Misunderstanding history
In a recent interview with Essense Magazine, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed to the current situation in Iraq, endeavoring to place it in the context of the American Civil War. Her remarks included an attempt to buttress the “stay the course” mantra of the administration by striving to liken critics of the current policies towards the situation in Iraq to those “people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War (in this country) to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold.”
As a long time student of history, I feel I am safe in making this statement: If the administration of President George W. Bush wishes to use historical parallels to bolster support for their policies, then they should read their history a bit more thoroughly and ensure they have a reasonable understanding before embarking upon their PR campaigns. This includes efforts at diminishing criticism by deliberately linking it to the historically, emotionally charged word “appeasement” (intentionally using the high level of fervor associated with the word to create the gut reaction desired, as merchants of fear will do), but I will limit my discussion here to the remarks by Secretary Rice.
12 Responses to “Misunderstanding history”
The comment about Grant was right on, he fought with everything he had. Lee knew that the army he faced was not going to stop with one defeat as in the past, with Grant it would be unrelenting continuous warfare constantly moving towards Richmond. Another note I would add is that Lincoln had political opponents in his cabinet, another idea Bush could emulate for the sake of unity.
Lincon also fired some Generals. When the WWII comparison deoesn’t work, Condi tries another feeble tact to generate support. If we were told a liitle more truth and less Lincoln Group propaganda maybe independents would accept Iraq more.
“Rice says difficult doesn’t mean wrong”
Difficult doesn’t mean right either-and now Bush has been compared to Harry Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and FDR- but in my mind he is dwarfed by these historical giants. They are obviously hoping that giving this mess historical context will also give it credibility-but
I don’t see it as an apt comparison. Lincoln was a noble figure who wanted to keep the country united through bitter regional differences-Bush wants to keep his party in power using divisive partisan rhetoric. And Lincoln had the guts to make the changes needed to win the war-including replacing McClellan with Grant when he felt McClellan was spending too much of the war encamped, and too little in battle. Bush has clung to Rumsfeld- despite critical failures in Iraq and Afghanistan that he is undeniably responsible for.
What an excellent post. I always enjoy reading about history at this website.
It’s my understanding that Lincoln would have lost the election of 1864 if Sherman hadn’t taken Atlanta. In other words, those voters were looking for actual proof that the Union was winning, not just clever arguments.
Actually McClellan was sacked for not persuing Lee after Antietam, and also for the previous debacle on the Peninsula was then replaced by Pope who declared he would bag the whole Confederate army…2nd Bull Run was a disaster for Pope…who was replaced by Burnside an idecisive, and unconfidant person…Fredricksburg was one of the worst US military disasters ever, and ended Burnside……who was replaced by Hooker…. overly arrogant, declared his plans for invasion of Virginia were “perfect”….Chancellorsville happened to his “perfect” plans when his whole army got flanked into disaster…..replaced by Meade….A good man who knew he was a bad fit with Lincoln….Won a great victory at Gettysburg but got sacked for not chasing Lee back to Virginia. He probably should have chased Lee but it was the middle of summer, and had a very tired army after all the hard marching and 3 day battle while wearing heavy wool. He still should have followed him back anyways, as Lee’s army was down 20k troops, no artillery ammunition, and a lack of provisions….replaced by Grant….perfect fit for Lincoln’s attitude because he just kept attacking instead of retiring even after taking horrible casualties at the Wilderness battle didn;t retire to Maryland, and kept pressing Lee untill Appomattox. While doing so took more casualties than all the previous army of the Potomac commanders had the previous 3 1/2 years in a little over a year, but the war came to an end alot faster.
I dig Civil War history can ya tell? LOL
Pyst-Wow, You are a buff- I’m impressed!
But how do you compare Lincoln’s persistance in an unpopular war to Bush’s persistance in an unpopular war?
LOL -> I get the feeling more and more that you’re quite fond of history BYG
Michael–
So true! And I’m looking forward to reading more on history from you, too.
Both in my opinion aren’t far apart on the violations of the constitution, or desire for centralized power. Atleast Lincoln’s war wasn’t forcing something on a foreign land, but did have the terrible effect of taking power from the state making the federal government into a monster. Neither get high marks from me, but Bush gets lower ones for basing his war on crappy intel, then continuing to push the bad intel on the public when the truth is well known.
Lincoln was a thinker, and was looking in the long term. He had an interest in military planning, yes often to the point of micromanaging, but atleast he payed attention. I think his thinking was more of the grand design of a nation he lived in, but was enforced by subverting constitutional law, at the point of a gun.
Bush is haphazard, and arrogant, his nature is not to manage at all. He’s more or less a slacker with a chip on his shoulder. His inability to change direction when something is failing is indicative of former substance abusers. They tend to be overly rigid in everything since that’s all that corrected their abuse problem. Repetition is a major problem with recovering addicts and Bush displays this often in his policies….”stay the course”.
Well, I think Lincoln’s reasons for violating the Constitution were truly for a noble cause- yes he increased the power of the federal government but that was to preserve the union- so that states couldn’t secede if they didn’t like Federal laws. But his legacy was the creation of a strong Federal government, where previously we had been a loose collection of states. And there was a genuine evil in slavery. Obviously the South’s prosperity depended on it which is why they fought a war to keep the system in place. I think he was lonely, but had true courage.
I see Bush as a fraud who tries in vain to convince Americans of the righteousness and urgency of his cause. He has delegated so much to others (Cheney, Rove, Rummy) that he is dependent on them to function in his administration. He’ll use anything he can to amass power and keep his base tied to the Republican Party. Its almost as though he only represents the third of Americans who have supported him no matter what. I no longer believe anything that comes out of his mouth. The reason I favor diplomatic talks with our enemies, is to gain time until he is out of office, and saner, smarter minds rule the day.
ultram…
news…
discount phentermine…
news…