Asshat

Last night, on the way to Newport, I listened to On Point, the news show on WBUR. The topic was "Critiquing America at War" and the first panelist was Stephen Van Evera, Professor of Political Science at MIT. He is an asshat.

There is really no other way to say it. He made silly points about the war. The problem with that is people who don't know enough about history, people who don't stand back and look at the big picture are going to be misled.

He was drawing conclusions about why we are failing in Iraq (right there I disagree) and saying it's because we are not taking into account the "lessons learned" in WWII.

First - timelines. We won in less than four years in Europe and the Pacific, but we have been in Iraq longer with no end in sight. I can't believe someone can compare these two things with a straight face. I don't know maybe he was snickering in the studio. Maybe he was laughing up his sleeve thinking that anyone listening must be terribly gullible. I can't think of two situations more different. So you really want us to take the lesson learned in WWII and apply it in Iraq? Do you want us to rain complete and utter destruction down on Iraq and their people? Bomb them like Dresden, Tokyo? Decimate them? Because we could be finished now if we wanted to completely destroy them. No other army in the history of the world has taken such pains to avoid civilian casualties. We should be proud of that and not whine that it delays the process.

Second - sacrifice. Van Evra discussed Roosevelt asking people to sacrifice for the war and discussed Bush not asking anything of Americans. First off, not true. Bush, himself, and the Administration have asked people to support the troops and their families at home. There is a whole website "America Supports You" where the American people are being asked to help and offered suggestions on how to do so. What exactly will be gained by a scrap drive or gas rationing?

Third - Propaganda. Does anyone actually believe the government should be putting out posters, etc. the way they did in WWII? Have you ever seen some of the racist screed that came out of that era? I was appalled when I saw examples in the D-Day museum in NOLA. Everyone thinks of the "Rosie the Riveter" stuff, but there was also some really hateful stuff too. I don't need my tax dollars spent that way. He also mentioned Hollywood helping out with the effort, naming Frank Capra (although the Princess prefers John Ford) Hollywood would no more help us in this way than shoot themselves. That is not the Bush Administrations fault. You can not blame "W" for Michael Moore and Sean Penn.

Fourth - Bipartisan appointments. He cites FDR appointing Republicans to key posts to help with the war effort. Hey num-num (one of my mother's favorite put-downs!), it wasn't an effort to reach across the aisle! FDR recognized that Republicans were better at war. Why isn't "W" making Democratic appointments in important war related posts? Because Democrats aren't as good in these posts. We're meaner. You appoint Democrats when you need to "feel good" about something. No instead "W" is following another important lesson.....he's appointing Navy guys, lol!

I'll give the guy one point. Van Evra pointed out the importance of coalitions and allies. he mentioned the fact that we pretty much ignored NATO offers of assistance at the outset of our invasion of Afghanistan. I will agree that was a mistake.

I think it's safe to say that I am a girl who appreciates history and knows more than some about WWII. I think Bush took the most important "lesson learned" of WWII and holds it close.

"It is the function of the Navy to carry the war to the enemy so that it will not be fought on US soil." Admiral Chester William Nimitz (courtesy of this month's "All Hands")