Thursday, March 02, 2006

Bush and Churchill.

Ambassador Khalilzad aside, George Will starts and ends with a comparison of Winston Churchill and George Bush:

When late in the spring of 1940 people of southeastern England flocked across the Channel in their pleasure craft and fishing boats to evacuate soldiers trapped on Dunkirk beaches, euphoria swept Britain. So Prime Minister Winston Churchill sternly told the nation: "We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations."

Or by curfews, such as the one that cooled the furies that engulfed Iraq after the bombing last week of a Shiite shrine. Wars are not won simply by facing facts, but facing them is a necessary prerequisite.

Last week, in the latest iteration of a familiar speech (the enemy is "brutal," "we're on the offensive," "freedom is on the march") that should be retired, the president said, "This is a moment of choosing for the Iraqi people." Meaning what?

* * * * *

Today, with all three components of the "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002, the country would welcome, and Iraq's political class needs to hear, as a glimpse into the abyss, presidential words as realistic as those Britain heard on June 4, 1940.
Strangely, Will's version is not what most people will recall that Churchill said after Dunkirk. The famous lines, though stirring, were perhaps less realistic:

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
(Perhaps apocryphally, as the House of Commons thundered in response to these lines, Churchill whispered to a colleague, ""And we’ll fight them with the butt ends of broken beer bottles because that’s bloody well all we’ve got!")

As John Lukacs describes in Five Days in London, there were some days in May, 1940, when some in Britain considered the road to surrender, but by the time he gave this speech in early June, Churchill had prevailed to thwart this.

Will's faith that the right presidential address can turn fix what ails Iraq is what you would expect from a pundit. But in a war, what good is a pseudo-event? Maybe what we need is not Churchillian words, but a new policy. Churchill, famously, found a rhetoric to match the crisis. Bush, as even Will now seems to see, hopes the crisis will match his rhetoric.

Comments:
Our leader's rhetoric is partly leadership and cheer-leading, but I think it's often more a business of publicly allying yourself with a position that you think is safe and/or politically profitable. The historians help us to remember as good rhetoric the stuff from the politicians who guessed right. Chamberlain seems to have guessed wrong, and perhaps to an extent led wrong (I'm blanking on the history of what he might have done in the infrastructure department, as opposed to the detente and morale department).
 
To Chamberlain's credit, if I recall correctly, he sided with Churchill during the pivotal five days in London that are the subject of Lukacs' book. Which is wonderful, BTW.

As far as Iraq goes, I don't think you've got Bush quite right. He is very good at expressing the importance of democracy, and he is very focused on demonstrating resolve. I don't think he picked these themes because they're safe or popular. But it's not nearly enough, either.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Yeah, I denied Bush some due credit, but in awarding it to him you seem to deny that a calculation of safety and profitability has anything to do with his stances. I think the presumptively near perfect overlap between what Bush says and what Karl Rove approves says calculatedness is a big part of the explanation for why its this particular guff we hear on the radio, whatever Bush might personally declare to be his motivations in spouting it. By calling it "guff" I don't mean to say they aren't beautiful words, but in context they are fairy tale talk and candy floss with zero commitment to "ground truth" in military affairs or anything else. Maybe I'm a bit cynical.
 
Very, very tangential, but did you ever read Atonement by Ian McEwan? There's a rather remarkable description of being a soldier in that evacuation in the novel. I highly recommend it.
 
I think I have read one book by Ian McEwan, but I don't remember anything in it about Dunkirk, so perhaps I didn't read Atonement, or perhaps I am way forgetful.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]