Looking to the Record

[khaosworks]

Doomed To Repeating It By Mr. Terence Chua, taking out his red pen

A whole buncha people at http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004756.html#004756 have been dissecting this letter comparing Bush's actions to various US military actions through history, but let me take a crack at it, since ostensibly I have some vague connection with the study of history.

Bush Stacks Up Well

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn`t have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let`s clear up one point: We didn`t start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11.

Some have the opinion that the mistakes in this letter are deliberate. Nielsen Hayden's sister, in particular, thinks that anyone who knows enough about history to talk about stuff like this would know better that the it's "lies." Frankly, though, it's hard to tell. I've had students claim that General MacArthur invaded North Vietnam, so my capacity to be appalled by historical mistakes was exhausted quite some time ago.

Anyway.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

German U-boats were already attacking American shipping (and ships given to the British) in the North Atlantic prior to the Japanese attack. In September of 1941, the USS Greer encountered the U-652 and engaged her with depth charges after evading torpedo fire. FDR subsequently gave the order authorizing the Navy to attack any U-boat threatening American or foreign shipping under destroyer escort. 11 men were killed on the USS Kearny after it was attacked by a U-boat in early October, and on October 31, 1941, the USS Reuben James was sunk with all hands. You remember this. Woody Guthrie wrote a song about it. Oh, and Germany declared war on the US on December 11, 1941, fulfilling her treaty obligations with Japan.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

North Korea never attacked the US, but they certainly did South Korea. The US went into Korea as part of a UN task force designed to enforce the border between North and South along the 38th Parallel. As it turned out, it wasn't even classified as a war officially, but a police action, since it was done under UN auspices. Not just a bad example, but also draws attention to the fact that Bush's war in Iraq was started without the same level of international support.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

The statement "Vietnam never attacked the US" is tricky, because Vietnam, like Korea, was divided into North and South after WW II. Ho Chi Minh had previously petitioned the US for aid after World War I, but the US turned him down (more accurately, didn't reply to his letters) because the French still had their eye on IndoChina. So Ho turned communist, like Castro did later. After WW II, when the North and South conflict heated up, the US naturally came down on the side of the ostensibly democratic South. [edited to correct earlier mistakes]

American "military advisors", to train the South Vietnamese military, were in Vietnam as early as 1950, so that lets JFK off the hook for that one - in fact, the first US casualties in Vietnam were in 1955 (two ex-military pilots). JFK did help matters along by sending more "advisors" in country, but by then the US was already so entangled in Vietnam (and the French had wisely pulled out) that they were more or less committed to this proxy war. After JFK was assassinated in 1963, LBJ dropped all pretense of "advising" the South Vietnamese and the Tonkin Gulf resolution was passed by Congress.

Again, this is actually a dangerous example for conservatives to raise because of Iraq. In both cases, people believe the US were conned into the war - the Tonkin Gulf incident, which pushed Congress into supporting the Vietnam conflict (again, not technically a "war"), is now believed to have never happened. Iraq, of course, was heavily predicated on the existence of WMDs, of which no evidence has surfaced. In both cases, the US sent more and more troops into the country to try to keep the peace in the midst of a population that didn't really want them there, and the government soldiered on despite domestic opposition to the war. Vietnam really became a quagmire. Iraq is threatening to be the next one.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden`s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

Clinton went into Bosnia with his NATO allies, so it was still a joint operation. The US did go in with UN authorization, however. The NATO operation against Bosnia - in the throes of civil war - was ostensibly to prevent a wider European conflict. The ideas behind that reasoning are severely debatable, but the real lesson to draw here is not that Clinton was worse than Bush, but that interfering in a nation for dubious strategic reasons is a Bad Idea^™. Security in the Middle East hasn't really seemed to quiet down since Iraq, as the bombings and shootings in the country show.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida. Put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

Liberated is also a tricky word - Afghanistan isn't ruled by the Taliban anymore, but the roaming banditry, factionalism, civil violence and a devastated infrastructure still haunt the country. Iraq, well... we've covered that one. Bush also did not place nuclear inspectors in Libya or Iran - the UN did, although arguably the climate for that was made possible by the war in Iraq. But North Korea is right out - there are no nuclear inspectors in North Korea, and especially none that could conceivably be traced to the involvement of the Bush administration.

We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

But terrorist attacks against Americans still occur abroad - does that mean Americans are only safe while on American soil? Then bring the boys back home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

Maybe not in history, but to paraphrase Berke Breathed, Lord, he isn't good.

I'd give this paper a "C" for historical accuracy.

Take your country back. Vote Democrat.

Comments

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

that JFK started Vietnam nonsense is back? Idiots. They should watch "Vietnam: A Television History" - it's even PBS, for crying out loud. It's not like it's inaccessible.

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

not to mention that saying "no terrorist attacks" have happened on US soil since Bush started his little wars is just taking liberties with the facts. What do you call the anthrax poisonings?

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

I didn't mention that because... wasn't it suspected to be domestic nutjobs rather than Al-Qaeda types? Not that that's a very important distinction when it comes to terrorism...

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Ahh, but remeber - PBS is liberal nutjob stuff, to be ignored at will by conservatives.

(feh)

[billroper]

Of course, there's historical accuracy and historical accuracy. A cursory web search found this reference that indicates Ho Chi Minh was Communist as far back as 1930. It's possible that he might have repudiated Communism if the U.S. had supported him following WWII. I wouldn't bet on it, but it's possible.

The North Korean nuclear weapons program that we're currently worried about was begun in violation of the terms of an agreement that the Clinton administration made with the North Korean government. Apparently, it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, although it did result in us sending considerable aid to the North Koreans over the years.

Further nitpicking and flyspecking is possible, but left as an exercise for the student.

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

Oh, my bad, my bad. How embarassing. Figures that when I try to correct somebody, I wind up getting my facts mixed up.

Ho Chi Minh did petition the US for aid and freedom from France, but it was after World War ONE, not Two. In 1919, during Versailles, he tried to get Wilson to support a proposal for Vietnamese independence, but the Wilson administration filed it in the round file.

In 1920, Ho became a founding member of the French Communist Party.

I'll correct that in the main text.

[billroper]

Glad to be of service. :)

(Don't feel too bad. I seem to recall having heard the WWII bit before somewhere. And I can understand how Wilson did nothing in 1919, given that the Golden Age of Imperialism wasn't yet obviously over.)

[(Anonymous)]

Thought that might interest you. Enjoyed your take, though as you would know, I know next to nothing on the subject (well, save for one or two international law lectures). Are you allowed to set your students loose on something like this, or would that get you rapped on the knuckles for making too free with your political leanings?

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

I don't see why not, although I'm not in charge of the curiculum. But then, I've heard of complaints in other departments against instructors for "political bias" by students, so I'd have to be careful against what kind of answers I require... or even asking the question in such a way to imply political bias. The division between liberal and conservative here is quite marked.