I've increasaingly noticed on here how much World War II comes up in analogies justifying (Munich) or deploring (Goebbels quotes) the path to war. It's striking that WWII is the only war mentioned, when Korea or Vietnam are probably closer to what the Iraqi War would be like. It's doubtful that this war will require the society-wide mobilization (at home and abroad) that WWII did, and it's apparant from the administration's domestic economic policies that they feel that they can carry on disconnected war and domestic spending policies (much like LBJ in the 60s). Now, I don't really want to debate what war this one most closely compares to. What I'd like to know is why World War II gets used so much. What do these analogies reveal? What gets lost about WWII or about Iraq in these analogies? Are World War II analogies helpful or are they just latent bigsoccer debating tools to be trotted out no matter what the question?
I liken it to WWII because of international, specifically European apathy towards the mid east tyrant. I prefer that we learn from history, and realize that dictators can't be appeased.
As someone who is as guilty of this as anyone else, re: Goering quote below: Because the Anglo-American media (and, therefore, much of the public) is obsessed with World War II. I'll confess to this as much as anyone. I didn't study history past Higher level, yet the longest book I've ever read was Shirer's Rise and Fall, and I've read other books on the topic (eg Speer's autobiography). The last book I bought was a biography of Churchill by the late Roy Jenkins. Compared with my (lack of) reading on other topics, it could be said that I am obsessed with it as well. Precious little. The truth. Not at all. They are harmful, since it prevents us from looking at the facts of the current situation as objectively as possible. [indulging in another comparison] Anthony Eden, who was foreign minister under Churchill, thought he was "learning the lessons of World War II" when he started the war against Egypt over the Suez crisis. If he had looked at the Suez situation objectively, he wouldn't have batted an eyelid. But his judgement was clouded by past experience of a different situation.
Re: Re: World War II and Iraq And this is exactly why these analogies are foolish. Any comparison that tries to equate the actual and potential military might of Germany in 1938 to Iraq in 2003 is doomed to irrelevance.
Re: Re: Re: World War II and Iraq military might isnt the question. you are taking the analogies too far. All i'm saying is the political situation right now is terribly similar to that of 1938.
Re: Re: World War II and Iraq It's this idea of learning from history that bugs me (and I'm not just going off on you, manny). People on here act as if history is some great trove of hard and fast lessons on how to act right now. History tells us nothing more than how and why (and we infer the why) people acted when presented with certain dillemmas of their own time. I say all of this as someone currently writing a dissertation in US history, not to say I know more history, but to say that I've thought quite a bit about the relationship between past and present. The past isn't some crystal clear guide of how to act in the present, it doesn't repeat itself, and no present situation is reducible to some past predictive moment. Trying to draw hard and fast rules from the past without considering present circumstances leads us only into misunderstanding where we are now. History can be instructive in considering past decisions and their consequences for the future, but it does not give us absolute rules for how to act today.
Re: Re: Re: Re: World War II and Iraq I'd argue that we might be turning it back to 1919 instead. That's the year we came up with the Treaty of Versailles, sowing the seeds of resentment in Germany that allowed Hitler to come to power later. Would unilateral action sow the seeds of resentment internationally, allowing more bin Ladens to gain power? It's a question worth asking.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: World War II and Iraq Wilson threw his hands up in the air at versailles and let the treaty become a collective anal rape of the germans. there's a pretty good idea where an example of history can apply today. what are we going to get from throwing our hands up in the air now?
Re: Re: Re: Re: World War II and Iraq Well, let's see. Rather than a system where the global colonial system was still predicated on a few European nations, Japan and the USA as we had in 1938 we now have the USA as the sole remaining imperial power. This conflict is not between the imperial or former imperial powers themselves but between the sole remaining imperial power and a small nation under seige by the imperial power. Only the presence of the second largest oil reserves and the immediate proximity of the larger culture of Islam, which is the last major religion to maintain temporal power as well as 'merely' moral influence in a non-secularized society, makes this conflict at all important. Europe is relatively stable. We do have Bush in office, so I guess you can say that we do have a warmongering madman in charge of a world power just like we had Hitler in Germany in 1938. Saddam, however, cannot attack anyone tougher than Kuwait with his reduced armed forces and is therefore, unlike Bush, not likely to be able to start a world conflagration. North Korea is a far cry from the Japanese Empire, however, since they haven't been able to conquer much of Asia. In fact, they can't even take South Korea. Even China is no substitute for Japan ca. 1938 as they are too mired with internal problems to be terribly epansionist. As for the economic situation that drove the entire process in the 1930s, while the US job market is the worst in 20 years and the US stock market has tanked two years running, we are still, despite Bush, not anywhere near The Great Depression. So, the WW2 analogies are simply false and only serve to muddy the current picture. This political situation is nothing like 1938. Saddam is not Hitler. North Korea is not the Japanese Empire. Trying to use WW2 as a model for this conflict is just plain dumb. If you want a less horrible analogy, try reading Thucydides. And even that isn't terribly similar, really.
Comparisons of this situation to WWII, or Hussein to Hitler are pretty much worthless...but there haven't actually been many comparisons of the actual/potential conflicts, the comparisons are coming as a result of action or inaction by certain countries and their governments and how history has judged them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: World War II and Iraq needs...a history prof of mine had a great, great saying...history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes alot To me, these two sentences are contradictory. Because in order for the political situations to be meaningfully similar, then the military threats have to be as well. I mean, what was the cost of inaction in 1938? A horrible, horrible war in Europe. (There was already a war in Asia by then.) What's the cost of continuing inspections in Iraq? The only decent reasoning I've seen is the fear that in a year or three, Saddam will kick out the inspectors, and then wreak HAVoc. IOW, it's based on a what if. OK, it's all based on "what ifs," but this is different. I don't think there's a rational argument that something bad might happen while the inspectors are there. There's a fear that they won't be there later, and then we won't have an army nearby. To me, that means you should be ready to march in the streets to keep the inspections going if/when Saddam tries to kick them out in June 2005. It does NOT mean we need to invade and kill tens of thousands or worse right now. I'm nobody's pacifist. I loved American bombs in Serbia, and I loved American bombs in Afghanistan. (In fact, I think the bombs should have dropped alot sooner in Serbia.) But I'm not sold on this war at this time. I went over the edge a few months back when the Bushies were lying to us weekly. Now it's practically daily. I think it's pakovits point...here you have a horrible dictator whom we've already gone to war with once, and the Bushies are having to lie to us to try to sell the war. To me, that's as conclusive proof as you could possible come up with that it's a bad idea, short of bugging Karl Rove's office. If this war was a good idea, it would "sell" itself. Further, I'm convinced that the Bushies are thinking tactically, not strategically. I mean, they're busting up some pretty damn old alliances for this war. They're obligating the US to hundreds of billions of dollars to fight the war and fight the peace. And I see no evidence that they've come to grips with the fact that this is a very different kind of war than any we've fought before. This is NOT a pre-emptive war, like one of the Israeli-Arab conflicts, where the Israelis attacked just before the Arabs did. There's ZERO evidence that Iraq is doing anything like that. Finally, the Bushies have plainly lost all sense of proportion, as to the size of this problem. NoKo is on the backburner, AQ camps in Iran are on the backburner, OBL tapes are on the backburner. To put it bluntly, at this point, I can't imagine any evidence emerging that would make me think "this is worth it." And Beau Dure might be off by 5 years. WW I would never have happened if they had had any idea what was about to transpire. They lept with blinders on. I don't think it can be reasonably disputed that the Bushies haven't spent time considering poor outcomes. Yeah, things might go 90% according to plan. But if they only go 70% according to plan, we're not ready. The American people aren't ready for the cost in dollars and lives, and they're not ready for the cost in international ill will. And then the relevant historical analogy is Vietnam...we're in the briar patch. And God help us if it goes 50% according to plan. (Just to head this off at the pass, no, i don't think there's a chance in hell that the war will last 8 years. I don't think it will last 8 weeks. But I don't see any evidence that the American people will support a difficult occupation. And the Bushies haven't prepared us for the possibility.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: World War II and Iraq afghanistan hasn't exactly been easy and there isn't too much of a public outcry and it barely even makes the news. the public will loose interest quick. Hell CNN spent quite a while showing a dog rescue today. live. the media will report it for maybe a few weeks after the war and then stop and as soon as they stop people will probably forget that we are even still involved with iraq.
I obviously agree that the analogies between WWII and Iraq are worthless, but why are they continually made (and not just here)? Is it that WWII is the last war we can look back to with a 'satisfying' conclusion? Is it all the Greatest Generation stuff? For all the talk of a 'Vietnam syndrome,' it seems like that war has completely escaped public discourse (in the mainstream media or on here) when it comes to talk about war rationales. Sure, Vietnam gets trucked out when the protests occur, but the process toward US involvement and US build up provides some informative context. Hell, Korea is even better, given the involvement of the UN, and the political and diplomatic machinations that went on in order to commit UN troops. Are these ignored because they're complicated stories and don't have the resonance of 'you can't appease dictators'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: World War II and Iraq But the problem here is that administration hawks are going into this war with the justification (ok, justification number 5, right after al-Qaeda links and right before the moral crusade for the good of Iraqis) of creating a democratic Iraqi government that will be a model for the region. And they're being backed in this by some of the liberal supporters of the war, like Thomas Friedman in the NYT (check out today's column). Basically, it sounds like you're saying that this is all talk and that the US is basically going to do what they're doing in Afghanistan, ie protecting our guy, Karsai, in the capital, and letting regional strongmen run the rest of the nation. If we do that in Iraq, we will be following an incredibly dangerous path. And then when some Iraqi Shiite religious extremist blows up US troops because they're there, we'll get a whole nother round of 'Why do they hate us?' The media might not cover what goes on after the war, but if the administration spends the attention they've spent on Afghanistan post war, we're in big trouble.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: World War II and Iraq you're looking too far into my point which was simply that i don't think american opinionof the occupation will be an issue due to the less than constant media coverage. (using afghanistan as an example) i'm pretty sure if people knew about all the hoodwrangling going on over there they wouldn't be so excited about it. but then again afghanistan for some reason has an immunity card for some reason we can do no wrong in afghanistan. as long as iraq is set up in a situation where it can immediatly begin rebuild from it's natural resources it's got a good shot at being a success story.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: World War II and Iraq Afghanistan harbored and abetted people who actually attacked us. There is no evidence that Iraq has done so, despite Bushie lies to the contrary.
so there's a "burrito" of immunity because they attacked us? canadian friendlies die in friendly fire accidents in afghanistan...people defend the pilots. even though they were told that there were friendlies in the area and no hostiles. a total debacle. hardly any US public out cry. i can bet you if that happened in Iraq we'd have a shitstorm on our hands.
furthermore these "bushie" lies could spring up tommorow when they announce they're going to start up a new search in afghanistan and it's going to cost alot more men and dollars. but it could really just be a big exercise because the generals want to do something and that's ok? i just don't understand how the fact that "Afghanistan harbored and abetted people who actually attacked us" makes them immue from the same critisim directed at the iraq policies.
Fair enough on your point about the media. Trying to build democracy or a functioning nation-state ain't television friendly. But it's the most important thing for the US if they choose to get involved, more important than taking out Saddam. The problems are as Friedman put it a couple of weeks ago, we don't know if we're inheriting the Middle Eastern Germany, a highly educated populace who will thrive (in 5 to 10 years) after the removal of a dictator, or the Middle Eastern Yugoslavia, a nation of deep, enduring hatreds, held together only by the strong hand of a dictator. As an administration source admitted in yesterday's NYT, we won't know until we get there. (I would add that we won't know until after we've been there for a while). I fear it's more like Yugoslavia. What if groups, Shiite fundamentalists, Kurd nationalists, Baath party members, ansar al-Islam, get their hands on chem or bio weapons before US troops can secure them? I would think some of these groups would likely trade them with al-Qaeda or use them against each other than. The US could easily find itself, after victory is declared over Saddam, trying to contain the collapse of Iraq and inadvertantly allowing the spread of the WMD they hoped to contain.
oh i do too! even this whole new thing about (the possibility of/pure speculation)boats sailing around with WMD's is freaking me out because who knows who could get their hands on those. Once Saddam is removed i believe it will take at least 10 years of a continued strong military presence ALONG with a proper economic plan. with that said i think post iraq can be successful if the military and the planners can work together (VERY wishful thinking)
It's these last elements that really concern me, because, given the Bush economic plan, it appears we're going to try to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq by copying 20s at Kinkos and hoping no one notices we're passing off the phonies. It's especially worrying if Saddam, as is expected, sinks explosives into the oil wells and explodes the drilling infrastructure. We can repair the stuff he does above ground, but the underground repair is much more difficult.
Irish...I see your point about the media, but let me make two points. First, there'd be alot more media attn. to Afghanistan if we weren't preparing for this war. (I'm not saying the Bush is doing B in order to bring about A, just making an observation.) Second, I don't think the war in Afghanistan was up for reasonable debate. OK, Universal was probably against it, but notice the adjective "reasonable;" that automatically precludes anything he has to say about it. Further, we had worldwide support for that war. For both of those reasons, any difficulties we're having in Afghanistan are bound to be much less controversial, and therefore less newsworthy.
hopefully this is when the possibilities of politicians greedy for war can have an influence on the planning. yes it would look REALLY bad if the oil fields were KEY targets early in the war. but it would be really good for the rebuilding of the country. could you imagine trying to justify that? i can't even begin to think how i could sell something like that to a whole bunch of people who wouldn't rationalize it.
i agree with you there simply because "Showdown Iraq" has probably been on CNBC for months now. so i could see how it's very easy to rationalize the fact that the media would stick around. very good point. i've had a lot of discussions however that post war the americans could find tons of intel files making the action very positive and if they do find WMD i think it would bring the world on board and show it was the right thing to do. and with that amount of support it could maybe roll into an Afghanistan level of interest? also you've got the hot bed of korea that i think the media would love to leap into as soon as iraq is done. With Mr. Kim shooting off soundbyte after soundbyte we could easily see things switch from "Showdown:Iraq" to "Nuclear Crisis:Korea" plus you could get john mccain on o'reilly and they could talk about "gooks" for weeks and i think bill would like that alot better than talking to ann coulter about (bashing)saddam.
Do you think about what you write before you write it? To paraphrase: "What, we don't protest against the occupation of people who were actually involved in attacking us? I bet if we occupied a country that has'nt attacked us, there'd be protests!" Hell yeah! And there'd be protests if we decided to attack and occupy Iceland too considering they haven't attacked us. Here, memorize this since you seem ot have trouble reasoning it out: Countries like Afghanistan (then ruled by the Taliban) who have attacked us or knowingly directly aided and abetted those who did are fair game for occupation. Countries like Iraq who, as bad as they may be, have not attacked us or directly aided those who have are not fair game for occupation. This also includes the likes of Myanmar, Zimbabwe, China, etc. As for your sense of outrage, let me put this in a way you can understand... If you want to be amazed by a country that seems to be wearing a +20 Ring of Immunity Against American Outrage, please direct your sense of wonder at Saudi Arabia. Thanks.