We Hold These Truths... (part II)

Now some might wonder why a news junkie like myself is all of a sudden considered the rhetorical nuances of the American Civil War? To be honest before I gave two shits about what was happening to the world today I was much more concerned with what had happened to the world prior to my time here. The Civil War especially held a special interest for me as a child.

Last summer during the Israeli/Lebanon fighting I happened to pick a Wall Street Journal to read an article. It soon became a habit until the day I got yelled at for taking (unbeknownst to me at the time) the governor's paper. So my fiance got me a subscription. Now I know that any self respecting liberal is supposed to read the Economist, but I've never been very good at doing what I was supposed to. Besides, what fun is reading editorials and opinion columns that you agree with?

So ever since the WMDs failed to materialize there has been a concerted effort to reframe the rhetoric of the Iraqi war as a one of freedom versus tyranny with Saddam Hussein as our very convenient tyrant. Because apparently this tyrant was just too hard to catch. So here we go. Some of the first references to the Civil War era actually came as criticism directed at black members of Bush's cabinet. Actually this almost makes up for his behavior in regards to Hugo Chavez. Though to be fair he's not the only failed liberal traitor to be buddying with the Venezuelan demagogue. But I digress.

Powell was never really able to vehemently defend the decision to invade Iraq because I believe that for all his shortcomings he was and remains a man of integrity (which ensured that he was out of a job in '04). Condaleeza Rice on the other hand no such qualms and further more has no problem using her background as launching board for propaganda purposes for her current boss. Also the original interview can be found here.

So here we go. Rice is making a connection between modern Democrats who oppose the war in Iraq (once it became unpopular) and a grouping democrats known as "Copperheads" during the Civil War. A nice little dig but one which does not stand up to any kind of even half assed analysis (the only kind I can muster up).

For starters the Civil War was about the very dismemberment of the continental United States. And though I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, the last time I checked Iraq was not part of the continental United States. Secondly is the smug implication of the reference that it is the Democrat's nature to be treasonous and afraid to fight then and now. What is not taken into account is history. Jeremiah S. Black, Edwin M. Stanton, Joseph Holt, and John Adams Dix, members (and Democrats)of Buchanan's cabinet set the tone for Lincoln to follow not vice versa by declaring succession illegal. Though the "Copperheads" were an issue of note should also be that there were "War Democrats" that even helped Lincoln run for reelection in 1864 (Maybe Lieberman will accompany Guiliani on a run in '08)

Let us also revisit my last post and remember that Lincoln's primary concern was the Union and that he even postponed the Emancipation proclamation for fear of losing the Border States.

Though I will give Condi credit when she noted that,

"I'm sure that there were people who thought that the Declaration of Independence was a mistake".

That's right there were, they were called Loyalists and many went to Canada where they treated the indigenous population much better, continued to squabble with the French and eventually set a system of socialized medicine (those freedom loving bastards).

So moving on to the next column by Newt Gingrich. Newt being Newt is quick to label the Democrats defeatists at best while hinting at historical likenesses (see above). He states that we must be prepared for a rising and total World War III in which we cannot,

"accommodate, understand or negotiate with them[enemies of the US]".

This is exactly the problem, and why Lincoln's 90-day summons of troops was also a complete failure. Lincoln was so focussed on the "Slaveocracy" that he was not prepared for "Plain Folk of the Old South" who made up the vast bulk of the Conferdate Army.

This quote also discounts the fact that after the war Lincoln took a moderate line on Reconstruction because he realized that military successes are meaningless without political success to secure the victory. Indeed many have credited the moderation of the initial reconstruction with ensuring that there was no organized guerilla warfare after Appomattox. These are two lessons that Newt Gingrich and all others in the Bush administration would do well to remember. We're the situation we're in Iraq precisely because Republicans and Democrats in their rush to have a Splendid little war neglected reality in favor ideological hubris. Two, Newt is wrong in that we must understand our enemies and there may be times when we accomodate them. You don't beat an insurgency by rolling tanks down Mainstreet. You do it by making politics work something that so far we've been unable to do either here or abroad.

I also take issue with the fact that Newt wants an "metrics-based performance...system". As a God fearing American I take issue any system developed by the French and demand the institution of standard (feet and inches) based system and call this notion a dangerous attempt to undermine the very liberty we seek to protect abroad, namely by bombing people.

To be honest what I take issue with is people rabble rousing and thinking that platitudes are adequate substitutes for actual analysis. It reminds me of the commercials from GTA. In one a man promises a get rich quick scheme and a seminar. A woman stands up and says,

"I can't feed my kids and..." where she is promptly cut off by his reply of,

"Whoa! Hold on bitch, what do you mean the USA isn't the greatest country in the world?".

"Come folks say it, 'USA', 'USA'"

This is the new rhetorical framework for the Iraq war. The second issues are raised then we're asked, "why do you hate freedom?"

If Newt is proposing all out war such as Lincoln imposed he must then supporting a reinstitution of the draft and rationing. Garrison Keillor touched on it in his column and noted correctly that if that was the case then the "Current Occupant" would ahve ratings in the low teens. I would be curious to know if come '08 and a democrat is in the White House if Newt will still be supporting greater executive power?

Even the prime Minister of Iraq has gotten in on the action with a guest column in WSJ and states,

"It took a Civil War for America to become a beacon of liberty. Nobody should expect it to be easy in Iraq"

The problem with this version of using the American Civil War analogy is that it fundamentally skews the issues and undermines itself in the process. Maliki informs us,

"As your country was fighting that great contest over its unity and future, Iraq was a province of an Ottoman empire steeped in backwardness and ignorance. A half a century later, the British began an occupation of Iraq and drew the borders of contemporary Iraq as we know them today"

In those two sentences he dooms his analogy and here's why. Iraq, unlike America was not "conceived and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". It was conceived of imperial ignorance, first by the Turks and then by the British.

For all of the rhetoric over the future of Iraq as either a Unitary or Federalized state this is not fueling the insurgency or to be more accurate the insurgencies.

It is a far more complicated situation than any one of the commentariat listed here have spoken of when they blithely decided to pull a sentimental cord to recall a time when a total 5% of the American population died in a four year period so that this nation would not perish from the earth. It it only right and fitting that we discuss the American Civil War, and even in context of current events, but let us be honest in our remembrance of things past and honest in our view of things present so that we may be well and truly ready for whatever the future may bring.

P.S.
A note on reliance of Wikipedia in these last two posts. I would like to state emphatically that Wikipedia is only being used for convenience and should not be viewed as a totally reliable source (obviously) but due to the fact that all of my old books now reside in my parents house I was unable to reach them for reference and found this much more expedient.