Wednesday, May 23, 2007

New Laws

While reading Bob Kerrey's confusing and idiotic op-ed on Iraq, it occurred to me that we need a new version of Godwin's Law. Perhaps you can indulge my ego a bit and call it A.E's (or Elkus's--whatever has a better ring to it) law.

Godwin's Law:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Godwin's law as commonly understood prohibits you from comparing a political opponent to Hitler and/or the Nazis. My law is much different.

A.E.'s Law:

As a political discussion involving war and foreign policy grows longer, the probability of a comparison to World War II and/or pre-war appeasement at Munich and /or the reconstruction of Western Europe and Japan approaches one.

Bob Kerrey compares the Iraq war to the reconstruction of Germany and Japan. Neoconservative pundits (most notably Charles Krauthammer) call any policy that isn't hawkish enough for them a new Munich. The President's famous "Axis of Evil" speech deliberately cast Iran, North Korea, and Iraq as an alliance equivalent to the old-time axis of the World War II, posing a massive threat to American interests. Other conservative pundits call the French "ungrateful" for not supporting the Iraq war because America liberated them from the Germans. "Pearl Harbor" has been a shorthand for surprise attack, and some tech experts warn of an "electronic Pearl Harbor" by terrorists, hackers, and cyberwar units of hostile nations. Some left-wing pundits have called for a "New Marshall Plan" for the Third World, and pundits of all ideological stripes declared after 9/11 we were in a great war for civilization that mirrored the Second World War.

Comparing your opponents to the Nazis is regarded as poor debating form. But our politicians and commentators lavish us with facetious and misleading WWII comparisons all the time without bothering to back up them up. While it may be tempting to reach for the largest war in human history (instantly recognizable to any audience), World War II has little relevance to present conflicts, the vast majority of which are "small wars" that pale in intensity and scale compared to the conflagration of 1939-1945. Additionally, anyone from that era observing our international system, through, say, a crystal ball would most likely regard it as a work of science fiction. And pundits have, again and again, falsely compared various Third World militaries to the developed and fearsome German Wehrmarcht in order to drum up support for armed subversion or war.

The sooner we do away with these facetious comparisons, the better.

4 comments:

strategist said...

Good post A.E. Re. "World War II has little relevance to present conflicts...", I completely agree. By comparison, most 'battles' that are reported from Iraq, Afghanistan, would rate no more than a sentence or two in any WW2 infantry company's war diary.

A.E. said...

Very true. They don't call then "small wars" for nothing.

Lurch said...

Excellent post, but troubling. Is it possible that the frequent allusions to WWII, etc, etc is a manifestation of their yearning for a united home front, as well as a conscious and cynical attempt to fix Mr Bu$h as today's Churchill and Roosevelt?

That war was seen as a clear and present danger to the nation, and citizens eagerly pitched in - massive volunteering, bond drives, stamp drives in school, collecting pots and pans, rationing etc.

But by late 1944 war-weariness had set in, and some historians indicate the never-ending lists of dead had soured a lot of the earlier patriotic enthusiasm.

Demonizing the opposition is pretty standard in war. Did you notice that GEN Petraeus, who has published three general letters to the troops, described the "enemy" as "barbaric" and "barbarian" in two of them?

Apparently reducing major portions of cities (Fallujah, Ramadi) is not barbaric, but rather actions in service of western civilization.

We seem to learn very little from history. It would have been cheaper to give them a lot of blankets infected with smallpox.

A.E. said...

Yes, the "barbarian" rhetoric does have a bit of the whiff of the WWI-WII racial epithets "hun" and "jap," doesn't it?