Works and Days: The Will of the President

When Winston Churchill was ushered in as Prime Minister after the invasion of France in May 1940, the consensus was that he alone had correctly seen the real Hitler, and that he alone would stand fast in the face of calls for negotiations for a peace offering the status quo, and that he would rally the nation for the horrors ahead—and they were plenty from Dunkirk and Tobruk to the fall of the Singapore and catastrophe in the Asia.

So too it was with Lincoln earlier—who alone withstood the calls for either armistice or surrender after Antietam and the terrible summer of 1864—and Truman later in Korea who left office with about 25% approval rating. And from 1938-1941 only the will of Franklin Roosevelt withstood the isolationists and worse (remember the pressures for neutrality between August 1939 to June 1941 from the opportunistic American Left after the Hitler-Stalin non-aggression Pact.), and supplied England with Lend-Lease, rebuilt the US Navy, began conscription, and tried to restore defense spending.

In all these cases, it is hard to see without a Lincoln, Churchill, FDR, or Truman, how civilization would have withstood the forces of chattel slavery, fascism, or communism. So too in our own time. Whatever one says about George W. Bush, it is not at all clear that an Al Gore would have gone to Afghanistan after 9/11. And despite the acrimony over Iraq (a war sanctioned in October 2002 by a majority of Democratic Senators, and supported by 75% of the populace when Saddam’s statue fell), almost any other politician would long ago have bailed on the enterprise—given the unprecedented level of slurs. Each day another low point is reached—to kill George Bush by now has been the subject of a Broadway Play, late-night comedy, an Alfred Knopf Novel, and recently a new British docu-drama.

And yet here we are, 5 years after 9/11 without another attack, and struggling democracies fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I have no confidence that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings will return to 50%, but a great deal that history will look kindly on his resolve. And while I can fathom the hysterical Left’s hatred of him, and perhaps even the crazy attacks from the paleo-right, what is inexplicable and unpardonable is the venom from the neocon erstwhile supporters of Iraq.

Truly shameful are those who have abandoned the President, and yet who once called, as early as 1998, for the removal of Saddam Hussein. No other President would have granted their wishes, and yet, once casualties climbed, we were told there were too few troops, or that Mr. Rumsfeld must go, or that we should go on to Iran or Syria, or that the army was wrongly disbanded, or some such pretext that justified their disdain at Iraq, either overtly or implicitly—all while some 130,000 troops fought in the field. The point is not whether errors were committed, and needed to be addressed, but only whether they were of such an unprecedented magnitude, or were so willfully ignored, as to justify renunciation of previous support in the midst of a shooting war.

Total all the mistakes in Iraq—and they are legion— and they do not match a month’s folly in WWII (cf. the daylight B-17 missions of 1943, the early torpedo scandal of US submarines, the shortcomings of the Sherman Tank, the Kasserine Pass, the lit-up cities along the Eastern seaboard that facilitated U-boat carnage, the surprise at the Bulge, the intelligence failures about the hedgerows, and on and on) or Korea (the surprise at the Yalu, the lack of winter gear in the retreat, the surprise at the efficacy of the Mig-15, the Korean- prisoner fiasco, or the ossification at the 38th parallel when momentum was once again with us, etc.). Who made such blunders and more? Men like Arnold, Bradley, Eisenhower, Halsey, MacArthur, Marshall, and more in the pantheon of now deified generals.

The truth is that war is a constant ying and yang, of challenge and response, the side winning that reacts the more quickly to change and commits the fewer mistakes—and keeps its head. So far, by any historical standard of casualties lost, the ambition of the mission (Iraq is 7,000 miles and the home of the ancient caliphate), and success gained, this war is hardly a debacle and surely can be won. But it would have been lost years ago, had George Bush once, just once, listened to his litany of critics (pull out, postpone the elections, post a timetable, go to the UN, more troops still, invade Iran or Syria, trisect the country) watched the polls, or in depression at the venom, given in. We need to take a breath and remember that.

Comments (10)

marlowe anderson :

Thank you for reiterating once again some of the parallels of George W. Bush's performance against the Islamic Jihadist facists when compared to that of Churchill and Lincoln in their resolute endeavors in facing the respective challenges of Nazi facism in Europe in 1933-1945, and Abraham Lincoln's resolute stand to save the Union of the States (as set forth in the Constitution of 1789) when confronted with the challenge of secession by the Confederate States, which in due course also set aside the dominance of slavery as an institution in those States. George W. Bush will be as honored by historians, I think, as he is now decried by defeatist voices from the Left end of the political spectrum, just as Lincoln and Churchill were both decried by their contemporaries.

Sep 11, 2006 11:55 AM

Todd Lemmon :

I'm reading "The Guns of August" now and I can hardly believe the level of immaturity, pettiness and myopia that affected almost every decision Tuchman describes (i'm about 1/3 of the way through). I'm almost waiting for her to get to a moment when Joffre holds his breath to get his way. It doesn't seem unlikely the deeper I get. Thanksfully the Germans were slightly worse.

It seems, if anything, we're getting better.

Great post. Like a "reset" button.

Sep 11, 2006 12:01 PM

Anat :

Thank you. I entirely agree. I've just emerged from an argument with someone who repeated all the Bush-bashings you mention in brackets and more. I've done my best, but your clarity of argument is a real help for next time, which will surely come.

Sep 11, 2006 12:34 PM

Dorothy :

Mr. Davis - I have been reading your commentary for 5 years now. It is an honor to be able to comment on your blog. Your ability to articulate the challenges and the road blocks that our civilization faces never ceases to impress me. I email and print off your articles and try to disseminate them to open minds. My daughter attends a very liberal college, but I try to instill balance. I couldn't do it without you. Before she left this fall, I bound a spiral notebook full of your articles and told her to use them for reference when she was confused by the din of one sided voices. Thank you. Thank you

Sep 11, 2006 12:50 PM

Steve Sill :

Wow. I can't help but wish that everybody in America would read and take your post to heart. I laughingly said when I read it- "This is just what I would say if I were half as talented!"
Unfortunately even the most eloquent among us are ignored, but hopefully that won't stop the effort! Wonderful Post!

Sep 11, 2006 01:01 PM

Jo M :

What a coup for PJM! I am ever more heartened for the future of this exciting endeavor.

Thank you so much for this post. There have been times when I have been bewildered (and deeply disappointed) by the tone and pitch of advocates whom I once deeply respected for their cogent views.

As a inner-Beltway resident -- though no insider -- I do not think many external observers, no matter how learned, understand what an extremely rare quality is resolve in Washington. For a career politician, indeed, it is almost antithetical to their existence. It is my greatest fear: loss of national and institutional resolve. I am very grateful and very impressed by Mr. Bush, not least for the example he provides me.

I can respect respectful criticism and disagreement, but it is imperitative to be the side that is "keeping its head." (This is in no way meant to be a repugnant pun.)

Please keep up the excellent work. The previous commenter is right, we benefit from hearing from you more than once a week.

Respectfully, welcome to the blogoshpere -- from a frequent lurker.

Sep 11, 2006 03:57 PM

vnjagvetq :

Great post.

The willingness to be "hated" is, I believe, a sine qua non to successful leadership of a country with a democratic form of government in time of war.

This was the great gift of all of the national leaders you cite.

I am rereading the Manchester bio of Churchill's early years. It makes clear the extreme courage of his convictions from his earliest days in politics; it was wilfull and almost reckless.

But without that strength of character, one cannot stand up to the extreme hostility of those who disagree with many of the inevitably difficult and terrible decisions necessary to fight a war.

Sep 11, 2006 04:09 PM

CFK :

No attacks since 9/11? What was that anthrax in D.C. then? Fairy dust?

Sep 12, 2006 05:47 AM

Jim Ruel :

Professor Hanson,

I've been a fan of yours since shortly after 9/11. I enjoy your columns and your insights.

I do not understand how you cannot be more critical of the President by now, however. I voted for him twice, and I support his foreign policy goals in Iraq and elsewhere.

I cannot understand why he does not rally those many millions of us who support his goals into action. Why are we allowing such a miniscule percentage of our citizens to bear 100% of the burden?

My good friend is recently back from Ramadi. He's told me the stories. They don't have enough resources there. They clear areas, hold them for a time, and then leave. The bad guys return. Over and over again.

I'm 31 years old, a lawyer, and recently married. I hope to start a family soon. I've struggled with whether to join the military to help the cause, but to do so would mean sacrificing so much. And why, in a nation of 300,000,000 should I volunteer for Iraq, while the other 299,000,000 Americans basically go about their lives as if nothing is happening, as I, myself, have been doing for over 3 years.

I'd be more persuaded to do so if I thought for a second that I'd be given sufficient resources and help to do the job. I have no reason to believe that would be the case.

The President rightfully states that the stakes in Iraq are crucial to our security. Why doesn't he act that such is the case? We are even suffering setbacks in Afghanistan now, having left that nation mostly to NATO (which is a joke, is it not?)

Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time anymore as a nation? We pummel the Japanese and Germans and cannot beat a couple of 7th Century nations over the course of 5 years? I know the nature of the fights are different, but what is the hold up?

I want to continue to support the war effort. I want our country to win. Badly! How can I keep supporting the war when I don't trust the President to win it?

Sep 12, 2006 11:08 AM

Mike :

I wish your blog was required reading for all voters!

As for the comment from CFK about the anthrax, I believe that was probably the work of some nut case who isn't an Islamic Radical. Now, if it was from Islamic Radicals, that might be proof of jihadists using weapons of mass destruction.

Thank you for doing such a great job of stating what should be obvious but is missed by so many.

Sep 13, 2006 02:58 PM

September 2006

Elsewhere on the Web

Tour

Books

The Will of the President