united…. [T]he rest of the world knows in its bones that these two countries are closer to standing for decency and democracy than any other combination. Of course they’re far from perfect. They’re just the best we’ve got, the last best hope of mankind, as Churchill put it. They didn’t invade Europe to control it but to hand those countries back to their own people, and they did it twice. This means that, for all the cacophony of criticism they currently endure, they command more respect than any other combination of powers. […]

Grit used to be the Anglo virtue – absolutely grim perseverance through long, terrible reverses – though often laughing at oneself, mocking one’s political leaders, trying to drown one’s sorrows in warm beer and Glen Miller’s music- but just never wavering. Wavering was for the Italians and French maybe, but not if you were serious. The Germans didn’t waver. The Russians didn’t waver. So for heaven’s sake why should we? I mourn the loss of grit.

Maybe I’m grit-impaired, but I have no idea what this person is talking about.

I suspect he or she wrote this 700-word email, and Kirchick published it, as some kind of argument on behalf of staying in Iraq longer. If the Brits in 1940 could endure seemingly insurmountable odds against the Germans, then American and British forces can continue to get in the middle of Iraq’s civil war. It would demonstrate “grit.”

I obviously don’t know Kirchick’s emailer, but his or her argument — I hesitate to even call it an “argument” — doesn’t make a lot of sense. Iraq in 2007 is comparable to England in 1940 how, exactly?

It’s likely that some conservatives, including Kirchick, find this email message appealing because it reinforces their image of themselves. They want to pursue a failed strategy because they’re “tough.” To withdraw is to be “defeated” and to show “weakness,” so machismo should rule the day. If that means falling in a ditch and continuing to dig, so be it. This isn’t about doing what’s right, or pursuing a sensible foreign policy, it’s about showing “grit.”

But this is madness. Opponents of Bush’s Iraq policy aren’t weak — we simply want a policy that makes sense, protects our national security interests, and offers some hope for the future.

I found Christopher Orr’s take to be spot-on.

…I find it rather irritating when entirely nonideological character traits are put to ideological ends — especially so, when those ends are implied but unstated. The correspondent writes, “This doesn’t mean we have to stay in Iraq forever,” insinuating that it does mean we have to stay in Iraq for now. What else does it mean? It’s hard to say, apart from America and Britain remaining “united” and our not coming to resemble the “wavering” Italians and French.

The whole letter seems a fairly transparent critique of liberals, but assiduously avoids making any actual political claims that could be rebutted…. Perhaps it’s just me, but I tend to think that these paeans to “grit” would be considerably more persuasive if the people singing them were a little more forthright about what it is, exactly, they’re trying to say.

Of course, if recent history is any guide, Kirchick doesn’t actually agree with the email he published, but simply offered it to “be provocative and stir some debate.”

They didn’t invade Europe to control it but to hand those countries back to their own people …

Whereas we invaded Iraq and seem to have no intention of handing it back to its people.

Which would be hard to do anyway since most everyone in that country sees her or himself as a Sunni, or Shia or Kurd, not as an Iraqi.

  • Grit?!? This current generation might have grit if faced with Nazi Germany or a real Axis powers threat…or even by the Soviet menace.

    This current generation is told that even though we were attacked by Al-Queda, we needed to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq while ignoring the Saudi and Pakistani connections of Al-Queda. There is even an “Axis of Evil” that was created as a bit of speech-writer’s rhetoric We have NOT been in a declared war against our enemies (that would require congress declaring war). We have been in an amorphous war against an idea: Terrorism.

    How do you kill an idea? Even communism was more of an ideology. Even if every terrorist alive time could magically be killed in one instant today, someone somewhere would adopt the means used by them tomorrow. We should be in a war on Al-Queda. At least it’s feasible to defeat them…but you can’t defeat the idea of terrorism.

    Grit is another was of saying “Stay the Course”. It may have been fine to have grit when previous generations had the clear moral high ground in their causes…but WE are the ones who have killed 100,000 of thousands of innocents totally out of proportion to our goals. WE are the ones who torture, kidnap and hold prisoners indefinitely without a trial. WE have lost that good will that previous generations built and earned.

    We don’t have grit because we know we don’t deserve it.

  • The Russians aren’t Anglo-Saxons. They’re Slavs. That was part of the reason why Hitler was killing them in the first place.

    I don’t know why people bother to use words like “anglo-saxon” and adjectives like “grit” when what they really mean is “white people” and “superior”. I wonder what qualities people in India and Africa were displaying when they endured colonialism, then threw the British out on their asses.

    I mourn the the prevalence of attitudes sympathetic to white supremacy among “renowned journalists”.

  • This was MY favorite part:

    “Grit used to be the Anglo virtue”

    Not *AN* Anglo virtue. THE Anglo virtue. Take THAT you lily-livered black, Latino, Asian and other swarthyish peoples! You can have other crappy, second class virtues. Grit is OURS! All OURS, y’unnerstan’?

    We don’t waver like the French! Who aren’t Anglos… they’re different.. somehow… just take our word for it. Sure they share a border and traded Alsace-Lorraine back and forth with non-wavering Germany a zillion times and interbred into one big mushy, pasty doughy Caucasian humanity slurry… but the French aren’t Anglo.

    This is what passes for the genetic science that breeds creationism.

    BTW, wasn’t it the non-wavering English and Amuricans that kicked the non-wavering Germans’ collective behind in Dubya-Dubya 2? Maybe the Germans waver a little? That must be it. The Germans are pansies too. That’s why they stayed out of Iraq like the French.

    Man, these conservatives can’t even get their own talking points straight! It’s a good thing we’re here for ’em.

  • I’m guessing the “internationally-renowned journalist” hasn’t volunteered to go fight in the Iraqi Civil War.

    They did posit one truth…

    …this underlying trust in Anglo-American decency is a precious thing. It must be preserved, which means it must not be abused…

    Too late, Mr Grit. Bush and his poodle abused it to death four years ago. the abuse goes on unabated.

    So why isn’t Mr Grit’s letter a call to put Bush and Bliar on trial? That would restore the “underlying trust in Anglo-American decency”.

  • Re: Adiv @ #2

    You got it. 700 ways to say “stay the course.”

    Global War On a Psychological State or a Nefarious Tactic spells w-o-r-l-d-w-i-d-e_u-n-e-n-d-i-n-g_w-a-r.

  • And so goes the desperate attempt to somehow paint Iraq as a noble and honorable struggle when in reality it was always about oil, it was as Tom Friedman said about going to another part of the world to kick someone’s ass – anyone’s – “because we could,” it was about cementing a permanent Republican majority because they are supposed to be the party of “winners.”

    But no matter how many times these wingnuts pass around the bottle of kool-aid and stand up and speechify to the rest of us, they don’t have any real ammunition in their satchels to use to make Iraq a battle that is our hill to die on.

    Grit would a draft. Grit would have been going into Iraq with enough troops to get the job done. Grit would have been burning the midnight oil to prepare for a post-invasion Iraq. But most of all grit would have been our leaders saying that this was a bullsh*t war before we even invaded and doing the right thing by this nation and this world rather than by doing what their party said to do to stay in office or by capitulating to the wrong side so as not to be called “weak” by the opposition party.

  • As others have said… I sure hope that the “internationally-renowned journalist” understands that if the war in Iraq was really a war to protect our own interests instead of Israel’s interests and the oil major’s interests, we would have a draft. And the “gritless generation” would go fight like hell. And war profiteers would go to jail. And people who outed CIA agents would be fired, prosecuted, and maybe even executed.

    But I’m pretty sure that proposing a draft to fight a bogus war of choice would be suicide for the War Party. So we don’t hear much of a call for more troops, even though we’re supposedly “fighting for the survival of our civilization”.

    I sure hope the Republicans are crazy enough to push for a draft.

  • I’ll believe this tripe when the ‘internationally renowned journalist” publishes this under his own name. Grit? As in True Grit, ala John Wayne? We’re running low on actors, or Dukes?

    After detailing the incredible challenges faced by her family in 1940, even after a German bomb destroyed their home, Kirchick’s emailer explained that “they never for one moment wanted to give in or make peace and they never doubted ultimate victory.” Apparently, it’s because that generation had “grit.”

    Or, because like 99.9% of the people in this world, they held a grudge against those who destroyed their home. What gobbledy gook.

    I wonder how many insurgents attacking us now in Iraq took up arms after their homes were destroyed.

  • What one would expect from the analogy to Britain, 1940, is is that people facing invasion of even a stronger power, and defending their homes, would have grit.
    So I would fully expect the Iraqis to have grit — and indeed they seem to.

    It’s much harder to exhibit “grit” when one is engaged in the folly of pursuing a war of aggression begun for no good reason. Those with true grit oppose such wars.

  • This piece had absolutely no understanding of Al Qaeda or Iraq and equates true grit with just attacking till nothing moves or you get complete surrender. How is that accomplished in a civil war?
    Why even publish such a ridiculous email that obvioulsy has nothing to say that relates to anything going on today, showing complete ignorance of Iraq and our situation but is all for cheerleading Americans to fight harder no matter what they are fighting. So stupid and pointless it’s insulting to be heralded as important dialogue with today’s America.

  • One of the things that is depressing about this argument, and the argument made by so much of the press is that “Americans don’t have the willingness to take casualties and pay the price for the war” and that is the reason the left wants to get out.

    Here’s the thing–we destroyed a country. We have a moral obligation to do whatever we can to fix that. If I really believed that our continued presence would help, then, as hard as it would be to admit, I would say that we would have to stay.

    However, our presence, far from helping, is making things worse. We are giving up blood and treasure for no rational (at least no non-politically rational) purpose. We might forestall violence in some situations, but we are not coming close to solving the problem, and it is likely that, the longer we stay, the worse the situation will be after we leave.

    Also, the idea that either the British or the Americans were 100% behind the world wars is a myth. There were strikes and protests continuously, and a significant portion of both populations thought that Hitler wasn’t “that bad” and wasn’t worth fighting. Many people (possibly a majority) didn’t think that Britain was going to be able to hold out before December, 1940.

  • This doesn’t mean we have to stay in Iraq forever. We have to box clever too.

    If we were “boxing clever” we’d never have invaded Iraq in the first place. Staying isn’t ‘grit’, it’s pigheadedness.

    That romantic 1940s ‘grit’ the writer is dreaming of involved dogged commitment to goals that actually mattered, advanced by men who valued practical expertise and results above ideology and cant. We didn’t marshall our forces to attack Bolivia after Pearl Harbor.

    It’s not ‘grit’ the writer misses in our current leadership, it’s a connection to objective reality.

    And, as the writer may not realize, in WWII we’d won by now and competently set up functioning, peaceful occupation authorities.

  • I’ve never felt so much in agreement with everyone commenting here on a single post as in response to this “internationally-renowned” journalist’s email. Somehow, he’s managed, with a handful of that stiff-upper-lip Anglo-Saxon supremacist grit, to provoke a more vehement expression of our feelings about Iraq than we usually give vent to.

    In a simple way from a distance the historical analogy that always springs first to my mind is of Bush as Hitler and the Americans as the Nazis invading, occupying and persecuting innocent, defenseless countries, just as Germany did 70 years ago. Today’s ‘insurgents’ in Iraq are yesterday’s ‘resistance’ in Europe. Today’s Nouri al-Maliki is yesterday’s Philippe Pétaini in Vichy France. Decorum and respect for American sensibilities generally prevent me expressing these obvious correspondences so bluntly. But today, at last, I have found.. true grit!

    Reading between the lines, it seems that the “internationally-renowned” journalist’s parents, who endured World War II, were probably Jewish. Of course, they may not have been, but either way, it is easy to understand a Jewish perspective on the current tussle between Christians and Muslims. Last century, Jews were persecuted by fanatical, extremist Christians, this century they are threatened by fanatical, extremist Muslims. It’s not difficult to see which way the wind is now blowing for them. They really, definitely — and understandably — want dangerous, potentially annihilating Muslims held at bay. And the guy who appears to be doing that is our friend and leader the Nazi Mr Bushbat.

    Since history only imperfectly repeats itself, it also has the potential to both excuse as well as confuse its would-be re-enactors. If anyone needs a ton of grit in today’s world it must be those valiant Iraqis who, with absolutely grim perseverance through long, terrible reverses, strive to secure their country against American terrorism.

  • Biggerbox has already alluded to this: “grit” is something that gets you through when you are facing seemingly insurmountable odds in a just war, where the enemy is clearly definable and where he has already attacked you.

    Something that rhymes with grit is what gets you dragged into a war of choice against a country that has never attacked you, in which the enemy is everybody who will not passively allow you to progress your personal agenda.

  • Iraq in 2007 is comparable to England in 1940 how, exactly? — CB

    Um… Both had the crap bombed out of their capital by a bigger military might? Both resisted it with every ounce of grit?

  • We shall fight them on the beaches and in the shopping malls and at Starbucks and wherever else we guess they are. And we can promise only blood, oil, sweat and unfounded fears for $3 billion a week until, well, who knows? Oops, forgot — until we get the job done. Or whatever.

    — George Bush

  • Comments are closed.