Knifed In the Ankle?

Jonah chides me for lending legitimacy to the comparison, which he suggests is implied by the term "stabbed in the back," between American conservatives today (or after Vietnam) and post-World War I German right-wingers. This was certainly not my intention: I didn't mean to "gamely go along" with any such comparison, but merely to acknowledge what I think is the self-evident reality that many conservatives blamed our defeat in Vietnam on liberals who undermined the war effort at home, and that a similar narrative seems to be developing on the Right where Iraq is concerned. If there's a better, less historically-loaded shorthand for this narrative than "stabbed in the back," I'm happy to propagate it. But while obviously there are lefties who would love to draw the Republicans-to-Nazis analogy, I think the term has a general application that's independent of the connotations Jonah imputes to it. (For instance, when Max Boot - no Iraq-War dove or liberal lapdog he! - wrote a column criticizing this narrative earlier this year, he used precisely the same language, writing that "Just as it did during the Vietnam War, a myth is likely to develop in which America's valiant fighting men and women were stabbed in the back by unpatriotic, even treasonous, reporters.")

Jonah also writes:

I think Ross is basically wrong when he says that the Vietnam syndrome didn't help conservatives. Vietnam saturated American politics in myriad ways that helped the Reaganite Right, particularly after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, become the party of American confidence. "Morning in America" makes little sense without Vietnam.

I didn't mean to imply that the need to kick the Vietnam syndrome, get back on our feet and start kicking ass again wasn't part of the narrative that Republicans rode to power in the 1980s; obviously it was. But I think that when this narrative was deployed most successfully, by Reagan and others, it didn't involve blaming liberals for losing Vietnam so much as it involved blaming them for being overly traumatized by our defeat and acquiescing to American decline as a result of that trauma. It's a subtle distinction, maybe, but I think an important one.

Comments

Correct, it is a very important distinction. "Morning in America" was more in reference to Carter, economic malaise, and the Iran hostages. Any acknowledgement of "Vietnam syndrome" by Reagan (I don't recall any, and I assume Jonah was all of 5 when Reagan was elected) would have immediately reminded people of with Nixon. Vietnam was the great unspoken, and it only "helped" Reagan in the sense that he found suitable rhetoric for getting beyond it. I find Jonah's analysis, particularly the claim that "Vietnam saturated American politics in myriad ways that helped the Reaganite Right," to be typically shallow.

Posted by Bill | June 27, 2007 3:20 PM

I think the term has a general application that's independent of the connotations Jonah imputes to it.

I agree. It's a rhetorical device used by militarists the whole world 'round who want to (1) argue that earlier military actions were noble and worthwhile despite their results, and (2) discredit as treasonous anyone in the country who expects their nation's invasions of other countries to have costs in some sort of proportion to benefits.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 27, 2007 3:38 PM

It's hard to not make the comparison when it stares you in the face.

Posted by Andy Vance | June 27, 2007 3:58 PM

Stabbed in the back? That monkey will never fly. Billions doled out / squandered / spent (take your pick). Hundreds of thousands deployed. Thousands maimed, injured, lost.

No, the only stabbing in the back here, in this Gulf war, is the stabbing by the political leaders: W, Dick, Rummey, the CPA, the GOP rubber-stamp Congress that never once said, ah, wait a second shouldn't you . . ..

Stabbed in the back. Let them try.

Posted by po | June 27, 2007 4:00 PM

I have a comment on this here.

Posted by Withywindle | June 27, 2007 4:12 PM

Wow, Withywindle, don't, like, IGNORE the specific major differences between WWI and Iraq or anything, i.e. that one was a TOTAL WAR EFFORT BY AN ENTIRE NATION ON ITS OWN SOIL and the other was, well, a spuriously justified exercise in foreign intervention using a professional military. So the many people who WERE AGAINST THE WAR FROM THE BEGINNING are to blamed for not supporting it sufficiently? How about this: Fuck. You.

Posted by Bill | June 27, 2007 4:21 PM

Yglesias, as far as I am aware, never bothered to make a tight link between the National Socialist reaction to German surrender at the end of WWI and, again as far as I'm aware, nobody since has tried to defend the analogy on the merits.

I've tried several times and I can not parse this statement. What did Yglesias fail to link? Or is this a problem of agreement of "between" and "to" where "to" should be "and"?

Posted by Brittain33 | June 27, 2007 4:22 PM

Nope on second thought I'm not done. You write:

If the American left had been gung-ho for victory in Iraq, then we should refrain from such accusations. But they were not, and we may call them to account on their own words.

How bout if I steal your car, drive it into, oh I don't know, let's say a crowd of illegal aliens -- because hey, they're enemies, yours and mine! -- and then "call you to account" for not buying yourself a new car so I can keep driving it into more aliens?

In short, you're an asshole.

Victory in Iraq was swift and easy, and the left DID root for that. The responsibility for winning the peace, however, was the administration's, and instead they unwittingly enabled a civil conflict that is BY DEFINITION unwinnable from an American perspective. But let me guess, for you it's still all about beating Al Qaeda:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003537.php

Posted by Bill | June 27, 2007 4:29 PM

But I think that when this narrative was deployed most successfully, by Reagan and others, it didn't involve blaming liberals for losing Vietnam so much as it involved blaming them for being overly traumatized by our defeat and acquiescing to American decline as a result of that trauma. It's a subtle distinction, maybe, but I think an important one.

It's fine to make that distinction, but you must realize that Jonah's reading is what applies to 99% of the political conversation once we exit Iraq.

I mean, after we exit Iraq, the conversation about Iraq is going to be how our experience in Iraq affects what we do elsewhere in the world, right? Determining "who lost Iraq" will be a job for the historians, and, fine, there will be that narrative to contend with, but how important is what the historians think anyway? What will be important will be what's going on elsewhere in the world. And you know as well as I do that, after we exit Iraq, the liberals are going to say that the United States should play virtually no role in world affairs, other than as a supplicant to the UN (because when the US tries to lead in the world, we end up with Iraq).

Posted by Al | June 27, 2007 4:42 PM

instead they unwittingly enabled a civil conflict that is BY DEFINITION unwinnable from an American perspective

Oh, please. The "civil conflict" was not "enabled" by the Administration. It was inevitable upon the fall of Saddam Hussein. That we caused Saddam's fall before the fall otherwise would have occured does not mean that we "enabled" the aftermath. Saddam's years of brutal sectarian rule "enabled" the aftermath.

Indeed, I'd argue that our presence in Iraq made the inevitable conflict less bad than it would have been had we not been there.

Posted by Al | June 27, 2007 4:48 PM

Oh, please. The "civil conflict" was not "enabled" by the Administration. It was inevitable upon the fall of Saddam Hussein. That we caused Saddam's fall before the fall otherwise would have occured does not mean that we "enabled" the aftermath. Saddam's years of brutal sectarian rule "enabled" the aftermath.

Brilliant! Blame Saddam for making us taking him over, stick him with the aftermath, and liberals with the after-aftermath. Neat and tidy. What a great justification for doing it all in the first place.

Indeed, I'd argue that our presence in Iraq made the inevitable conflict less bad than it would have been had we not been there.

Why (the fuck) should you care? You'd rather have American fingerprints (and casualties) all over it, Abu Ghraib and all? If Saddam's eventual fall led to some kind of pressing, GENUINE US national security concern, well that's hell of a lot better justification than ginning something up way ahead of schedule out of concern for the Iraqis. If that's your idea of responsible foreign policy, you're insane.

Posted by Bill | June 27, 2007 5:44 PM

Al-- it's not true that collapse was inevitable.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 27, 2007 5:47 PM

So Jonah - who is writing a book about "liberal faciscm" - doesn't like the historical connotation of "stabbed in the back"? Oh, the irony.

Well, what if we used instead the "clap louder" corollary that Withywindle seems to be promoting in that insipid blog-whored post.

Would Jonah then address the central tenet of Ross's post - that promoting the "clap louder" theory - while ignoring the failures of the Republican administration and congress during the war - "will push conservatives toward political irrelevance"?

Posted by tiparillo | June 27, 2007 6:08 PM

Oh, dear, an obscene response to my previous comment. A point of fact: Germany's war in World War I was not fought on German soil, save for the brief incursion of the Russian army into East Prussia in the autumn of 1914. (And I think a few square miles of German Alsace-Lorraine were occupied by the French army near the Swiss border.)

Posted by Withywindle | June 27, 2007 10:00 PM

Withywindle states:

...what made the post-WWI German accusation noxious was that it was false--that Jews, Socialists, etc. had been overwhelmingly enthusiastic for Germany and German victory throughout the war...

Umm...given the fact that Germany got its ass (if you can bring yourself to forgive the obscenity) kicked in World War I, wouldn't it have been a good thing if the dolschstosselegende had, in fact, occurred and been effective--that internal opposition to the war had succeeded in preventing or curtailing the meat grinder of trench warfare by stabbing the whole enterprise in the back, as it were? Wouldn't these putative backstabbers have been both morally and strategically justified given the horrible consequences of the war for Germany? Also, doesn't the fact that even with the lefty jews on board with the cheerleading Gemany got its ass handed to it in a bucket lead to the inescapable conclusion that domestic unity and a strong national will to war does not trump the fact that the war was strategically unwinnable? Might this have some salience when considering Vietnam and Iraq?

Doesn't it follow that speaking in favor of, or in opposition to, a war has no effect on the underlying economic, geographic and strategic variables that determine its course? This is true in somewhat the same way that saying "abracadabra" at a magic show does not alter the existential status of the rabbit.

Before you begin "to call others to account" I recommend that you take care of the red ink that your arguments are racking up for you first. Oops! Sorry...I forgot that deficits don't matter...carry on!

Posted by DMonteith | June 28, 2007 2:32 AM

Ross,
Thanks for the link to Boot's op-ed. My respect for him just rose considerably. Even that piece, however, sadly says the media placed "too much emphasis on American casualties and American abuses, both of which are low by historical standards." This is one of the more callous and under-examined attitudes prevalent among hawks. Why historical comparisons should carry any weight whatsoever in judging either U.S. military deaths or our wrongful detentions, torture, and killing of civilians in a country we occupy is incomprehensible. Instead we should surely concentrate our inquiry into these matters on the likelihood of attaining our war aims and on how the moral and practical costs to us and to Iraqis of their pursuit measure up against the benefits that would obtain in the event of success. (By this calculus, I believe the war has already gone on too long, but this inquiry is complex and deserves more debate.) What does not deserve more consideration is Boot's clear implication that just because we haven't lost 58,000+ servicemembers in this war that the deaths of 3,569 of our forces should somehow be dismissed. Nor can we expect the devastated families of Iraqis killed or merely imprisoned and tortured by our forces to draw solace from the idea that their losses are small by historical standards. Together with the American bereaved, you can just hear them heaving a sigh of relief, can't you?

Posted by jason | June 28, 2007 9:51 AM

There is a remarkable degree of unreality that the posters at this blog specially Jason, evince.
If we had to pull out of Iraq, retreating all the way across to Kuwait; not unlike the Russian retreat across the Amyra bridge; under fire. You
think the situation gets better. You don't think a full fledged hecatomb, doesn't occur driving Saudi, Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian jihadist and
intelligence operatives to sweep in to protect the Sunnis. The Iranian pulling strings in the Shia coasts of Arabia, spreading to Bahrain & the other Emirates

Posted by narciso | June 28, 2007 10:18 PM

DMonteith asks “given the fact that Germany [was defeated] … in World War I, wouldn't it have been a good thing if the dolchstosselegende had, in fact, occurred and been effective--that internal opposition to the war had succeeded in preventing or curtailing the meat grinder of trench warfare by stabbing the whole enterprise in the back, as it were? Wouldn't these putative backstabbers have been both morally and strategically justified given the horrible consequences of the war for Germany? …. Doesn't it follow that speaking in favor of, or in opposition to, a war has no effect on the underlying economic, geographic and strategic variables that determine its course?”

This is a fascinating question. There are a number of tacks to take to this question.

1) The moral justification of the war. I believe Imperial Germany was in the wrong in that war—that an essentially undemocratic government lashed out into foreign war both to forestall the gathering power of the Entente and to prevent a domestic accession to power of the Socialist Party, and that the democracies of France and Britain were morally superior to Germany by mere dint of being democracies. The fact that its “defensive” military plans required an immediate invasion of Belgium doesn’t help Germany’s moral case either. But it’s worth noting that the Western Allies were fighting, ultimately, in aid of a Serbian government that had sponsored the terrorist assassination of Franz Ferdinand, that their Russian ally was a brutal autocracy with a constitutional figleaf, compared with which even Germany was a model of democratic politics, and that the Western Allies possessed empires that they ruled quite undemocratically and illiberally. I take the moral weight to be against Imperial Germany, but it was hardly a one-sided question.

With reference to the anti-Semitic Dolchstosslegende, one of the ironies is that Germany justified its war in part as a liberation of Russian Jewry from the pogromist Tsarist state—as a humanitarian liberation—this with an eye both to garnering support for the war from German Jews and from international (liberal) public opinion. To the best of my knowledge, this did indeed deepen German Jewish support for Imperial Germany’s war effort. That Germany explicitly set itself up as a protector of Jews, and specifically and successfully appealed for German Jewish support for its war effort, makes the postwar accusation that the Jews stabbed Germany in the back particularly cruel.

I note by-the-by that Bill compared America’s professional military unfavorably to Germany’s national military. Why a military force conscripted by an undemocratic government, including some subject nationals of French, Danish, and Polish origin, is morally superior to a volunteer force in the service of a democracy is unclear to me.

2) Consequentialism. The fact that Germany lost the war should have no bearing on the moral decision to support it or oppose it. The implication is that Germans would have been right to support the war merely by the fact of winning the conflict—a not entirely pacific notion. But on a slightly different note, it wasn’t obvious then or afterward that Germany was guaranteed to lose the war. They were, after all, in possession of large chunks of enemy territory from the very beginning of the war, and, after knocking Russia out of the war, nearly won the war in 1918. If the US had not entered the war—by no means an inevitability—one might say that the strategic balance favored Germany. As to the meat grinder of trench warfare, this was, of course, only half the German experience; the other half was a series of victorious campaigns in Russia (and Italy). Opposition to the war at the time would correctly have been taken as dooming a winnable war effort.

3) The moral obligations of citizens at war. It is relatively easy as a foreigner, a century after the fact, to say that Germany was in the wrong. I find it difficult, however, to say that any German—Christian or Jewish, Conservative or Socialist—should have revolted in wartime to oppose the First World War, whether to oppose an immoral war or to prevent the deaths of two million young German men. A distinction is in order: the Dolchstosslegende specified an anti-German conspiracy, not just public speech in opposition of the war. (Knavery rather than folly.) But would I have spoken publicly against the war during wartime, were I a German subject? – knowing that my words, although right and necessary, would also encourage the Allies in their war effort, risk my country’s defeat, and in their own small way lead to the deaths of some of my fellow Germans? (And if we are considering consequences, also knowing that the most vocal of the anti-war brigade were the Bolsheviks and their international allies, who would shortly commit democide once they came to power in Russia, and attempt to set up such democidal regimes throughout the world.) I do not think I would have made such a public speech. (Although I should have as a German in World War II, where the moral imperatives were of a different order.) Germany was in the wrong to fight, but I do not think a German would have been in the right to undermine that war effort in word or deed.

Posted by withywindle | June 28, 2007 11:04 PM

withywindle writes in his blog post: "If the American left had been gung-ho for victory in Iraq, then we should refrain from such accusations. But they were not, and we may call them to account on their own words."

That seems like some pretty odd logic to me.

Here are the facts: The Bush Administration invaded Iraq, an action that some (like me) thought was ill-advised and unnecessary. Some of those opposed were vocal in that opposition (not me; I didn't have a platform, and I kept hoping that I was wrong). It turns out that those who thought the invasion was a bad move were correct -- we're now left in a position where we have no good options.

So, given those circumstances, withywindle concludes that the people to blame for the current situation are not those who were "gung-ho" for the war, but rather those who cautioned against it from the start. That seems completely backward to me.

What am I missing from this argument?

Posted by Tillman Fan | June 29, 2007 4:40 PM

That your vocal opposition has emboldened our enemies, limited our fighting ability, and may well have contributed to our losing an otherwise winnable war.

Posted by withywindle | June 29, 2007 11:00 PM

withywindle -- I hear your argument. I just don't understand it. How has the opposition to the war "limited our fighting ability"? Really, how is it possible for a war to be lost by the "vocal opposition" of people who thought it was a bad idea to begin with? Try to be honest with yourself -- aren't you just rationalizing what turned out to be a bad idea by blaming the one group of people who you should have listened to from the start?

Posted by Tillman Fan | June 30, 2007 12:43 AM

Morale and willpower are crucial elements of war. Our enemies fight in good part because they believe the US is internally divided (which it is), therefore weak; that limited resistance on their part will cause us to turn tail and run. This perception is strengthened by every vocal opposition to the war by American citizens, and therefore they fight with greater energy. Words have meaning; words have effect; domestic critique emboldens foreign enemies; and every dismal forecast is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As for what I thought, I thought and think the Iraq War was the best of several unpleasant options. The alternatives include the political and civilizational collapse of the West and the destruction of much of the Middle East in fire. These options are still on tap; we ought still to struggle to avoid them. I see no futures of easy liberty and peace ahead of us for a long time to come.

Posted by Withywindle | June 30, 2007 1:00 AM

I note by-the-by that Bill compared America’s professional military unfavorably to Germany’s national military. Why a military force conscripted by an undemocratic government, including some subject nationals of French, Danish, and Polish origin, is morally superior to a volunteer force in the service of a democracy is unclear to me.

Dude, you're a total idiot. I didn't say a thing about the "moral superiority" of one army over another. Try reading with your eyes, instead of writing with your anus.

Morale and willpower are crucial elements of war. Our enemies fight in good part because they believe the US is internally divided (which it is), therefore weak; that limited resistance on their part will cause us to turn tail and run. This perception is strengthened by every vocal opposition to the war by American citizens, and therefore they fight with greater energy. Words have meaning; words have effect; domestic critique emboldens foreign enemies; and every dismal forecast is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As for what I thought, I thought and think the Iraq War was the best of several unpleasant options.

And guess what. You were never, ever going to get an entire country to agree with your view of this war. How many controversial foreign interventions do you suppose America could hope to wage "without vocal opposition" from American citizens? What planet are you living on? It's a democracy. There's going to be domestic critique. People like you deserve to live under a dictator.

The alternatives include the political and civilizational collapse of the West and the destruction of much of the Middle East in fire.

WHAT A MORON.

These options are still on tap; we ought still to struggle to avoid them. I see no futures of easy liberty and peace ahead of us for a long time to come.

And the United States' occupation of an Arab country does what exactly to to remedy this? Please, don't bother replying, you clearly have a very runny brain.

Posted by Bill | June 30, 2007 9:22 AM

withywindle -- I hear your argument. I just don't understand it. How has the opposition to the war "limited our fighting ability"? Really, how is it possible for a war to be lost by the "vocal opposition" of people who thought it was a bad idea to begin with? Try to be honest with yourself -- aren't you just rationalizing what turned out to be a bad idea by blaming the one group of people who you should have listened to from the start?

HEY WITHYWINDLE, IF THIS WAR IS SO FUCKING IMPORTANT TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION WHY DIDN'T AMERICA RESTORE REGULAR ELECTRICTY TO BAGDHAD? (Cricket, cricket.)

Mr. Withywindle appears to have fantasies of living in a country that always marches in lock step with its leaders. For him it just isn't possible that the government could have chosen an unwise war, thereby *legitimizing* "vocal opposition." And what "by the by" is his proposed method for silencing the opposition, one wonders, so that the country can "win." God forbid he and his side should actually MAKE THEIR CASE in the halls of debate as to why this war was necessary (or else why would so sizable a majority of the country disagree?), or God forbid they actually exhibited a modicum of competence in waging the actual war they claim is so necessary. God forbid someone should judge the importance of the war by the obvious carelessness with which it was waged.

So yes, precisely, he is rationalizing a failed policy by blaming the very people who knew it would probably fail, as though there can be no distinction between prescience and wish-fulfillment. And meanwhile, a bunch of 18-year-olds from Arkansas and Mississippi continue blasting holes in the walls of Iraqi homes, searching and seizing and making daily, "regrettable" kills of innocents, while the non-existent Iraqi police force fails to impact the war for a power in a vacuum of our own making. So just who is "emboldening our enemies"?

Posted by Bill | June 30, 2007 9:42 AM

Oh, please. The "civil conflict" was not "enabled" by the Administration. It was inevitable upon the fall of Saddam Hussein. That we caused Saddam's fall before the fall otherwise would have occured does not mean that we "enabled" the aftermath. Saddam's years of brutal sectarian rule "enabled" the aftermath.

Uhh...I don't really see a lot of evidence that Saddamn, prior to our arrival, was in a tenuous position in terms of leadership. Noone is saying the situation was ideal, but his tenure wasn't built on a foundation of sand; rather, decades of Western enablers had given his regime an undeserved stability. You're reaching, m'friend.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | July 5, 2007 3:11 PM

As for what I thought, I thought and think the Iraq War was the best of several unpleasant options. The alternatives include the political and civilizational collapse of the West and the destruction of much of the Middle East in fire. These options are still on tap; we ought still to struggle to avoid them.

Someone recently went into a diatribe about the use of the 'un'-word 'overexaggeration.' I'll soon take the verbal switch to his hide, after reading this doozy. Unreal.

First, the other 'options' to the Iraq War - meatier weapons inspections, or, say, actually hunting our enemies - wouldn't have led to the dismantling Western hegemony (which is really what you meant by 'civilizational collapse,' lets be honest) or turning the ME into a charnel house. Second, the latter may be on tap NOW, since we've fouled our foreign policy bed so thoroughly - but to say it was an inevitability prior to our present course is intellectually dishonest.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | July 5, 2007 3:29 PM

Good site. Thanks!!!
http://www.erotikfarm.de/sex-forum/functions/ringtone3.htm polyphonic ring tones

Posted by creating ringtones | August 7, 2007 3:13 PM

igczdtyj kiufgoy vwtrblz snwyq fgolj ylizhnf vsfdupz

Posted by elzp twykob | August 13, 2007 4:15 AM