Last week I analogized (if that’s a verb) John Kerry to George McClellan, another anti-war/pro-war Democrat who challenged a war-time president.
Given all the Democratic/media criticisms of Bush for being inconsistent in his defense of the Iraq war (see Ron Brownstein in the Los Angeles Times today, for example), it is worth noting (and so I hereby note) that McClellan’s opponent, Abraham Lincoln, was subjected to the same criticism.
Lincoln made it abundantly clear that his sole purpose in going to war was to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. On the eve of what became the civil war he even agreed to support a constitutional amendment that would have preserved slavery forever where it already existed. But war aims, and war justifications, like even the best laid “plans,” change. Less than three years later, at Gettysburg, Lincoln was justifying the war as bringing about “a new birth of freedom.” Shortly thereafter he issued the Emancipation Proclamation (which purported, incidentally, to free only those slaves in areas still in rebellion), and, as we all know, in the end all the slaves were freed as a direct result of the war.
Many Northerners would not have supported the war, and several other border states might have seceded, if Lincoln had proclaimed a crusade to free the slaves. Does that mean he “lied” when he first stated his war aim? I don’t think so, just as I don’t think Bush lied.
In the article cited above Ron Brownstein writes, in sort of a qualified “gotcha,” that
an analysis of Bush’s statements on Iraq show [sic] that he also has sent differing, if not necessarily conflicting, signals on a key war-related question.
Bush’s shifts have come not on the decision to overthrow former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but why that action was justified.
Both before and after the invasion, Bush built his case for war on basically the same set of elements. But the prominence placed on each element has clearly shifted.
To me, the proper response to this point is, So What? If in five, ten, fifteen years most people conclude that some combination of the U.S., the world, Iraq is better off as a result of what we did in Iraq, the war will have proven justified. If not, not.
UPDATE
Oops. A comment below corrected my history, though in a way that reinforces my point. The preliminary version of the Emancipation Proclamation was released in Sept. 1862 and the final version in Jan. 1863, six months before Gettysburg. Although the Proclamation did not necessarily commit the nation to freedom for all slaves, it was a large step in that direction and reflected a major shift in war aims and ultimate justification.
Those who objected to freedom for the slaves as a war aim, i.e., those who were the Civil War analogues of MoveOn.org et. al., also attacked Lincoln with accusations that could be roughly translated as “Lincoln lied, People Died!”
I agree with you sentiment, but the Emancipation Proclamation was issued following Antietam, in 1962, almost a full year before the battle of Gettysburg, and more than a full year before the Gettyeburg Address. It doesn’t change your point, just cleans up the history.
1862. Doh!
I thought about this more last night. I still agree with your point entirely, but I think the comparison of Kerry to McClellan is unfair. To McClellan.
McClellan did not denigrate or malign the troops he had previously led.
John writes:
>>>To me, the proper response to this point is, So What? If in five, ten, fifteen years most people conclude that some combination of the U.S., the world, Iraq is better off as a result of what we did in Iraq, the war will have proven justified. If not, not.http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=924745&tw=wn_wire_story
–Cobra
Cobra – I’m afraid I don’t think it “patronizing” to take into account whether or not the Iraqis are better off as a result of our actions in determining whether our intervention there was justified. But surely whether or not most Iraqis themselves think themselves better off would be a big part of that calculation. Although things are messy in Iraq at the moment, it is my impression that most Iraqis still prefer the future that remains likely for them now to the certainty of what life there would have been had Saddam remained in power.
As as for what I would think if the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims decided to act on their belief that the U.S. would be better off under a Muslim theocracy, the question answers itself.
While I would never argue that Bush is as good as Lincoln, I do find the parallels very interesting. Freeing Iraqis is certainly a noble goal, as was freeing the slaves. And Bush really was trying to do that, and always said as much. He just focused more on WMD (since Americans often tend to be too self-centered to fight for someone else’s rights unless their own lives are directly threatened) and shifted focus to an equally legitimate cause as the war progressed. In any case, both of these were important goals, and even if we haven’t found WMDs, ending Saddam’s rule was just as important.
It is actually somewhat disheartening to note that Americans would never, in this day and age, make the sacrifices required to win the civil war and free the slaves. We are fighting an enemy that willingly commits suicide for their cause, yet we shout “quagmire!” at a war that has, in a year and a half, had fewer casualties and accomplished at least as much as a month in Vietnam, a day at Normandy, or an hour at Gettysburg. Where would this world be if we gave up in the face of Hitler so quickly? This is probably little solace to the families of those killed, but I for one am glad that we still have men and women in this country who would volunteer to shed their blood in the name of freedom.
And no, it isn’t patronizing to say that the Iraqis are better off now, or at least will be before we are done in Iraq. They were living under a dictator who would execute thousands, who dropped poison gas on innocent Kurds, who fed people into garbage shredders, and who raped daughters in front of their fathers. We still have to fight elements led by foreign terrorists and radical Islamic groups, but at least the Iraqis have some hope now.
Yes, 1.2 billion Muslims might say that America should be an Islamic theocracy (actually, substantially fewer than that, since I doubt most American Muslims, who really do follow a peaceful religion, feel that way). But, at some point, you have to believe in some sort of right and wrong. And, as far as who is right, I’ll go with the country that gave birth to modern democracy, not a bunch of Middle Eastern theocrats who have railroaded a legitimate religion into a tool for oppressing women, restricting rights, and legitimizing the slaughter of anyone who looks different or doesn’t believe what you believe.
I just have to say this
Some things you say anywhere and some things you say in your own space.
During yesterday’s Blogcritics conversation Eric suggested giving one’s American aspect ascendancy over one’s “other” aspects is the best move, and that he truly feels Amer