An enemy too familiar
With 60 years of perspective, there’s no doubt in any American’s mind that World War II was a just and necessary war. President Bush recently had the gall to suggest we are now engaged in the same sort of conflict, a comparison that sent more than one commentator spinning into fits of quivering indignation.
But anyone who has studied history, instead of merely imagining it, knows that the nation was as divided about entering World War II as it is today about the continuing conflict in Iraq. In 1941, more than two years after the globe erupted into flames, millions of Americans were convinced we should mind our own damned business.
“Why should we interfere in squabbles thousands of miles away?” people asked. “Let them sort out their own affairs.”
No less a hero than Charles Lindbergh deplored the thought of American servicemen dying in a war that he, and so many others, were convinced could not be won. The other side was too strong, Lindy assured his country. Why sacrifice good men in a lost cause?
Sound familiar?
More than half a century later, long after the death camps were liberated, tyranny crushed, and liberty re-established in Europe and Asia, Lindbergh and his isolationist allies finally come across as the short-sighted fools they were.
But not then, not then. Opponents of our entry into the war included a determined opposition party, which happened to be the Republicans at the time, along with scores of respected media pundits. They reflected the mood of a large part of the country.
In the end, even after Pearl Harbor, we would not declare war on Hitler until he was stupid enough to declare war on us first. Had he not, one wonders whether we would have ever mustered the will to do the job we look back upon with such pride today.
Has anything changed in 60 years? Not much. The President is entirely correct.
For World War II had little to do with defending America’s shores. A Japanese fleet that bombed and ran, and an Austrian megalomaniac without a naval fleet posed no actual threats to New York or San Francisco.
Yet they did manage to threaten America, because this country is more than a collection of cities and farms on an isolated continent. Hitler and Togo attacked mankind’s soul and that is what America is really about.
This nation is but a hollow shell if the ideals upon which our country was founded and for which generations have died are allowed to whither. America is much more than an isolated, self-serving nation. It’s a shining, glorious ideal.
Sixty years ago we battled states determined to destroy that vision, who considered democracy an abomination and who marshaled all of the resources of their nations to destroy liberty’s threats to their perverse goals.
Today we fight a different sort of enemy, one that doesn’t have a capital city, nor any factories in which to produce its own armaments.
Instead, this enemy scatters itself through civilization like so many cancer cells, recruiting every disillusioned, bitter, dark soul to accomplish the same sorts of purposes that the Nazis held so dear.
Though our brave troops struggle to return Iraq to the Iraqis–for the first time in over 30 years–and though the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support our efforts, the shadowy enemy gleefully kills the very people and destroys the very national treasures they claim to fight for.
Our forces stand tall, as they always have. Should you read what they have to say, you know that they’re touched by the people they are there to protect. That’s no surprise, for the soul of the everyday Iraqi is no different from the soul of the everyday American.
And our troops are distressed by the cynical, self-aggrandizing reports that seek to turn this into something other than another battle for liberty. They want nothing more than peace, and the chance to see their families–and the families of those they defend–thrive once more.
Does that sound like World War II? It should. This nation has, once again, reluctantly chosen to wield its bloody sword for liberty’s sake.
We should thank God–and those brave men and women–that it might still be so.
Rich Trzupek is a recepient of the 2004 Phillips Foundation Fellowship and is currently working on a project examining the effect of environmental regulations on small to mid-sized businesses.
7 Comments - add your own
Jens F. Laurson — July 7, 2004 at 5:51 pm
This saccharine and upstanding, patriotic piece of writing is an earnest effort in opinion-making and good writing. Unfortunately it suffers from being mind-boggling-ly wrongheaded.
To compare Hitler’s Germany to Hussain’s Iraq is in fact on every count astounding for the differences it shows, not for the similarities. To think that Hitler’s Navy could not have threatened the U.S. Navy (mighty as it ended up being, only because of war in the first place) seems to be neglecting the one crucial element: If the U.S. had not supported the U.K. and USSR in their effort and supported them with their own forces on top of that, that sceptere’d isle of theirs (the English) might well have fallen - with consequences for Europe that I’d rather not try to picture to vividly.
With Europe in the firm grip of the Third Reich, the challenge to liberty would not have been an abstract one, or a moral one, given the crimes going on on the continent… but an all-too-real problem. Coexistence, much less containment would not have been feasible. (And even if one were to cite ‘human rights’ as a concern: compared to the “Endloesung”, Hussain’s few dead Iraqi’s and Kurds are ’small change’.)
You do not help your case by stating (rightly, I think) that the U.S. is ” a shining, glorious ideal.” Well… an ideal, a beacon … but to my understanding (and that of those Americans who coined these terms), an ideal shines, it does not invade. A beacon shows by virtue, not gun point. Of course, under threat, this can - indeed: this *must* change. 60-some years ago, this nation was under such a threat. Now, the situation looks different. You say so yourself: “Today we fight a different sort of enemy, one that doesnâ??t have a capital city [...].” Which is why it become increasingly difficult why the United States Government pretends it can fight a war for liberty (actually: against terrorism) in Iraq.
Finally, and perhaps most distractingly from the points you make, is language like this: “…recruiting every disillusioned, bitter, dark soul to accomplish the same sorts of purposes that the Nazis held so dear.
” Rhetorical fluff that sounds good - but has no nutritional value whatsoever.
“Our forces stand tall, as they always have. Should you read what they have to say, you know that theyâ??re touched by the people they are there to protect. Thatâ??s no surprise, for the soul of the everyday Iraqi is no different from the soul of the everyday American.”
Notable this sequence of Fluff - Fluff - Wrong. The greatness of the US Armed Forces is undoubtedly important to us, no matter how many time mentioned in an article. But we know that already. That people are touched by helping people isn’t exactly a unique insight, nor does it go far in supporting a point you might have. Iraqi’s (or their Soul, I don’t suppose I know exactly which) not being different from average Americans however, is … beyond words. Criminally naive perhaps. Not only do I hope that Americans, average and not, are fundamentally different from Iraqi’s - I know so! For all the reasons that one could muster… growing up in two such radically different societies with such different histories, opportunities, futures etc., there are innumerable differences between average Iraqis and Americans. To say otherwise is falling victim to that unbearably light-headed liberal (or rather: Trotskyite) hogwash of all peoples (and their values etc.) being equal.
best regards,
Jens F. Laurson
Andrew — July 8, 2004 at 1:05 pm
When Pearl Harbor was attacked by the nation of Japan, Japan and Germany were allies.
When WTC was attacked by terrorists (not a nation), that terrorist group and the nation of Iraq were not allies.
Rich Trzupek — July 8, 2004 at 8:13 pm
I appreciate the thoughtful feedback, very much. Both commentators make some worthy points. Allow me to offer some thoughts on just a couple of items in return.
The ultimate point of the Saddam-Adolph comparison was not to claim that the two threats were alike in every last regard. That analogy naturally breaks down at some point. Rather, it was to observe that an isolationist policy, which may seem so attractive in the heat of a moment, is often proven wrong in an historical context. The events leading up to our nation’s entry in WWII are the ultimate example of that.
Are there cultural differences between Middle Eastern people and the west? Of course there are. But when self determination is at issue, the differences fade into insignificance. As Washington said: “Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth”. Having spent a fair bit of time in the Middle East myself, I believe that there is a far greater hunger for democracy among the common people there than most westerners realize.
Finally allow me add some observations sent to me a few weeks ago from one of soldiers serving in Iraq. John Husemann is a helicopter pilot, who has been there for several months, logging about 50 hours per month in missions and interacting with the Iraqi people.
“Our mission here is truly a worthy cause. Even though many of us here and at home are being challenged physically and emotionally, in the end we can say that we have done something to improve the world.”
“Every American base in this country has undertaken projects to assist the Iraqi citizens with improving their lives. We are building schools, providing school supplies for the children, and many other civic works.”
“As we move toward the transition to the provisional interim government, there is a lot of uncertainty as to how things are going to play out. We continue to eliminate pockets of resistance. The insurgents and other anti-coalition forces are losing what little popular support they had. Most Iraqis want peace and are very willing to help in identifying the outsiders. With any luck, the combat operations here will finally come to a close again very soon. ”
That’s a much different picture than the one painted by CNN. And if democracy does take root along the Tigris in the years to come, perhaps some day we will still describe this action as an invasion - but as an invasion of liberty. Time will surely tell.
Best Regards,
Rich
Andrew — July 9, 2004 at 2:31 pm
“Rather, it was to observe that an isolationist policy, which may seem so attractive in the heat of a moment, is often proven wrong in an historical context. The events leading up to our nation’s entry in WWII are the ultimate example of that.”
However, One could argue that a more isolationist approach from the very beginning could have prevented the whole mess in both cases.
Intervention in WWI and afterwards led to WWII.
Intervention in Afghanistan and Iran led to the rise of Osama bin Laden and the conflict with Iraq.
James N. Markels — July 10, 2004 at 1:26 pm
And, of course, a more isolationist approach could have created an even worse mess. Some people argue that our refusal to get involved in Rwanda has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Okay, maybe intervening would save those lives, but maybe it would also create some anti-American terrorist faction that didn’t exist before, too. Looking at the issue ex ante, it’s anybody’s guess. You do what everyone does: You weigh the benefits and detriments of possible results and the likelihoods of their happening, and then go with the one that is most beneficial overall according to your calculus. Can you be absolutely sure that isolationism for Rwanda was the best result? Depends on your priorities, really, and not with the situation on the ground.
I really don’t see how U.S. involvement in WWI had anything to do with WWII. Our role was small, and the main things that prompted WWII were the heavy burdens placed upon the defeated Germany, as well as secession of land, that gave Hitler an argument that appealed to a frustrated and angry German populace. We did little to create those burdens.
On the other hand, I’m not buying the Hitler-Hussein comparison either.
Jens F. Laurson — July 19, 2004 at 9:50 am
“Having spent a fair bit of time in the Middle East myself, I believe that there is a far greater hunger for democracy among the common people there than most westerners realize.”
I hope you are right Rich… - but right now, from my outsider’s skewed perspective I see less “Road to Liberty” in the Region than I see “Escape from Freedom” - as Erich Fromm had put it in his great if not all-too-timely book from some 63 yars ago.
“[F]reedom [...] undermines his self, weakens and frightens him, and makes him ready for submission to new kinds of bondage.”
As per Herr Markels - I suppose the “Dough-Boys” thrown into the European theater had a bit more effect than he gives them credit for… after all, Germany ended up surrendering entirely - when foreign troops were at minimum 300 miles away from either of its borders… not the least because they knew the seemingly endless supply of goods (and manpower) from the US coming at them. Where the US could have done more in preventing WWII? I suppose if Wilson had been more stubborn on those 10 points that did not involve the League of Nations. Alas, George “The Tiger” Clemenceau browbeat his way through at Versailles.
John Hadjisky — July 23, 2004 at 8:53 am
Part of the confusion here is, which war are we talking about? The Iraq War? Or the larger War on “Terror”? I put “terror” in quotes because in my opinion it should be called what it really is, a war on Islamism, a.k.a Islamic Fascism or Radical Islamic Fundamentalism. Please note, Islamism is not the same as Islam; Islamists in various forms make up probably less than 30% of the followers of Islam. The problem is, the Islamists dominate contemporary Islam’s mosques, educational institutions, wealth, diplomatic institutions, and “mindshare” (witness how much Islamic propeganda is embraced by Western universities and by the U.N.). The more moderate strains of Islam either haven’t found their voice, or have been supressed, in many cases brutally.
The analogy between the Iraq War and WW II isn’t particularly illuminating, there are some similarities but far more differences. The analogy between the War on Islamism and WW II is pretty good.
One aspect of the analogy that hasn’t been mentioned by other writers here: The Italian campaign of WW II is a decent analogy for how Iraq fits into the War on Terror. The Japanese had attacked us; the Germans had been harassing our merchant ships for years, yet the first Axis power to be invaded in a major way was Italy. Put in today’s terms, the invasion of Italy would probably be considered an “illegal war” — after all, Italy hadn’t attacked us!
Similarly, Iraq was peripherially involved in 9/11 and, as a result of their 1991 defeat became allied with the Islamist, yet Iraq was not necessarily the biggest threat to the West. That honor belongs to Iraq or possibly the Saudis (finance, education/indoctrination, propeganda, safe haven — truely a human bomb “factory” stopping just short of final assembly!) Yet Iraq was the first major Islamic country to be invaded. Why Italy? Why Iraq? Not because they were the biggest threat, but because they had allied themselves with the enemy, and they were do-able. It also helped that of all the Islamist countries, Iraq was most vulnerable diplomatically, as it was essentially on probation since 1991.
Let us hope we can collapse the terror and propeganda network of Islamism without having to invade the rest of the Arab world; and let us hope that we do this before Islamism develops (another analogy!) their superweapon: an effective, deployable, *anonymous* WMD capability.
Follow my personal URL to see thoughts about the Vietnam/Iraq “Containment” (1991 - 2003) analogy.
Thanks for reading this far down!