Thursday, October 27, 2005
A Deceptive Headline but Worth it
Victor Davis Hanson, who really does know Ancient Greek warfare like the back of his hand, has a column in the free part of the New York Times with the title: 2,000 Dead, In Context. But it's really about the political ramifications of running even a successful war. Money quote:
Yet castigating a sitting president for incurring such losses in even a victorious or worthy cause is hardly new. World War I and its aftermath destroyed Woodrow Wilson. Franklin Roosevelt's closest election was his fourth, just as the war was turning for the better in 1944 (a far better fate, remember, than his coalition partner Winston Churchill, who was thrown out of office before the final victory that he had done so much to ensure). Harry Truman wisely did not seek re-election in 1952 in the mess of Korea. Vietnam destroyed Lyndon Johnson and crippled Richard Nixon. Even George H. W. Bush found no lasting thanks for his miraculous victory in the 1991 Gulf war, while Bill Clinton's decision to tamper Serbian aggression - a victory obtained without the loss of a single American life - gave him no stored political capital when impeachment neared.
I've always wondered why this is--why we punish the leader for success. It's often a removed nose to spite face kind of thing. Churchill is the best example of that. He had to leave the Potsdam Conference to face the election back in England, and he never came back. As a result, neophyte Truman and lightweight Attlee were run roughshod over by Uncle Joe Stalin to the detriment of millions of Eastern Europeans. Well, I guess it's a removed nose to spite someone else's face kind of thing in that particular instance.
I've been calling the Iraq War we're still involved in, the Gulf War (part 2) for a long time now. And I've been calling it a success since about the time I watched Saddam's statute be pulled down on TV. It all seems more natural (in the historical perspective above) that the President's approval numbers fall now that signs of our success prove impossible to ignore.
Yet castigating a sitting president for incurring such losses in even a victorious or worthy cause is hardly new. World War I and its aftermath destroyed Woodrow Wilson. Franklin Roosevelt's closest election was his fourth, just as the war was turning for the better in 1944 (a far better fate, remember, than his coalition partner Winston Churchill, who was thrown out of office before the final victory that he had done so much to ensure). Harry Truman wisely did not seek re-election in 1952 in the mess of Korea. Vietnam destroyed Lyndon Johnson and crippled Richard Nixon. Even George H. W. Bush found no lasting thanks for his miraculous victory in the 1991 Gulf war, while Bill Clinton's decision to tamper Serbian aggression - a victory obtained without the loss of a single American life - gave him no stored political capital when impeachment neared.
I've always wondered why this is--why we punish the leader for success. It's often a removed nose to spite face kind of thing. Churchill is the best example of that. He had to leave the Potsdam Conference to face the election back in England, and he never came back. As a result, neophyte Truman and lightweight Attlee were run roughshod over by Uncle Joe Stalin to the detriment of millions of Eastern Europeans. Well, I guess it's a removed nose to spite someone else's face kind of thing in that particular instance.
I've been calling the Iraq War we're still involved in, the Gulf War (part 2) for a long time now. And I've been calling it a success since about the time I watched Saddam's statute be pulled down on TV. It all seems more natural (in the historical perspective above) that the President's approval numbers fall now that signs of our success prove impossible to ignore.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 6:10 AM 
