The Old Lie

They’re at it again. The neo-conservatives and superpatriots are blaming their failures in Iraq on liberals, other critics and an insufficiently supportive media. Apparently, the critics are so powerful as to hobble the Most Powerful Military Force in the World and prevent it from achieving its foreordained objectives of Making the World Absolutely Safe For Americans. Perhaps the greatest casualty in BushCheney’s wars is Irony (although Truth is also in very critical condition). Here we have the architects of war who rushed the nation into a war based on lies, manipulated intelligence and egregiously optimistic planning now blaming the many who questioned the wisdom of the war at its outset for the failures of their own misbegotten policy.

The latest salvo is Donald Rumsfeld speaking to veterans in Salt Lake City yesterday.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned yesterday that "moral and intellectual confusion" over the Iraq war and the broader anti-terrorism effort could sap American willpower and divide the country, and he urged renewed resolve to confront extremists waging "a new type of fascism."

Drawing parallels to efforts by some nations to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II, Rumsfeld said it would be "folly" for the United States to ignore the rising dangers posed by a new enemy that he called "serious, lethal and relentless."

[...]

He blamed the U.S. media for spreading "myths and distortions . . . about our troops and about our country."

He said a database search of U.S. newspapers produced 10 times as many mentions of a soldier punished for misconduct at Abu Ghraib prison than of Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, a Medal of Honor recipient.

The remarks are as fanciful as they are ludicrous yet because they are issued by the Secretary of Defense they will be accorded some credibility by the media and a public that has remained stunningly ill-informed about America’s role in the Mid-East. Juan Cole as a good rebuttal to the “appeasement” charge. He notes that the neo-cons have twisted the language so that war is the only option even as experience has shown the world how false that belief really is.

What pisses me off about Rumsfeld’s words is how they simply replay the excuses for America’s military failure in Vietnam, which replays the Germans’ stabbed in the back mantra for World War I. It’s a classic story: national resolve and strength is compromised by critics and media who criticize the war. The fault never lies with the leaders who prosecute war but rather with those who question the war. It’s a neat trick and, unfortunately, works.

Apologists for the Vietnam war have made that case for over three decades. According to their interpretation, the anti-war left and the media defeated America in that war. There was no failure of policy, no compromised performance, not even a real adversary. No America’s loss in Vietnam was purely a liberal conspiracy as far as these apologists are concerned. The argument has a certain superficial appeal since it explains how a guerilla force could defeat a superpower military. What it requires, however, is complete ignorance of the political forces at work in Vietnam, that nation’s history, the skillful use of tactical and geographic advantages by nationalists fighting at home. No doubt a late 18th century British apologist would have offered the same excuse for his nation’s recent poor showing against a rag-tag rebel army.

Hearing Rumsfeld unlimber this line of attack tells me that, short of a radical change in government here, America will continue to blunder its way through Iraq at the cost of many more lives. The parallel with the Vietnam apologists saddens me. America seems to have forgotten the lesson of that war. Or maybe never really learned it. Knowing that I and other critics will be blamed for a war I knew was wrong from the start enrages me.

About that Medal of Honor. I read about it in the Washington Post when it was awarded. I'm pretty sure the Post had an article about the action even before that. The story of Sgt Smiths acition is riveting, an account of how one man prevented a larger force from breaking through to lightly armed medical aid station. I give Sgt Smith his due. But here’s what Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons don’t get: that heroism is what we expect. Not everyone wins the Medal of Honor but so very many risk their lives. That’s what soldiers do. It supports the mission. Abu Ghraib, on the other hand, compromises mission in ways that must be recognized if they will be avoided in the future. The actions of Americans at Abu Ghraib there did more damage to America than could be rectified by a 100 Sgt Smiths. THAT’s why it garners attention.

If Rumsfeld understood what was happening in Iraq, he would recognize this. He would also know where to assign responsibility for the fiasco in Iraq.