| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Bush Knows His History |
| 2006-06-05 |
| By Michael Barone Two weeks ago, I pointed out that we live in something close to the best of times, with record worldwide economic growth and at a low point in armed conflict in the world. Yet Americans are in a sour mood, a mood that may be explained by the lack of a sense of history. The military struggle in Iraq (nearly 2,500 military deaths) is spoken of in as dire terms as Vietnam (58,219), Korea (54,246) or World War II (405,399). We bemoan the cruel injustice of $3 a gallon for gas in a country where three-quarters of people classified as poor have air conditioning and microwave ovens. We complain about a tide of immigration that is, per U.S. resident, running at one-third the rate of 99 years ago. George W. Bush has a better sense of history. Speaking last week at the commencement at West Point -- above the Hudson River, where revolutionary Americans threw a chain across the water to block British ships -- Bush noted that he was speaking to the first class to enter the U.S. Military Academy after the Sept. 11 attacks. And he put the challenge these cadets willingly undertook in perspective by looking back at the challenges America faced at the start of the Cold War 60 years ago. "In the early years of that struggle," Bush noted, "freedom's victory was not obvious or assured." In 1946, Harry Truman accompanied Winston Churchill as he delivered his Iron Curtain speech; in 1947, communists threatened Greece and Turkey; in 1948, Czechoslovakia fell, France and Italy seemed headed the same way, and Berlin was blockaded by the Soviets, who exploded a nuclear weapon the next year; in 1950, North Korea attacked South Korea. "All of this took place in just the first five years following World War II," Bush noted. "Fortunately, we had a president named Harry Truman, who recognized the threat, took bold action to confront it and laid the foundation for freedom's victory in the Cold War." Bold action: the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan in 1947, the Berlin airlift in 1948, the NATO Treaty in 1949, the Korean War in 1950. None of these was uncontroversial, and none was perfectly executed. And this was only the beginning. It took 40 years -- many of them filled with angry controversy -- to win the Cold War. The struggles against Soviet communism and Islamofascist terrorists are of course not identical. But there are similarities. "Like the Cold War, we are fighting the followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom, crushes all dissent, has territorial ambitions and pursues totalitarian aims," Bush said. "And like the Cold War, they're seeking weapons of mass murder that would allow them to deliver catastrophic destruction to our country." The New Republic's Peter Beinart argues that Bush, unlike Truman, has shown no respect for international institutions. But the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan were unilateral American initiatives, and Truman used the United Nations to respond in Korea only because the Soviets were then boycotting the Security Council. Otherwise, he would have gone to war, as Bill Clinton did in Kosovo, without U.N. approval. Bush did try to use the United Nations on Iraq, but was blocked by France and Russia, both stuffed with profits from the corrupt U.N. Oil for Food program. But as Bush pointed out, we have worked with 90-plus nations and NATO in Afghanistan and with 70-plus nations on the Proliferation Security Initiative. We're working with allies to halt Iran's nuclear program. "We can't have lasting peace unless we work actively and vigorously to bring about conditions of freedom and justice in the world," Harry Truman told the West Point class of 1952. Which is what we're trying to do today -- in Iraq and the broader Middle East, in Afghanistan, even Africa. Reports of Bush's West Point speech noted that Truman had low job ratings -- lower than Bush's, in fact. But does that matter now? Bush, as Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis has written, has changed American foreign policy more than any president since Truman, and like Truman he has acted on the long view. "The war began on my watch," Bush told the class of 2006, "but it's going to end on your watch." Truman might have made the same point, accurately as it turned out, to the class of 1952. We're lucky we had then, and have now, a president who takes bold action and braves vitriolic criticism to defend our civilization against those who would destroy it. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #6 "... conditions of freedom and justice in the world" > it may not look like it for many, but America's enemies are in reality fighting for repression, regression, totalitarianism and de-evolution, NOT for upwardly mobile, proactive, "equalist" escalatory progress or even Utopianism. * FLANDERS character in SIMPSONS > "THEY TOLD ME SATAN/LUCIFER WAS PRETTY". THOMAS JEFFERSON? > "DEMOCRACY IS THE WORST FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD, EXCEPT FOR ALL THE OTHERS". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-06-05 22:35 |
| #5 [rant begin] I guess I must be a part of that silent minority (or is it a majority?) that has soured in mood for much different reasons than bk suggests, and yet is able to see how sweet things really are here in the good 'ol US of A. To start, I'm proud of the role this country, our elected leaders and-- last but never least-- our military are playing on the global stage right now. Call me what you want, optimistic or in denial, but never accuse me of being an ignoramus. I know all too well, as most here at Rantburg do (an educated and informed lot it has always seemed to me), what is going on out there and around here despite all the efforts of our once reputable MSM. The way I see it, in large part based on what I have actually seen, heard and read, we are fighting the good fight. We are taking the high road. And while the high road is harder to reach and thus more risky to take, I find the view is a hell of a lot nicer. Wars are fought based on survival and ideals, both of which are so intimately intertwined in the American consciousness as to be nearly indistinguishable from one another. If only because our ideals are what sustain us, give us the freedom and liberty that we believe to be the true nature of society for all humanity. And so when they are threatened, be it here or elsewhere, in equal fashion so is our basic survival. Thus, we fight against those who would deny humanity it's "inalienable rights." Taking that into consideration, and in addition to the factors pointed out by Mr. Barone in his first paragraph, I think things are close to as good as they ever have been. Except for Clinton's second term, of course (speaking of denial...). Gosh dang it, the mid- to late-1990s were fun, weren't they? What sours me these days is the piss and vinegar unfairly dumped on the President. Whether it's the flagrant and bold slander and libel put forward on a daily basis by the far left (moveon.org, etc) to the more subtle (though barely so) machinations and manipulations conducted in the name of "journalism" on behalf of the MSM (NYT, CNN, CBS, NBC, etc.) it absolutely astounds me that people in this country feel it is appropriate and acceptable to act in such a boorish and disrespectful manner. Then there is the intellectual snobbery and smarter-and-better-than-thou attitude of the left which sours me even more. We could be way over the hump and well on our way to a stable and secure Iraq if the rest of the world, starting with the media and Bush haters in our own county, pulled together and exercised some solidarity and commitment to the task at hand. Wishful thinking, I know. [rant end] |
| Posted by: eltoroverde 2006-06-05 16:25 |
| #4 bk, since you're obviously lost, let me offer some help. The unreasoning Bush-haters line doesn't form here. It's to your left. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-06-05 14:07 |
| #3 Zing ! "JFM knows his history, too" |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H. 2006-06-05 12:24 |
| #2 Yolu are speaking of Franklin Delano Roosevelt isn't it? Your rant applies wonderfully to him. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-06-05 11:47 |
| #1 gosh, I wonder if their sour mood has anything to do with getting stuck into a war they didnt want and then having all their hard earned tax dollars squandered by an extremely spoiled brat who never had to be responsible for any of his actions. Hmmmmmmmmmm |
| Posted by: bk 2006-06-05 10:46 |