A historical analogy for W

Nice to see that Bush/Cheney has gone from being described as the Imperial Presidency to the Imperiled Presidency… goes a small ways toward righting the course of events.

I hope, one day, that W wakes up sufficiently self-conscious and self-reflective to comprehend the scale on which he’s screwed the pooch. The sooner, the better, 'cause he’s in good shape… he could live with the shame of self-knowledge for decades… and that would be the only justice the inept ass will see in this world. Maybe he’ll read this author’s article as well as the book. Might get him started on the right path.

[quote=“Washington Post”]Why Winston Wouldn’t Stand For W

President Bush’s favorite role model is, famously, Jesus, but Winston Churchill is close behind. The president admires the wartime British prime minister so much that he keeps what he calls “a stern-looking bust” of Churchill in the Oval Office. “He watches my every move,” Bush jokes. These days, Churchill would probably not care for much of what he sees.

I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about Churchill while working on my book “Troublesome Young Men,” a history of the small group of Conservative members of Parliament who defied British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasing Adolf Hitler, forced Chamberlain to resign in May 1940 and helped make Churchill his successor. I thought my audience would be largely limited to World War II buffs, so I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the president has been reading my book. He hasn’t let me know what he thinks about it, but it’s a safe bet that he’s identifying with the book’s portrayal of Churchill, not Chamberlain. But I think Bush’s hero would be bemused, to say the least, by the president’s wrapping himself in the Churchillian cloak. Indeed, the more you understand the historical record, the more the parallels leap out – but they’re between Bush and Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill.

Like Bush and unlike Churchill, Chamberlain came to office with almost no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with international leaders. Nonetheless, he was convinced that he alone could bring Hitler and Benito Mussolini to heel. He surrounded himself with like-minded advisers and refused to heed anyone who told him otherwise.

In the months leading up to World War II, Chamberlain and his men saw little need to build up a strong coalition of European allies with which to confront Nazi Germany – ignoring appeals from Churchill and others to fashion a “Grand Alliance” of nations to thwart the threat that Hitler posed to the continent.

Unlike Bush and Chamberlain, Churchill was never in favor of his country going it alone. Throughout the 1930s, while urging Britain to rearm, he also strongly supported using the newborn League of Nations – the forerunner to today’s United Nations – to provide one-for-all-and-all-for-one security to smaller countries. After the League failed to stop fascism’s march, Churchill was adamant that, to beat Hitler, Britain must form a true partnership with France and even reach agreement with the despised Soviet Union, neither of which Chamberlain was willing to do.

Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister. He scorned dissenting views, both inside and outside government. When Chamberlain arranged his face-to-face meetings with Hitler in 1938 that ended in the catastrophic Munich conference, he did so without consulting his cabinet, which, under the British system, is responsible for making policy. He also bypassed the House of Commons, leading Harold Macmillan, a future Tory prime minister who was then an anti-appeasement MP, to complain that Chamberlain was treating Parliament “like a Reichstag, to meet only to hear the orations and to register the decrees of the government of the day.”

As was true of Bush and the Republicans before the 2006 midterm elections, Chamberlain and his Tories had a large majority in the Commons, and, as Macmillan noted, the prime minister tended to treat Parliament like a lapdog legislature, existing only to do his bidding. “I secretly feel he hates the House of Commons,” wrote one of Chamberlain’s most fervent parliamentary supporters. “Certainly he has a deep contempt for Parliamentary interference…”
[/quote]

So Bush = Chamberlain because he did not appease and Chamberlain did? Okay. That’s clear. And Bush = Chamberlain because he did not marshall European allies together? Okay, but the vast majority of NATO and EU nations were on aboard with the Iraq effort. The ones who were not formed the minority, namely France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg. Nearly everyone else that was not a committed neutral state was on board. I think that your Washington Post analogy is a bit skewed. AND ultimately there is a bit of a difference surely in marshalling European allies then (1930s) when they had credible militaries and marshalling them now when they at most can send a patrol ship and an mine clearing squad? The British who were on board sent what 11,000 troops and they were maxed out. Next the French maybe would have sent 5,000? Italy and Poland sent around what 2,000 each? Sorry but the analogy is a weak one.

Remember that under Bush (whether you agree or disagree and for whatever reason) the following have occurred:

  1. Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan.
  2. Saddam removed after bedeviling American administrations in one form or another and from official power or behind the scenes power since 1968.
  3. The security of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states assured for the first time in decades (from the threat of Saddam)
  4. A determination once and for all that Iraq was in compliance with the ceasefire agreements following the First Gulf War.
  5. The rapprochement with Libya.
  6. The worldwide condemnation of the Khartoum administration.
  7. Mop up of senior al Qaeda leaders from most especially Pakistan. Not to say Al Qaeda does not exist and is not adding more but at least many of the serious leaders have been removed.
  8. First-time ever strategic cooperation with India.
  9. Newer deeper military and strategic partnerships with Japan, Australia and Vietnam.
  10. Realignment of US forces in NATO and throughout the world to better reflect the realities of a new post Cold War world.

Those are just some of the most obvious. Iraq is not yet where we want it (understatement) but it was not where we wanted it before we invaded. Pretending that this was a matter of worsening a situation that was somehow okay before Bush came on board is something that only the completely fatuous could support.

Just a few observations:

Stupid claim 1: That Bush is like Chamberlain because he was inexperienced with foreign policy and Churchill was experienced.
Reality: Churchill’s only “foreign policy” experience was dealing with colonial administrators of his own government. He was not a foreign policy expert.

Stupid claim 2: That Bush and Chamberlain were surrounded by like-minded advisers and do not heed outside advice.
Reality: Churchill kept his own counsel and did not take advice from outside sources - he did not brook contradiction.

Stupid claim 3: That Bush and Chamberlain believed in “going it alone” while Churchill was a coalition-builder.
Reality: Both Bush and Churchill appealed to the UN/League Of Nations and attempted to build a consensus for their initiatives.

Stupid claim 4: That Bush and Chamberlain “evaded the checks and balances of government”, while Churchill “revered Parliament.”
Reality: Bush has been criticized by many for almost never vetoing a Congressional bill, and Churchill was widely criticized by parliament for his far-reaching wartime measures.

Stupid claim 5: That Bush and Chamberlain eroded civil liberties while Churchill defended them.
Reality: the PATRIOT Act is mealymouthed compared to Roosevelt’s war measures and Churchill - as the article even admits - interned 20,000 UK residents indefinitely without trial.

For one year Churchill not only fought Hitler alone but also had to contend with a large group of appeasers and communists in England who wanted to throw in the towel.

Churchills prescient words:
[i]"“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

  • Winston Churchill[/i]

Here we have the writing of a pseudo-historian afflicted with BDS who is trying desperately to disassociate Churchill from Bush because she likes Churchill.
Yes, a quick 'cut ‘n paste’ response. But as good as the post deserves, IMO. YMMV.

Yeah, I thought she was really stretching it with the Chamberlain comparison.

Bush’s record as an incompetent dishonest bungler should be dealt with on its own merits.

Churchill was a master orator (see Cowboy’s post) and statesman who fought and beat (with help, la) a huge war machine bent on wiping England off the map. The Germans didn’t just blow up a few buildings or drive a burning SUV into an airport; they were mean dudes with the most advanced army on the field. Jeepers, the Blitz alone killed 10 times the amount of Americans who’ve died in the “War on Terror.”

Given that, there’s no doubt that Bush sees Churchill as a role model. But, seriously, has he ever said something like “I’m the next Churchill, baby?” If so, he’s a nut. If not, the Post’s article is little more than highbrow trolling, and I’m not even a Bush fan.

Anyway, WWII analogies are as common as they are worthless these days. I don’t think anyone under 80 truly understands how vast, brutal, and terrifying that conflict was.

History will judge Bush, but I don’t think there’s an analogy in either of these two Brits.

I don’t know if Bush has explicitly compared himself to Churchill. The bust is in his office, he’s spoken of his admiration of the man and the analogies (positive or negative) have long been made in the press – and in silly online forums.

The analogy is interesting because of how it’s used to frame debate. I found this one interesting on the approach towards domestic and international governance institutions. If not for that, and the fact that both had a thing for the bottle, there’s no comparison.

Interesting that in both debates, the Europeans in question were vacillating and spineless. Ready to appease and appease and appease until most of their freedoms were lost. Sounds like an apt analogy to me. The only difference is that the leader who is most noisy about calling attention to the problem of the new fascism is not British but American, and one who speaks poorly…

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
– Winston Churchill

Bush’s efforts of calling attention to the problem were doomed from the start simply because the threat was and still is not large enough. Not only does the excrement have to hit the fan, but it has to start raining down into everyone’s soup before people can be convinced that something drastic needs to be done. Allied nations have to be flattened, navies have to be sunk, and even then it’s a hard sell. If a leader’s going to ignore this fact of history and try to paint a half dozen third-world countries as the next big threat to the free world, he’s got to pull it off spectacularly or not even bother trying. Of course, it doesn’t help if the whole thing reeks of an old boy’s back-room deal either.

TC,

And how do Churchill’s wise words you quoted compare to George W. Bush standing in a mosque a week after 9/11, grinning like an idiot and stating “Islam is a religion of peace”?

The country is now divided into warlord-led fiefdoms, with the Taliban poised to make a comeback in the south as soon as U.S. troops leave.

By now W. probably wishes Saddam was still around.

And made more vulnerable to Islamic populism. The U.S. no longer seriously supports democracy, women’s rights, etc. in these countries.

Accompanied by the abandonment of various treaty commitments by the United States.

What did that amount to, other than Khaddafi briefly repenting and finding Jesus? Has Libya changed? Have U.S./Libyan relations?

Not a priority for W.

And how IS Pakistan lately? Oh yeah, it’s a borderline failed state in which Islamic organizations increasingly fill a gap left by government. The U.S. no longer supports democracy there and has thrown its hopes behind a military dictator.

An organic deepening of a long-term trend. Remember Clinton’s trip there, and favoring of India over Pakistan?

These are old ties, except for Vietnam, which Clinton established relations with. Are we giving Bush credit for Japan’s reconsideration of its pacifist constitution / non-nuclear status?

The U.S. forces are mostly realigned to Iraq, and now lack the ability to credibly threaten intervention elsewhere. Bush established bases in Central Asia, whose longevity is uncertain, and is in conflict with Putin over various strategic matters. NATO member Turkey refused to cooperate with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and threatens to intervene in Iraqi Kurdistan.

SJ:

The old if it ain’t perfect, it ain’t good argument?

I will, however, agree to your comments regarding Clinton and the spadework that made possible subsequent agreements on a much more important scale with Japan, India and Vietnam. I never hated Clinton but I did not respect him. Too much pandering to the polls.

I do not see, however, how the essential calculus has changed. Whether the Middle East eventually goes democratic and respects human rights is up to its people. We have been an important force in removing some of the region’s worst regimes. The person who did so should be credited not criticized for less-than-perfect results.

And that should serve as a lesson to left wing humanists. Giving power to the people of a recently “liberated” totalitarian State is a bad idea. They can do it, but not straight out of the box. Modifications need to be made and that takes time.

I see Iraq ending up much the same: a godforsaken domestic mess (like it is now) or a region of mutiple power voids waiting to be filled by the most bloodthirsty of the armed radicals and their spiritual leaders. It will take a domestic army/police force to control the more radical elements of the Iraqi populace…for the next few decades. That and your friendly neighborhood US Army/Naval base (pick one of the 14 being built!).

So much for a pullout no matter who says what and when. These bases will provide a necessary support structure for not only Iraq but also the region. Things will get better. There will be continued challenges but if anyone thinks that any group espousing the disenfranchisement of women, the denial of rights to minorities, no respect for human rights and the return to a system that was in place in 700 AD is on the right side of history… I simply could not take such a person seriously. MORE involvement in the Middle East by MORE nations with MORE forces is the answer. We need to commit not retreat. Nations in Europe, India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand et al need to do more, not because it will benefit the US but because it is not only the right thing to do but also the smart one. This world, this prosperity is theirs to share and they must do more to ensure that this prosperity and stability spread not shrink. Are they up to the task? I doubt it, but that does not mean that the US in consort with nations that share its vision is not capable of tackling the task.

So much for a pullout no matter who says what and when. These bases will provide a necessary support structure for not only Iraq but also the region. Things will get better. There will be continued challenges but if anyone thinks that any group espousing the disenfranchisement of women, the denial of rights to minorities, no respect for human rights and the return to a system that was in place in 700 AD is on the right side of history… I simply could not take such a person seriously. MORE involvement in the Middle East by MORE nations with MORE forces is the answer. We need to commit not retreat. Nations in Europe, India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand et al need to do more, not because it will benefit the US but because it is not only the right thing to do but also the smart one. This world, this prosperity is theirs to share and they must do more to ensure that this prosperity and stability spread not shrink. Are they up to the task? I doubt it, but that does not mean that the US in consort with nations that share its vision is not capable of tackling the task.[/quote]

Stop that Fred. I’m getting an erection.

[quote]Reality: Churchill’s only “foreign policy” experience was dealing with colonial administrators of his own government. He was not a foreign policy expert.
[/quote]

I don’t know much about English politics but I know that that is total bullshit.

Churchhill won the Nobel Prize in literature for his own historical writings albeit as the last of the Whigs (which probably puts him very much in league with the Bush agenda). Just in the first world war he was Secretary of State.

Bush thought the Taliban was a rock band.

It’s unfortunate for Bush there’s no Nobel Prize for stupidity because then he’d be a million Swedish Crowns the richer.

Yeah, I keep hearing how stupid he is. What do you expect after all from an American and a Republican!

Excepting of course the times when people complain about what an evil genius (in concert with Cheney) he is since he always manages to seem to get what he wants despite this being the totally wrong policy to implement (thus says the bien piensant). Pity about all those court appointees, Supreme and otherwise. Bush’s stupidity along with our new “commitment” to the Middle East will be around for a long time after he leaves office.

:banana: :banana: You guys crack me up!..I mean, seriously funny stuff here!. Who writes your material?..throw them an extra fish this week! :roflmao: :roflmao: