Saturday, May 27, 2006
Is this trap necessary?
Bush and Rumsfeld like to use Truman and the Soviets as an analogy to justify fighting a slow, careful, long war.
Is that really a beneficial analogy?
In the first place, our current war is hot, not cold. It began actively and aggressively with a long series of deadly attacks, climaxing at 9/11 when we finally engaged to some extent. The deadly attacks on civilization continue unabated.
The Cold War began passively. Russia didn't gain half of Europe by attacking; rather, it was given half of Europe as a reward for its tremendous sacrificial efforts against Hitler. We can regret the gift in hindsight, but at the time it seemed unavoidable and necessary. The Cold War remained mostly passive and indirect, a war of influence rather than slaughter.
Second, do we really want to compare with Truman?
Truman's part in the Cold War made it longer, not shorter. He refused to let MacArthur fight hard in Korea, which left us with a permanent stalemate requiring a massive military presence.
Truman's administration was penetrated at the highest levels by Soviet agents, which meant that we were unable to move ahead of Russia in bomb research, and unwilling to press our advantage. Congress tried to root out the spies and saboteurs, but FBI (which had the needed info) was unwilling or unable to help.
Replace Korea by Iraq, and Soviet by Saudi, and this part of the analogy is fairly close, but it's emphatically not the kind of analogy you want to advertise.
-----
A third thought: The analogy fails in one important way. Truman supervised the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of governments in Germany and Austria. He did NOT allow Germany to elect its own leaders, and I think it's safe to say that he would not have allowed Germany to elect a Nazi for the postwar government. Bush is allowing Afghanistan and Iraq to choose Mohammedan governments because, I guess, elections are the only important thing in his universe. ¶ 11:22 AM
Is that really a beneficial analogy?
In the first place, our current war is hot, not cold. It began actively and aggressively with a long series of deadly attacks, climaxing at 9/11 when we finally engaged to some extent. The deadly attacks on civilization continue unabated.
The Cold War began passively. Russia didn't gain half of Europe by attacking; rather, it was given half of Europe as a reward for its tremendous sacrificial efforts against Hitler. We can regret the gift in hindsight, but at the time it seemed unavoidable and necessary. The Cold War remained mostly passive and indirect, a war of influence rather than slaughter.
Second, do we really want to compare with Truman?
Truman's part in the Cold War made it longer, not shorter. He refused to let MacArthur fight hard in Korea, which left us with a permanent stalemate requiring a massive military presence.
Truman's administration was penetrated at the highest levels by Soviet agents, which meant that we were unable to move ahead of Russia in bomb research, and unwilling to press our advantage. Congress tried to root out the spies and saboteurs, but FBI (which had the needed info) was unwilling or unable to help.
Replace Korea by Iraq, and Soviet by Saudi, and this part of the analogy is fairly close, but it's emphatically not the kind of analogy you want to advertise.
-----
A third thought: The analogy fails in one important way. Truman supervised the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of governments in Germany and Austria. He did NOT allow Germany to elect its own leaders, and I think it's safe to say that he would not have allowed Germany to elect a Nazi for the postwar government. Bush is allowing Afghanistan and Iraq to choose Mohammedan governments because, I guess, elections are the only important thing in his universe. ¶ 11:22 AM
