Bloodless Coup

Today I'm Popeye: Fisking Bush's VFW Speech

I've had all I can stand, and I can't stands no more.

(NOTE: I realize this is almost a week late, but I have an actual day job, and have to do actual work at it. Thus, I got this commentary on Bush's speech done as fast as I could. If this seems like old news to you, you can skip it.)

Bush's VFW talk (selected highlights) :

I stand before you as a wartime President.

Well, Bush started the damned thing. Is he boasting, or asking for sympathy?

I wish I didn't have to say that, but an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, declared war on the United States of America.

Right off the bat, Bush is conflating Iraq and Al Qaeda. Lovely. And, just for the record, Al Qaeda "declared" war (if you can really call it that; I'm not sure you can) sometime back in the 1990s. We just didn't notice, nor care. Had we "gone to war" back then (something there wasn't political will to do in either party) we wouldn't be here today. Just sayin'

And war is what we're engaged in. The struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it's a struggle for civilization. We fight for a free way of life against a new barbarism -- an ideology whose followers have killed thousands on American soil, and seek to kill again on even a greater scale.

If we're really in a war, where is the sacrifice by the general public? Where are the higher taxes? The draft? The investment in alternative fuels to reduce our political vulnerabilities in places we buy oil? Where's our diplomacy to build alliances? I'm really not seeing much mobilization for war, other than the military off shooting people.

Oh, and yes "they" seek to kill on a larger scale: if its a war, thats one of the ways you win. Scaring us doesn't create a good dialog.

We fight for the possibility that decent men and women across the broader Middle East can realize their destiny -- and raise up societies based on freedom and justice and personal dignity. And as long as I'm Commander-in-Chief we will fight to win. (Applause.) I'm confident that we will prevail. I'm confident we'll prevail because we have the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known -- the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. (Applause.)

Uh, Hamas? Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt (had the elections been free, they would have won)? Hell, the party we wanted didn't win in Iraq. See, "freedom" doesn't mean "people who agree with the US," it means "people who represent the majority." And, truth be told, the Middle East mostly doesn't like us.

Oh, and the "greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known" isn't our armed forces (no slight to them), but our ideology, freedom and capitalism (that's what won the Cold War, after all). Which Bush is busy discrediting and damaging.

Now, I know some people doubt the universal appeal of liberty, or worry that the Middle East isn't ready for it.

Those aren't the same arguments. Don't pretend they are. And, as I argued above, the first part of that is better phrased "some people doubt that freedom will result in a pro-US electorate." And I'd love for Bush to define what he means by "ready for it." Most of the Middle East think they are ready for it: that's why they don't like us (because we're propping up undemocratic regimes), or are actively fighting us.

Others believe that America's presence is destabilizing, and that if the United States would just leave a place like Iraq those who kill our troops or target civilians would no longer threaten us.

No; once again, Bush is conflating two different arguments. Yes, we are destabilizing: we support regimes and policies that are at odds with the views of the majority of people in a wide variety of countries. Thus, we destabilize them. This isn't new or shocking. Our national interest (things that would benefit the US) isn't always (or even very often) in the interest of other peoples or states. So, yes, the US's active involvement in the Middle East is destabilizing. That isn't remotely the same idea that "if we left there would be peace." No, if we left, fewer Americans would die. There would still be violence (until one side or the other managed to "win" in some fashion - winning defined as ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass refugee exodus, partition, something like that). And, yes, they would still threaten us in the sense of wanting to attack us. Wanting isn't the same thing as actually being able to. I want a pony. Surprisingly, one didn't just materialize in front of me. Al Qaeda wants to attack us. A means to do that won't just appear. 9/11 took years of planning, and only succeeded because the US intelligence and law enforcement agencies don't talk to each other (they still don't, really, but that's another rant). We're better prepared now, and the threat Al Qaeda represents is reduced. The fact that they still threaten us (to some degree) isn't a determining factor in whether we stay or leave. North Korea threatens us - should we invade? China has (through shoddy manufacturing) killed more Americans than Al Qaeda (Iraq excepted) in the last year: should we invade? Hell, the USSR represented an existential threat (they had the power to blow up the whole country) during the Cold War, but we didn't invade on that pretext. This is dumb reasoning.

Today I'm going to address these arguments. I'm going to describe why helping the young democracies of the Middle East stand up to violent Islamic extremists is the only realistic path to a safer world for the American people. I'm going to try to provide some historical perspective to show there is a precedent for the hard and necessary work we're doing, and why I have such confidence in the fact we'll be successful.

Why am I so nervous about Bush talking about history? This ought to be good.

Thank you all for letting me come by. I want to open today's speech with a story that begins on a sunny morning, when thousands of Americans were murdered in a surprise attack -- and our nation was propelled into a conflict that would take us to every corner of the globe.

The enemy who attacked us despises freedom, and harbors resentment at the slights he believes America and Western nations have inflicted on his people. He fights to establish his rule over an entire region. And over time, he turns to a strategy of suicide attacks destined to create so much carnage that the American people will tire of the violence and give up the fight.

If this story sounds familiar, it is -- except for one thing. The enemy I have just described is not al Qaeda, and the attack is not 9/11, and the empire is not the radical caliphate envisioned by Osama bin Laden. Instead, what I've described is the war machine of Imperial Japan in the 1940s, its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and its attempt to impose its empire throughout East Asia.

Mmmm. I'm not really sure how accurate that is. Sure, Pearl Harbor was a tactical surprise (we didn't know we'd be attacked right there, that day), but it wasn't a strategic surprise. We certainly knew the Japanese were likely to attack us within a few months. And we'd prepared for it (building up the Navy, mostly, and Army, to some degree, in the 1930s). 9/11 was more of a strategic surprise (we really didn't know Al Qaeda had that capability, nor did most people think they wanted to reach over here; it was a more significant surprise than Pearl Harbor, in those lights). So Bush is on thin historical ground here.

And I'm also a bit iffy on the attribution of "despises freedom and harbors resentment" thing. They certainly resented us: we were using economic sanctions to deny them oil that they needed to pursue a war in China. They were certainly nationalistic, xenophobic, and imperialistic. They didn't like us using our natural resources to try to force them to change policy (gee, that couldn't sound like us, could it?).

In any event, the Japanese certainly didn't despise us for our freedom. The Imperial Japanese war machine was, from my readings, motivated by (their perception) of national interest and their own version of lebensraum. The attack on Pearl Harbor was intended as the furthest expansion (east) of Japan, and meant to shock the US into a negotiated settlement. The ultimate goal of Japanese aggression was land and resources in China, and all they wanted from the US was to be left alone (and able to buy stuff from us, so they could continue to rape China). Mr. President Bush isn't reading history well here, and the attempted analogy doesn't work.

Ultimately, the United States prevailed in World War II, and we have fought two more land wars in Asia. And many in this hall were veterans of those campaigns. Yet even the most optimistic among you probably would not have foreseen that the Japanese would transform themselves into one of America's strongest and most steadfast allies, or that the South Koreans would recover from enemy invasion to raise up one of the world's most powerful economies, or that Asia would pull itself out of poverty and hopelessness as it embraced markets and freedom.

Japan is a steadfast ally at times (which, of course, means they aren't steadfast). They disagreed with our preferred policy on North Korea. They have provided troops for Afghanistan and Iraq, but only engineers, and they withdrew them when security conditions worsened. South Korea is a powerful economy. Fine. But to argue that Asia is significantly along in pulling itself "out of poverty and hopelessness" overstates how much wealth has distributed itself to that part of the world. And while free markets have made Asia more wealthy, a more accurate statement would argue that OUR free markets allowed Asia to fulfill United States CONSUMER needs, which has lead to Asia's wealth. And I'm not sure how much freedom there is in Asia. Myanmar? China? Cambodia? Thailand (how 'bout that democracy)? Singapore? Indonesia? I think the degree of freedom in Asia is debatable.

The lesson from Asia's development is that the heart's desire for liberty will not be denied. Once people even get a small taste of liberty, they're not going to rest until they're free.

Uh, China? Tiananmen Square, on about 18 years ago? I realize that Bush's statement is true more often then it is false (I think), but China is a big, honking, flashing, glowing negative data point.

There are many differences between the wars we fought in the Far East and the war on terror we're fighting today. But one important similarity is at their core they're ideological struggles. The militarists of Japan and the communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity.

I'm delighted the President is willing to admit to differences between WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. I wish he'd admit to a few more. What the hell does "merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity" mean? Yes, the folks we fought had an ideology. So do we. The President's previous paragraph just listed it: freedom and markets for everyone. That's just as much an ideology as Communism or Fascism. I'd argue that our ideology is both morally, practically, and financially superior to the alternatives, but I can't argue that it isn't an ideology that other groups obviously disagree with.

They killed Americans because we stood in the way of their attempt to force their ideology on others. Today, the names and places have changed, but the fundamental character of the struggle has not changed. Like our enemies in the past, the terrorists who wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places seek to spread a political vision of their own -- a harsh plan for life that crushes freedom, tolerance, and dissent.

This is particularly ironic, since most of the people who oppose us see themselves as defending their peoples from an oppressive ideology. Yes, Americans fought against the Imperial Japanese, Communist North Korean, and Communist North Vietnamese ideologies in those wars. The insurgents in Iraq and Al Qaeda in various places would likely argue that they are standing to prevent US from "forc[ing] our ideology on others." One of the prime motivations for Bin Laden to extend Al Qaeda's reach to the US was (in his view) to extend the war to the prime enemy: our culture, which Bin Laden blamed for destabilizing Islam in the Middle East. The insurgents and Bin Laden take heart and strength from the idea that they see themselves (though not in these words) as modern day examples of American revolutionaries: standing up to prevent hegemony, to safeguard their culture, and bring peace (on their terms) to their regions. While Bush may decry the political vision that Al Qaeda seeks to spread as "a harsh plan that crushes freedom, tolerance, and dissent" (and I would agree with that characterization of Al Qaeda's ideology), that doesn't change the fact that FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW, the insurgents and Al Qaeda are the few proud fighters standing in the way of US attempts to spread our ideology, which they likely view as "crushing freedom, tolerance, and dissent."

Please. We really, really need to move beyond the stereotyped view of Al Qaeda "enemies" as a couple of turbaned young men standing around saying "Ahmed, we must be more intolerant." The idea that people are actively thinking up ways to be more evil (and actively thinking of it as being more evil) is ludicrous. Being (and doing) evil isn't a motivation for people. They believe they are making lives better for the people around them, not "doing evil". They think they are acting (nobly) to prevent harm to their people and their culture. They see us as "evil," for what we are (supposedly; according to their worldview) trying to force on them. They. Don't. See. Themselves. As. Evil. The more we understand that, the more intelligently we can fight this conflict.

We won't win this conflict until we clearly show them (and force/violence is a part of that showing) that their worldview is wrong. We need to demonstrate that the US is tolerant of different cultures and political systems (so long as some minimal standard of democracy is kept). We win when they believe that they can both be friendly with us, AND have a system of culture and government that a majority believes in. For the record, just so we're clear, US policy in the last six years (and, arguably, for the last half-century; that's another rant) hasn't done a good job of convincing them of that.

We're still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we do know how the others ended -- and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today. The ideals and interests that led America to help the Japanese turn defeat into democracy are the same that lead us to remain engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are two responses to this. First, in terms of active shooting wars, the previous wars have been over by now (in a comparative time frame). This "war" has been going on, according to Bush, since 9/11/2001. It's now, almost, six years later. In World War II, it took us less than four years from being attacked (Pearl Harbor) to firebombing every major city in Japan, and beginning to prepare for an invasion of the Japanese home islands (likely, the fighting would have ended with us occupying Japan somewhere before five years after Pearl Harbor). In Korea, we had fought to a negotiated stalemate within five years. In Vietnam, we had begun withdrawn US combat forces (though the actual end of US combat forces would take several years more). In other words, our previous wars were (at worst) winding down by now, not gearing up. That's a problem for the US electorate today. They'd like to see a conclusion in sight, somewhere, reasonably soon. Not promise after promise that things will get better soon.

Second, in terms of ideological wars (like the "Cold War"), those wars took a very long time. The US won the Cold War, but it took half a century. And no President tried to hurry that end. The whole point of the US strategy of Containment was to build a wall around Communism, prevent it's expansion (hence, the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Greece, etc.), and wait for it to crumble. So, in that sense, patience is required. If the President is counseling patience, that's fine. But, the US had many false starts in our half-century fight against Communism. It isn't outside the range of possibilities that the US adventures in Iraq could prove also to be short-term errors in our long-term (eventual) victory over Islamic Fundamentalism. The most important point to make here, however, is that we won the Cold War by sticking to our principles, ideology and values and then by making it a bipartisan issue. Over a long term, politicians on both sides believed in containment, and worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations to pursue foreign policy in line with the overall scheme. We didn't run off half-cocked and make idiotic laws like the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act (both of which are a violation of the values that helped us win the Cold War, and would help us win this fight against Islamic Fundamentalism). This is key.

And no one, absolutely no one, is arguing that we abandon Iraq and Afghanistan. The argument is that OUR PRESENT POLICIES in those countries aren't working (and may, in fact, be counterproductive), and we need to change what we are doing. Don't insult our intelligence by arguing that the only alternatives to "the surge" are complete withdrawal. There are many forms of intervention that may prove helpful in both Iraq that are short of the 165,000 troops in Iraq today. Could we have a rational debate about some of them?

The defense strategy that refused to hand the South Koreans over to a totalitarian neighbor helped raise up a Asian Tiger that is the model for developing countries across the world, including the Middle East. The result of American sacrifice and perseverance in Asia is a freer, more prosperous and stable continent whose people want to live in peace with America, not attack America.

OK, South Korea clearly benefited (both at the time and over time) from the US (actually, by the way, it was the United Nations, but Bush won't mention that) push that forced the North Koreans back. Fine. How is South Korea a model for the Middle East? What aspect of the South Korean political system should the Middle East countries adopt? The part where they don't get democracy for a couple of decades after the war, but are instead run by a military dictatorship? The part that they only get democracy when they have large-scale labor unrest (bordering on what we would call today an "orange revolution")? What aspect of the economic system should the Middle East model? The part where the government colludes with major industry to hold down labor costs (so their exports are cheaper)? The part where the county isn't open to free trade, so exports are impossibly expensive for South Korean citizens (its called the "East Asian Model, and while it has worked in some parts of Asia, it certainly doesn't work for all countries)? South Korea didn't turn into a strong, democratic ally of ours overnight. There were decades of political and economic policies that were not democratic or capitalist before the Koreans themselves righted their own ship. To argue that Iraq will make swift progress towards democracy and capitalism "like South Korea did" is to ignore history entirely.

At the outset of World War II there were only two democracies in the Far East -- Australia and New Zealand. Today most of the nations in Asia are free, and its democracies reflect the diversity of the region. Some of these nations have constitutional monarchies, some have parliaments, and some have presidents. Some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, and some are Buddhist. Yet for all the differences, the free nations of Asia all share one thing in common: Their governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, and they desire to live in peace with their neighbors.

Along the way to this freer and more hopeful Asia, there were a lot of doubters. Many times in the decades that followed World War II, American policy in Asia was dismissed as hopeless and naive. And when we listen to criticism of the difficult work our generation is undertaking in the Middle East today, we can hear the echoes of the same arguments made about the Far East years ago.

For the record, US support of some of those non-democracies (while we were fighting the Cold War) certainly helped keep those states non-democratic for some time. This isn't to say we caused those states to be dictatorships, just that we ranked containing the Soviet Union as a greater priority than nudging some Asian states to be democratic for most of the back half of the 20th Century. And a lot of those states became democratic in spite of our policies, not because of them.

(You can skip most of this next section: Bush points out that many people thought Japan wouldn't become democratic. He names names. It's boring.

In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom.

Some said Japanese culture was inherently incompatible with democracy. Joseph Grew, a former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman's Under Secretary of State, told the President flatly that -- and I quote -- "democracy in Japan would never work." He wasn't alone in that belief. A lot of Americans believed that -- and so did the Japanese -- a lot of Japanese believed the same thing: democracy simply wouldn't work.

Others critics said that Americans were imposing their ideals on the Japanese. For example, Japan's Vice Prime Minister asserted that allowing Japanese women to vote would "retard the progress of Japanese politics."

It's interesting what General MacArthur wrote in his memoirs. He wrote, "There was much criticism of my support for the enfranchisement of women. Many Americans, as well as many other so-called experts, expressed the view that Japanese women were too steeped in the tradition of subservience to their husbands to act with any degree of political independence." That's what General MacArthur observed. In the end, Japanese women were given the vote; 39 women won parliamentary seats in Japan's first free election. Today, Japan's minister of defense is a woman, and just last month, a record number of women were elected to Japan's Upper House. Other critics argued that democracy -- (applause.)

There are other critics, believe it or not, that argue that democracy could not succeed in Japan because the national religion -- Shinto -- was too fanatical and rooted in the Emperor. Senator Richard Russell denounced the Japanese faith, and said that if we did not put the Emperor on trial, "any steps we may take to create democracy are doomed to failure." The State Department's man in Tokyo put it bluntly: "The Emperor system must disappear if Japan is ever really to be democratic."

Those who said Shinto was incompatible with democracy were mistaken, and fortunately, Americans and Japanese leaders recognized it at the time, because instead of suppressing the Shinto faith, American authorities worked with the Japanese to institute religious freedom for all faiths. Instead of abolishing the imperial throne, Americans and Japanese worked together to find a place for the Emperor in the democratic political system.

And the result of all these steps was that every Japanese citizen gained freedom of religion, and the Emperor remained on his throne and Japanese democracy grew stronger because it embraced a cherished part of Japanese culture. And today, in defiance of the critics and the doubters and the skeptics, Japan retains its religions and cultural traditions, and stands as one of the world's great free societies. (Applause.)

You know, the experts sometimes get it wrong. An interesting observation, one historian put it -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts" -- he was talking about people criticizing the efforts to help Japan realize the blessings of a free society -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts had their way, the very notion of inducing a democratic revolution would have died of ridicule at an early stage."

OK, fine, some experts were wrong. There are always experts who are wrong. Its as inevitable as the sun coming up tomorrow (just like when the sun fails to come up, if the experts are always right we can know the apocalypse is just around the corner).

You know, sometimes the experts are right. Like, for example, when they (INR at State) said Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Like (CIA) when they argued that the military body counts coming out of Vietnam really weren't indicators of success. There are other examples (we can get into a fight about whether experts are more often right or more often wrong if you want); my point was to say that you can find an expert to say anything you want said. The fact that Bush can point to several people who argued that democracy in Japan wouldn't work isn't really relevant to the discussion of whether we can form something we recognize as a democracy in Iraq; it certainly doesn't make him right.

Instead, I think it's important to look at what happened. A democratic Japan has brought peace and prosperity to its people. Its foreign trade and investment have helped jump-start the economies of others in the region. The alliance between our two nations is the lynchpin for freedom and stability throughout the Pacific. And I want you to listen carefully to this final point: Japan has transformed from America's enemy in the ideological struggle of the 20th century to one of America's strongest allies in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.)

Critics also complained when America intervened to save South Korea from communist invasion. Then as now, the critics argued that the war was futile, that we should never have sent our troops in, or they argued that America's intervention was divisive here at home.

After the North Koreans crossed the 38th Parallel in 1950, President Harry Truman came to the defense of the South -- and found himself attacked from all sides. From the left, I.F. Stone wrote a book suggesting that the South Koreans were the real aggressors and that we had entered the war on a false pretext. From the right, Republicans vacillated. Initially, the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate endorsed Harry Truman's action, saying, "I welcome the indication of a more definite policy" -- he went on to say, "I strongly hope that having adopted it, the President may maintain it intact," then later said "it was a mistake originally to go into Korea because it meant a land war."

I don't know what critics Bush is reading, but in my reading of American foreign policy history, there wasn't much criticism of the US intervening into South Korea. I'm sure you can find some critics; I'm guessing they were fairly marginal. So to attempt to draw a parallel between the Korean War and Iraq is so far off base that I haven't even seen this discussed by other critiques of this speech. I have no idea who I.F. Stone is, but it is historically inaccurate to argue that South Korea were the aggressors. There were no substantive attacks from the left on Truman; Bush is simply wrong. As for criticism from the right, the histories tell us that most Republicans were fine with the policy. To the extent there was criticism, it was that Truman wasn't using enough force (MacArthur thought about running against Truman as the Republican nominee on a platform of using more force - read "nuclear weapons" - to force the Chinese to end the war). Truman rejected that argument, and kept the war going using conventional weapons. Korea was not a politically divisive war in America.

As a point of irony, it's worth noting, Truman didn't fight to the finish: he negotiated a settlement that kept Korea partitioned into North and South. This administration rejects diplomacy, which is a necessary first step in a negotiation.

Throughout the war, the Republicans really never had a clear position. They never could decide whether they wanted the United States to withdraw from the war in Korea, or expand the war to the Chinese mainland. Others complained that our troops weren't getting the support from the government. One Republican senator said, the effort was just "bluff and bluster." He rejected calls to come together in a time of war, on the grounds that "we will not allow the cloak of national unity to be wrapped around horrible blunders."

Many in the press agreed. One columnist in The Washington Post said, "The fact is that the conduct of the Korean War has been shot through with errors great and small." A colleague wrote that "Korea is an open wound. It's bleeding and there's no cure for it in sight." He said that the American people could not understand "why Americans are doing about 95 percent of the fighting in Korea."

Many of these criticisms were offered as reasons for abandoning our commitments in Korea. And while it's true the Korean War had its share of challenges, the United States never broke its word.

Today, we see the result of a sacrifice of people in this room in the stark contrast of life on the Korean Peninsula. Without Americans' intervention during the war and our willingness to stick with the South Koreans after the war, millions of South Koreans would now be living under a brutal and repressive regime. The Soviets and Chinese communists would have learned the lesson that aggression pays. The world would be facing a more dangerous situation. The world would be less peaceful.

Instead, South Korea is a strong, democratic ally of the United States of America. South Korean troops are serving side-by-side with American forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And America can count on the free people of South Korea to be lasting partners in the ideological struggle we're facing in the beginning of the 21st century. (Applause.)

Again, this is a very odd reading of history. To my knowledge (and I know more than most, but don't claim to be an expert) the US intervention into Korea was not controversial. Sure, there were detractors. There always are (in a free society). But nothing like the public protests of Vietnam or subsequent conflicts. And remember, again, that the right-wing criticism of Truman was that he wasn't doing enough, not that we should withdraw. Bush is trying to argue that "staying the course" was the unpopular option in Korea, and Truman did right by sticking with it. That isn't historically accurate, I think.

Finally, there's Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans. The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.

Nope. Not a single, reasonably intelligence person argued that the violence would end if we left. Not one. Everyone accepted that North and South Vietnam were not going to get along, and that North Vietnam would continue to fund/train/support the Viet Cong. Certainly some argued that America was adding to the violence; that's not the same as America as the sole cause of the violence. This is just dead wrong, and any reasonable person would know this.

The argument that America's presence in Indochina was dangerous had a long pedigree. In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called, "The Quiet American." It was set in Saigon, and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism -- and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."

No, again. Not my field (literature), so go here for a complete description of how Bush screwed up this analogy. Short version: its doubtful that Bush (or whoever wrote this awfulness) ever read the Graham Greene novel.

After America entered the Vietnam War, the Graham Greene argument gathered some steam. As a matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people.

In 1972, one antiwar senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

Again, see the link right above. This quote, too, is taken out of context. The specific argument here is that for the vast majority of an agrarian culture (as Vietnam was in the 1960s/1970s), the specific government is fairly irrelevant. The people live their lives creating food for themselves, and the national government has little influence. Having the Americans go home and the fighting end (because the South Vietnamese would not be able to stand off the North Vietnamese without massive indirect US assistance, even if US combat troops were gone), would be direct benefit to the average Vietnamese: there would be no bombing, artillery, or firefight around them. This is a direct benefit. The specific ideological orientation of the national government was irrelevant to the average Vietnamese (in that time).

In this, Bush is correct. If the US leaves Iraq, things will get worse for most people. Of course, they are already getting worse. The only significant question that needs to be answered is whether an American presence in Iraq could possibly halt the security and political slide towards anarchy. Most knowledgeable people argue "no;" that Iraq has already slid past the point where it will be possible to patch it together again (make the different factions work together in a cohesive whole called "Iraq"). I'll grant that there are some "experts" that argue it is still possible. But this is the key question: if Iraq cannot be put back together again, and will continue to slide down further into chaos and anarchy before rebounding (via a dictator, partition, or something else), then why should the US stay? The presence of US troops might slow that halt, but cannot stop it (if, as most believe, Iraq has passed the tipping point). So, we can stay (and have more die and spend more billions) or we can leave; the end result will be the same (chaos and anarchy). That's the argument made by the so-called "anti-war" crowd. It isn't that we aren't resolute (as Bush would seem to have us become), its that we think the die is already cast, and there is no point standing around waiting to watch the oncoming ethnic cleansing, genocide, and large-scale sectarian warfare. I'll admit I could be wrong in my assessment (though what facts keep coming out don't seem to be particularly positive). That doesn't make me weak, or a defeatist. It makes me realistic.

The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

Look, this is pure historical revisionism. The Khmer Rouge did not rise up because the US left. They were indigenous (Pol Pot, was schooled in France, and took the French Revolution as his model of societal and political change), and they certainly benefited from the destabilizing war in Vietnam. But our withdrawal did not allow their victory. Nor would our staying in Vietnam have prevented it.

And the comment about "boat people" begars belief. The boat people were Vietnamese who did not want to stay under the Communists, after the South fell. Many of them had been part of the South Vietnamese military, or had worked with the US. We left them there, evacuating only Americans and very, very small fraction of those who had fought by our side. We had the opportunity to bring them along, and chose not to. The same thing is happening in Iraq. There are thousands of Iraqis who have assisted US forces and US policymakers in Iraq at great personal risk. The US is making no effort at all to evacuate those people or their families. Given the legacy of Vietnam (knowing what happened to locals who assisted the US then), it is shameful what we are doing in Iraq today. The fact that Bush can try to use our failures in Vietnam at a time when we are failing all over again to argue for continued "resolve" is unbelievable.

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today."

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently.

I'm genuinely not sure what Bush is trying to say here. I think this is an argument about reputation: that since we "ran away" in Vietnam, we have the reputation of running away from other fights, so Al Qaeda thinks they have enough willpower/resolve to punish us enough to get us to run away again. Reputational arguments are incredibly tricky (and, for what its worth, academic international relations/political science hasn't been able to prove the existence of reputation that has any actual effect on the foreign policy of other states; in other words, there is no evidence that the reputation of a state causes other states to behave any differently had the reputation been different), since they depend on other actors perceiving your actions the way you want. You want other states to see your remaining in Vietnam (to use a counterfactual) as evidence that you are resolved and willful (not to be trifled with); you don't want other actors to perceive your remaining in Vietnam as blind stupidity and arrogance (which may lead them to think they can get away with actions because you are too stupid to notice or something). The point is, arguing we should have stayed in Vietnam (and, by extension, should stay in Iraq) because it will enhance our reputation in future interactions is unproven (academically), risky (others may not perceive your actions the way you want), expensive (you have to stay; that has costs), open-ended (at what point can you leave, and keep your "resolved" reputation?), and (assuming all the previous problems don't exist and you do have a reputation you want) assumes the other party (Al Qaeda, for example) gives a shit about your reputation (hey, these people successfully pushed the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan - do you think any US reputation will deflect them?). All in all, Bush is spouting crap.

We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating. (Applause.)

I really can't repeat this enough: Iraq is a central front against Al Qaeda (if it is; that's debatable) because YOU MADE IT SO. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the US invaded. They are only there to attack us (or, by extension, any US-backed regime that governed Iraq). If we leave, Al Qaeda in Iraq will do one of two things: disappear (move to some other place to attack us) or attack the (likely) Shiite government of Iraq. Since they are already doing the latter action, its irrelevant whether we stay or go. The only thing our presence in Iraq is doing in in the fight against Islamic extremism (or GWOT or GSAVE or whatever they're calling it) is giving them a target. Granted, we get to kill a few of them, but we're making more all the time, and giving lots and lots of them on-the-job training they can use elsewhere (I think I've seen evidence that the IED techniques have begun to spread to other groups outside Iraq). Look, I'll agree that "withdrawal without getting the job done would be devastating," but what if we can't ever get the job done? If success is beyond us, then our continued presence only adds to the overall cost and lives.

If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America. (Applause.)

Look, their already using the fight in Iraq to gain recruits. Will they gain more if they "defeat" us? Maybe. Maybe not. In any event, you have to balance that against the fact that we won't be spending billions and billions of dollars (and lives) anymore, and may be better prepared to defend ourselves. Not to mention, we'd have an Army back that could invade someplace else if we can actually find Al Qaeda there (like, say Afghanistan; I heard there might be some there - you might want to check it out).

And I hate that Bush leaps directly from our leaving to a terrorist safe haven. Our leaving does not automatically create a safe harbor for Al Qaeda. The best possible prediction of what will happen in Iraq if we withdraw (and, by the way, withdrawal is a relative term: we would likely maintain a military presence there as advisers and trainers, at a minimum) is that the Shiites and Kurds would run the place, and do nasty things to the Sunnis (who did awful things to them for the past half-century plus). Al Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group. A Shiite-run state is not going to be a safe haven for them. The Shiite government of a future Iraq would likely work hard to keep Al Qaeda out.

And my only comment to the last line is: if its so important to defeat them over there (so we don't fight them here), then why don't we have more people in Afghanistan (and Chechnya and Algeria and a few other places, for that matter)? Al Qaeda is in more places than Iraq; if we need to fight them over there, we should be fighting them wherever they are, and not limiting ourselves to just Iraq.

Recently, two men who were on the opposite sides of the debate over the Vietnam War came together to write an article. One was a member of President Nixon's foreign policy team, and the other was a fierce critic of the Nixon administration's policies. Together they wrote that the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be disastrous.

Here's what they said: "Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences." I believe these men are right.

I have no idea who Bush is talking about. He doesn't cite anyone. Plus, didn't Bush just tell us that experts are often wrong? Why should we believe this set?

In Iraq, our moral obligations and our strategic interests are one. So we pursue the extremists wherever we find them and we stand with the Iraqis at this difficult hour -- because the shadow of terror will never be lifted from our world and the American people will never be safe until the people of the Middle East know the freedom that our Creator meant for all. (Applause.)

I agree that our moral obligations (though I prefer the "Pottery Barn Rule:" we broke it, we own it) and our strategic interests both support the idea of a free, peaceful, stable and democratic Iraq. Just because we want something, doesn't mean we get to have it. As others might say, I want a pony - doesn't mean I'm going to get one. If we can't accomplish our moral and strategic interests, is it better to keep trying (and weakening ourselves in the process), or give up and do the best we can to prevent further damage? That seems clear enough.

Oh, and saying the Creator wants freedom for the (Islamic) people in the Middle East would seem to be potentially offensive to those people (who reject your view of the Creator). This is helping our Hearts & Minds campaign?

I recognize that history cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. I understand that. But history does remind us that there are lessons applicable to our time. And we can learn something from history. In Asia, we saw freedom triumph over violent ideologies after the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American lives -- and that freedom has yielded peace for generations.

The American military graveyards across Europe attest to the terrible human cost in the fight against Nazism. They also attest to the triumph of a continent that today is whole, free, and at peace. The advance of freedom in these lands should give us confidence that the hard work we are doing in the Middle East can have the same results we've seen in Asia and elsewhere -- if we show the same perseverance and the same sense of purpose.

Dandy: there have been successes in the past (I think those other states might want to take some credit for their own democratic transitions - I don't think we did this all on our own). That doesn't mean this one will be a success. As noted, there have been failures in the past (Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Afghanistan?). The application of "perseverance" and "purpose" does not guarantee success. If Bush's administration could show any degree of competence in foreign policy, I might be willing to let him role the dice here. However, just about everything Bush has attempted has failed; why should be be willing to believe this one might work?

In a world where the terrorists are willing to act on their twisted beliefs with sickening acts of barbarism, we must put faith in the timeless truths about human nature that have made us free.

I have no idea what this means. Really. No clue.

Across the Middle East, millions of ordinary citizens are tired of war, they're tired of dictatorship and corruption, they're tired of despair. They want societies where they're treated with dignity and respect, where their children have the hope for a better life. They want nations where their faiths are honored and they can worship in freedom.

And we'd stand a better chance of helping them (and getting them to believe we want to help them) if we didn't prop up a mess of anti-democratic dictatorships in the Middle East who spend a great deal of time and effort suppressing all those things that Bush says people want. There are, what, three-and-a-half democracies in the Middle East (Israel, Turkey, Palestine, and half a one in Lebanon)? If I count generously, its something like that. That leaves a whole mess of clearly non-democratic states, a great many of which are friendly with us: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan and Egypt to name a few. What, exactly, are we doing in those places to promote democracy? (Hint: "fuck all" might be a good answer.)

And that is why millions of Iraqis and Afghans turned out to the polls -- millions turned out to the polls. And that's why their leaders have stepped forward at the risk of assassination. And that's why tens of thousands are joining the security forces of their nations. These men and women are taking great risks to build a free and peaceful Middle East -- and for the sake of our own security, we must not abandon them.

There is one group of people who understand the stakes, understand as well as any expert, anybody in America -- those are the men and women in uniform. Through nearly six years of war, they have performed magnificently. (Applause.) Day after day, hour after hour, they keep the pressure on the enemy that would do our citizens harm. They've overthrown two of the most brutal tyrannies of the world, and liberated more than 50 million citizens. (Applause.)

I've got no bone to pick with the veterans, or the people in other countries who got to experience democracy. I'll just note that some of those votes (Palestine, the present government in Iraq) didn't turn out the way we wanted, and we've been somewhat reluctant to accept the results. When democracy happens and the US rejects the results, this tends to make the rest of the world suspicious that we really want democracy. This isn't helping our public image.

In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today our troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers, they're giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and hopeful life.

I'd love to see the cite for the 1500/month statistic. My best guess is that Bush is lumping all the insurgents (Al Qaeda and not; Iraqi and not) into one big basket. In other words, we may be killing/capturing 1500 a month, but only a very few are actually Al Qaeda; the vast majority are Iraqi insurgents who are fighting us because they don't want us in their country.

I'd also like to point out that if we're killing/capturing that many a month, and the violence is at least stable, then we're not making any headway. We must be creating at least that many a month. And the "decent and hopeful life" that Bush is talking about is only in those areas where the different sects have been segregated. The sectarian violence is still high in Iraq, and that doesn't have much to do with Al Qaeda.

Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq? Here's my answer is clear: We'll support our troops, we'll support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed. (Applause.)

Look, its highly dubious that we're seeing progress on the ground (isn't that what the Crocker/Petraeus report is supposed to tell us? The report due next month?). And, I'd argue, its highly immoral of Bush to say that he speaks for the troops, and the troops (all of them?) want to continue this fight. You shouldn't use the military as a political club to beat the other party with. Its just wrong. The Republicans seem to be able to do this time and again, but that doesn't make it right.

Despite the mistakes that have been made, despite the problems we have encountered, seeing the Iraqis through as they build their democracy is critical to keeping the American people safe from the terrorists who want to attack us. It is critical work to lay the foundation for peace that veterans have done before you all.

The world didn't end when we left Vietnam; the world won't end if we leave Iraq. I'll grant that it might create more problems (it might also create less problems), but leaving Iraq will not cause the decline and fall of America. Pretending otherwise inhibits a genuine discussion of the pros and cons of our policies.

A free Iraq is not going to be perfect. A free Iraq will not make decisions as quickly as the country did under the dictatorship. Many are frustrated by the pace of progress in Baghdad, and I can understand this. As I noted yesterday, the Iraqi government is distributing oil revenues across its provinces despite not having an oil revenue law on its books, that the parliament has passed about 60 pieces of legislation.

Iraq may be distributing oil revenues, but the Shiite-led Maliki government is certainly not distributing oil revenues according to some sort of acceptable formula that the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds have agreed to. So, Bush is being duplicitous by trying to claim that there is revenue sharing. There isn't. And while the problem of a lack of quick decisions coming from the Iraqi Congress certainly exists (they took most of August off), the larger and more important issue are the actual decisions made. As I've already noted, there have been democratic elections in the Middle East before, but the parties that won those elections have not necessarily been friendly to the US. Thus, bringing democracy to Iraq may not result in a state that is friendly to us.

Prime Minister Maliki is a good guy, a good man with a difficult job, and I support him. And it's not up to politicians in Washington, D.C. to say whether he will remain in his position -- that is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship. (Applause.) A free Iraq is not going to transform the Middle East overnight. But a free Iraq will be a massive defeat for al Qaeda, it will be an example that provides hope for millions throughout the Middle East, it will be a friend of the United States, and it's going to be an important ally in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.)

Again, a "free" Iraq may not be a state that is friendly to us; in any event, a free Iraq is not a defeat for Al Qaeda; they aren't a territorially-based organization, so taking away their territory won't defeat them. Or, to put it another way, if taking Afghanistan (where they had a much more substantial infrastructure) didn't end the threat of Al Qaeda, why would pushing them out of Iraq be a defeat for them?

In any event, what with all the damage to Iraq (both physical and the harm done to their civil society), I don't think Iraq will be much help to us in the war on terror in the foreseeable future. At best, success is likely to be defined as keeping Al Qaeda from operating there. I'd like to point out that Al Qaeda wasn't operating there before we invaded; thus, the best possible outcome (with respect to the war on terror) is the status quo ante (what we had before 2003).

Prevailing in this struggle is essential to our future as a nation. And the question now that comes before us is this: Will today's generation of Americans resist the allure of retreat, and will we do in the Middle East what the veterans in this room did in Asia?

Again with the scare tactics. Look, every foreign policy goof by both parties in the history of America has clearly been unessential, since were still here (and very powerful). If we fail to prevail in Iraq, it will likely hurt us in some way (as I've repeatedly said here); it is just as clear that failing to prevail in Iraq will not catastrophically devastate America, or even America's foreign interests. Pretending otherwise is simply lying.

And, once again, a whole host of conditions (domestic and foreign) had to come together to allow the states of Asia to rebuild after World War II. Most importantly, the US didn't do it alone. The dominant factor in success in Japan was the country's own willingness to recognize the need to change and act in that direction. Certainly the US provided material and leadership, but the Japanese did the changing themselves. It is not up to the US alone to "fix" or "rebuild" Iraq; they will need to do it themselves. No amount of US effort can overcome that, if the Iraqis choose not to.

The journey is not going to be easy, as the veterans fully understand. At the outset of the war in the Pacific, there were those who argued that freedom had seen its day and that the future belonged to the hard men in Tokyo. A year and a half before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan's Foreign Minister gave a hint of things to come during an interview with a New York newspaper. He said, "In the battle between democracy and totalitarianism the latter adversary will without question win and will control the world. The era of democracy is finished, the democratic system bankrupt."

Yup, he was wrong. I'll give you that.

In fact, the war machines of Imperial Japan would be brought down -- brought down by good folks who only months before had been students and farmers and bank clerks and factory hands. Some are in the room today. Others here have been inspired by their fathers and grandfathers and uncles and cousins.

Yeah, and for the record, the fight in Iraq involves none of those "students and farmers and bank clerks and factory hands." There is no draft; the people fighting for us in Iraq are all professional soldiers who have volunteered to fight. One of the reasons we won in World War II was that FDR (with the willing acquiescence of the Republicans) placed the country on a war footings, and drafted everything in sight (men, women, material, money, whatever). If the fight in Iraq is so important, why has Bush been unwilling to ask the country to sacrifice in some significant way? If this war is so critical, why has the country not been mobilized to provide more resources to fight harder, faster, and better?

That generation of Americans taught the tyrants a telling lesson: There is no power like the power of freedom and no soldier as strong as a soldier who fights for a free future for his children. (Applause.) And when America's work on the battlefield was done, the victorious children of democracy would help our defeated enemies rebuild, and bring the taste of freedom to millions.

Bush is playing fast and loose with history again here. While it is certainly true that US military might in World War II was strong, and our troops motivated to fight for American ideals, one cannot realistically make the case that the US troops were the strongest. The USSR suffered more, and arguably fought harder than we did (they killed/captured/wounded/faced more German soldiers than the US did during the war). And they certainly weren't motivated by freedom. It is certainly true that America was willing to rebuild the defeated powers after World War II, while the USSR just plundered them. A fundamental difference between our systems.

We can do the same for the Middle East. Today the violent Islamic extremists who fight us in Iraq are as certain of their cause as the Nazis, or the Imperial Japanese, or the Soviet communists were of theirs. They are destined for the same fate. (Applause.)

I'm happy to use history to guide future actions. I believe in studying history to better understand today, and make better policy decisions today. However, you have to be willing and able to recognize differences. The fact we succeeded in the past, does not mean we will succeed today. There are significant differences between World War II, the Cold War, and Islamic extremism. We need to understand those differences (without political rhetoric that obscures them) so we can better come together as a nation and more effectively beat back the challenge of Islamic extremism. Speeches like this hurt us, not help us. I, too, think Islamic extremism will eventually die off (though I believe it isn't the existential threat to America that Germany/Japan were in the 1940s, and the USSR was in the Cold War). However, I think that following stupid policies will prolong this fight (costing more lives and money), and we would be better served by actually debating these issues and policies. Clearly Bush disagrees with me.

The greatest weapon in the arsenal of democracy is the desire for liberty written into the human heart by our Creator. So long as we remain true to our ideals, we will defeat the extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will help those countries' peoples stand up functioning democracies in the heart of the broader Middle East. And when that hard work is done and the critics of today recede from memory, the cause of freedom will be stronger, a vital region will be brighter, and the American people will be safer.

Thank you, and God bless. (Applause.)

I find it ironic that Bush can speak of remaining "true to our ideals" while at the same time espousing a legal theory that argues for the primacy of the executive branch, and (likely) violating the Constitution through illegal wiretapping and deliberately withholding information from Congress so they can't do their (Constitutionally mandated) oversight. In other words, Bush is happy to work to undermine our ideals, while arguing that those very same ideals are what give us strength.

Look, this is an awful speech. I understand the purpose of it ("We did tough things before, we can do tough things again; these things take time"), but it is factually historically inaccurate and plain illogical at times (do we reject ex Posted by baltar at August 31, 2007 04:49 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Iraq | Politics