Andrew Sullivan: Bush is Weimar (i.e. Hitler, again)
This week, Sullivan is comparing Bush and Hitler again, which is not terribly surprising; after all he's done it several times before (See here and here).
This time he's using an analogy to Germany's Weimar Republic of the 1930s, but not only is his analogy incorrect, if he had a good background in history, he would know that it actually works the opposite of the way he intends.
Sullivan's logic goes this way: because Bush gave a speech comparing Iraq and Vietnam, and mentioned the anti-war movement that helped end that war, then it's the same thing as blaming the failures of the Iraq war on the anti-war movement. So, in other words, it's the same thing as when Hitler claimed that Germany lost WWI because they were "stabbed in the back" by enemies at home.
That's quite a stretch, isn't it? But that's how this reasoning goes, and it's not the only problem here.
Look, can we actually have an honest debate about this without Hitler factoring into it? Where does Bush actually say the anti-war crowd is to blame for all our failures in Iraq? Nowhere. But to ignore the fact that the tremendous political pressure to end the war is a real factor, and does have a real effect, would be intellectually dishonest.
Don't just take my word for it. Here's a true expert on the matter: Former North Vietnamese General Bui Tin, in an interview he gave to the Wall Street Journal in 1995:
Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.
Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.
Incidentally, even if you agree with Sullivan, the analogy is still wrong. Why? Hitler was not Weimar, in fact, he was the enemy of it. He used the "stabbed in the back" argument to get into power in order to overthrow the Weimar Republic.
Comparing Bush to Weimar would only be apt if you thought Bush was the weak and frail President Hindenburg, unable to take decisive action to keep his nation from sliding into chaos. Now that you mention it, this analogy sounds much more apt for Iraq instead...
Bonus: Here's a good quote by Lance at "Second Hand Conjecture":
Sullivan has sadly deteriorated as his self righteousness overwhelms his talent.
Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed
10 comments:
It doesn't matter. Everyone knows that if Bush doesn't try to find the reasons for the wars failure, then he is ignoring reality.
But he does try to find the reasons, then he is just looking for someone/something to blame!
Either way, its a win-win situation for people like Doonebury cartoonist Gary Trudeau.
Sullivan's longer pieces are still quite good with, among other corrections, a more measured criticism of Bush et al.
But his blogging is just, well, off-the-wall as he too often - dare I say? - tortures statements of others to get them to agree with his latest crusade.
SMG
Look, can we actually have an honest debate about this without Hitler factoring into it?
Doesn't look like it, sadly.
You write "Sullivan's logic goes this way".
It is illogical to associate Sullivan and logic.
Hysterical, overwrought, foolish all do fine when mentioning Sullivan.
If Bush is the Weimar republic, what will President Hillary be?
After Bush the deluge!
Now it's my turn to say I agree with you for once.
Bush is not Hitler. Hitler for all his malignant narcissism and twisted evil was at least an unquestioned leader and an incomparable orator. Bush OTOH is a sock puppet who can't make an unscripted comment of two sentences without garbling his message. It's the clear sign of a mind that doesn't think straight or for itself for that matter.
Sullivan is a political manic-depressive par excellence. At first he was one of the loudest and most jingoistic cheerleaders for the war. After we were in it, he quickly morphed into the most abject of defeatists. Lately, undeterred by this rather plain evidence of his own intellectual incompetence and blown credibility, he has had the grotesque arrogance to launch ad hominem attacks against the likes of Victor Davis Hanson. The mind boggles.
In all honesty, he wasn't always as pathetic as he is now. Many others, not to mention VDH himself in his reply to Sullivan, have noticed the same thing. Perhaps the drug cocktails he takes to treat his AIDS, combined with the recreational drugs he promotes, are finally taking their toll. He should really consider laying the pen aside before he becomes too absurd.
We should be so lucky as to have a government that can get that much popular support as in 1932-33. As it is... yes, Hindenburg sounds appropriate, which does not spell out good times ahead.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this post (by Achilles) revolves around the comment regarding "tremendous political pressure to end the war." This is a poll driven comment (or perception) and sound governments do not govern by polls; that's what elections are for. I don't want to end the war except by a decisive victory and I know many of my fellow Americans agree with me.
When the Soviet Union fell, I remember saying to a Russian friend of mine that there would be a Weimar Republic phase followed by a new dictatorship. She was horrified. Sadly, I think Putin is proving me right. Soon he'll be looking at his neighbors and talking about Lebensraum.
Post a Comment