Lessons of History

In the President's speech the other night was a quote from a 1946 article in the New York Times. His use of the quote implied that his handling of Iraq was somehow just as able as post-WWII reconstruction, while launching a swipe at that favorite right-wing boogie-man, the liberal media. I've been wanting to look up the source of that quote, but Maureen Dowd beat me to it in this morning's New York Times.

Reading the original source article is fascinating. The article is long, detailed, and obviously the work of someone who'd gone out and looked at things herself, and was telling the reader what she had seen. The article also paints a vivid picture of postwar Germany, before the Marshall Plan. A snapshot from 1946 is quite informative. (W. made no mention of the Marshall Plan Thursday.)

Finally, it's instructive to read the article to see the bits that the President left out. The sentences he read as one paragraph are pulled from several paragraphs of the original article, changing their combined meaning. (I don't know what the rules were at Yale, but I think I could have been thrown out of Brown for that.) More, whole passages that might reflect quite badly on the handling of Iraq, and undermine his position on its "success", were ignored entirely. Bush selectively quoted the journalist, Anne O'Hare McCormick, to ridicule the press, while implying that he was right. As Maureen Dowd puts it, he Swift-Boated her.

Bush said:

"In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to Allied forces, a journalist in The New York Times wrote this: 'Germany is a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. European capitals are frightened. In every military headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed.' End quote. Maybe that same person's still around, writing editorials."

Anne O'Hare McCormick actually wrote (I'll highlight the Bush extracts):

"Germany is a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. All the peoples of Europe are suffering in ways the United States, despite its grave internal problems, cannot possibly envisage. The misery and despair prevailing over large areas of this continent are beyond American experience or imagination. Conditions are worse than last year, even when they appear better, as in France and the Low Countries, because there is less hope. The prolonged emergency tells everybody that the basic elements of recovery and peace are lacking.

The universal fear is of complete breakdown of what is left of the European system. The prime cause of this disaster is Germany, and there is no danger that the guilt of the war makers – a guilt that seems greater as the unending consequences of the war are faced – is or will be forgotten. Most European nations, France in particular, would willingly see Germany submerged if they could avoid sinking with it. All are enduring too much themselves to spare much sympathy for Germany's agony. Were it not for the painful discovery of the extent to which the continental economy depends on Germany, the German question wouldn't be the over shadowing concern it has become in every capital.

These capitals are frightened by the prospect of a German collapse. The military governments, at least in the western zones, are frightened. In every headquarters one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed."

So, the article that the President uses as an example of how those timid, silly journalists get it wrong, with the implication that we should ignore those in the press criticizing him, is actually a piece that shows more awareness of human suffering, and the complications of solving real-world foreign policy problems, than anything we hear from the White House.

The concluding section of the article, which we didn't hear on Thursday:

"...the military authorities are not afraid of risings or violence against the occupying forces. The population as a whole is still remarkably docile and resigned. What they resent most is the requisition of housing and the increasing number of the displaced. Bread riots and demonstrations of the unemployed are expected this winter, but that isn't the chief fear. The real dread is of economic and social breakdown, which will make Germany a dead weight the occupation forces cannot carry. This is the fear of the German administration in our zone, not because in such event their own position will be highly dangerous but because nothing will be left to build on."

So, in 1946, officials were able to admit that the occupation policies had failed BEFORE there were any risings or violence against the occupying forces, and were doing their utmost to PREVENT economic and social breakdown. It would not only ruin the chances for Germans themselves to rebuild, it would bring Europe down with it. The collapse of Germany into chaos was the fear in every capital, the number one thing to be avoided. Sadly, this was a lesson W. didn't take to Iraq.

Mr. Bush went on to say:

"Fortunately, we had a resolute president named Truman who, with the American people, persevered, knowing that a new democracy at the center of Europe would lead to stability and peace. And because that generation of Americans held firm in the cause of liberty, we live in a better and safer world today."

Here I lost his point entirely. Because we had a Democratic President, who instituted a huge governmental program, the Marshall Plan, either as a means of repairing the European economy, or our own (depending on your historian), we live in a better and safer world today.

Rather than a "resolute" attachment to existing 1946 policies, a multi-billion dollar effort extending over four years was required, started in 1948. And, as the Marshall Foundation says, it "worked because it was aimed at aiding a well-educated, industrialized people temporarily down but not out." Which suggests that it would take even more to succeed with Iraq, and still more with Afghanistan (remember them?), countries without Western philosophical traditions, social structures or economies. Was that what President Bush was proposing? Of course not.

More deception. Will it never stop?