HankMorgan
8th October 2003, 04:35
By Herb Meyer
Okay, it's time to say out loud what a lot of us who support the war
on terrorism have been saying among ourselves: President Bush is doing
a great job fighting the war but a lousy job explaining it. And his
inability to explain this war in a convincing, persuasive way is starting
to erode support among Republicans and, worse, starting to give Democrats
and foreigners who want us to lose this war yes, that really is what
they want the kind of ammunition they need to gain traction.
Actually, there is nothing wrong with what the president says. If you sit
quietly and read the text of his various speeches they all make perfect
sense. The problem is that President Bush keeps shifting his explanations
one day focusing on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as the reason we
knocked over Saddam Hussein, the next day saying we did it to liberate the
Iraqis. That makes it sound like he's improvising, like he's concocting
whatever explanation he thinks will work for whatever audience he's
talking to. Listeners pick up on that supporters as well as opponents
and they don't like it. Moreover, the president's delivery isn't always
effective. For instance, on his recent Sunday evening talk-to-the-nation
he sounded tired and woefully unconvincing.
So be it. Very few of our wartime presidents have had the combination of
skills to both fight a war successfully and also explain it clearly and,
alas, President Bush doesn't seem to be among them. Personally, I love the
guy and would crawl through machine-gun fire for him. But to put it bluntly,
there is a difference between landing on the Abraham Lincoln and being
Abraham Lincoln.
In the last few months I've been traveling around the country talking to
groups of business executives, college students, and just plain Americans.
To be sure, some oppose the war; their minds are made up and there is nothing
anyone can say, let alone the president, that will win their support. But
the overwhelming majority of Americans I meet want an explanation of what
this war is about that they can understand, that makes sense to them, that
they can explain to others, and that they can hold on to as events unfold.
Here's my best shot at it, and it seems to work with the audiences I talk
to. If you can improve on my way of explaining what this war is about, by
all means go ahead. (And send your text to me, please.) Otherwise, try this
out on your audiences, or perhaps just your family and friends, and see if
it doesn't help them understand:
WHY INSTABILITY IS DANGEROUS
This war is about stability, and the point we all need to keep in mind is
this: When the world becomes unstable, sooner or later a lot of Americans
get hurt. So our national objective is the restoration of global stability.
Let's get beyond today's partisanship by looking at an earlier episode in
our history. World War II actually began overseas. Japan had invaded
Manchuria, Italy had attacked Ethiopia, and Germany had unleashed its
blitzkrieg against Poland. In short, the world had become very unstable,
very quickly. All we wanted was to stay out of it. But on December 7, 1941,
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. We had no choice but to get involved. And what
we said, in effect, was this: "Look, what all these Axis powers have in
common is that they are destabilizing the world. And they will keep
destabilizing the world until they are removed from power and stability
restored. Perhaps we should have acted sooner to stop the rot. But we
didn't, and now we've paid the price. What's the difference which one of
the Axis powers hit us? They all want to see us destroyed. Okay, so it
was Japan that carried out the first attack on our homeland, not Italy
or Germany. But it would be foolish to go to war against Japan, win it,
and then come home and wait for Germany or Italy to strike. So, since
we've got to gear up and go into action, let's do it right and get 'em all."
What we did not do in the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack was start
arguing like a bunch of talking heads on cable television. We didn't
waste our time trying to prove whether the Italian ambassador in Tokyo
knew about the attack before it happened, or whether the Luftwaffe
provided any training to Japan's bomber pilots. It didn't matter. We
understood the Axis powers all shared the same objective to destroy
Western Civilization, including us so the only sensible thing to do was
to go after them all. And we did. In the event Italy fell first, Germany
second and Japan which actually hit us fell last. So what. When the
shooting stopped, all three murderous regimes were gone. And we then spent
years and literally a fortune helping to rebuild those countries indeed,
to restructure their societies to assure that instability would be unlikely
to return.
Now let's fast forward, past the Cold War, to the 1990s. During this decade
the world once again became unstable. Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iraq
under Saddam Hussein, and Iran under the mullahs started causing trouble
wherever they could, and giving refuge and support to terrorist groups
including al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. These groups, and
others like them, grew stronger and bolder every year. North Korea began
literally starving its population to fund a nuclear-weapons program. Yasser
Arafat's PLO strapped bombs to children and launched its Intifada against
Israel.
A HOLIDAY FROM HISTORY
We let it all go on, and on. Indeed, during the 1990s we Americans took a
holiday from history. We prospered as the economic boom, ignited by the
1980s tax cuts, took hold; we played with our new electronic toys; we twice
elected as president a man who saw the Oval Office as a chick magnet and
all the while we blithely ignored the key lesson of World War II: that global
instability spreads unless checked by military force, and that unchecked
instability sooner or later, in one way or another, hits us at home.
Our holiday from history ended catastrophically on 9/11. We had no choice but
to gear up and get going. Just as in World War II, it doesn't matter which
of the creeps actually hit us, or whether those creeps were acting alone
that day or working with the other creeps. We need to "get 'em all" because
they all share the same objective which is to destroy Western civilization,
including us. And just as we did in World War II, we will need not only to
remove these regimes, but also to work towards restructuring their societies
so they are likely to be stable in the future.
It isn't possible to know how long this will take, or how much it will cost
in terms of lives and money. It took four years to defeat the fascists and
Nazis in World War II, and more than 40 years to win the Cold War. And by
the way, after World War II ended it took five years to organize elections
in Germany and six years in Japan both of which were more stable societies
than today's Iraq. Moreover, the course of war is never predictable, and
history teaches that the costs escalate as victory looms; rising casualties,
and rising taxes, more often are signs of progress rather than setbacks.
No one is suggesting a wartime moratorium on politics. By all means let the
Democrats tell us how they propose to restore global stability more quickly
and at a lower cost, in terms of lives and money, than the president is doing.
Indeed, since the Democrats pride themselves on their expertise at government,
surely they ought to have some useful suggestions for instance, on how
Iraq's new civil society should be shaped, or how Afghanistan's President
Karzai can get a grip on things beyond the city limits of Kabul. (Indeed,
if any Democrat or any Frenchman, for that matter has made a useful
suggestion along these lines, I sure haven't heard it.) By all means make
the president defend his approach versus theirs. And let next year's election
turn on which candidate the voters judge will restore global stability sooner
and at a lower cost.
But as we move into the 2004 election cycle (and the next UN General Assembly
session) let's agree that in a world with weapons of mass destruction that can
fit into a briefcase or a cruise-missile warhead, and be delivered anywhere
on earth in minutes, our tolerance for global instability must be very, very
low. And that, should we ignore this lesson of history a third time, it may
well be our last.
Okay, it's time to say out loud what a lot of us who support the war
on terrorism have been saying among ourselves: President Bush is doing
a great job fighting the war but a lousy job explaining it. And his
inability to explain this war in a convincing, persuasive way is starting
to erode support among Republicans and, worse, starting to give Democrats
and foreigners who want us to lose this war yes, that really is what
they want the kind of ammunition they need to gain traction.
Actually, there is nothing wrong with what the president says. If you sit
quietly and read the text of his various speeches they all make perfect
sense. The problem is that President Bush keeps shifting his explanations
one day focusing on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as the reason we
knocked over Saddam Hussein, the next day saying we did it to liberate the
Iraqis. That makes it sound like he's improvising, like he's concocting
whatever explanation he thinks will work for whatever audience he's
talking to. Listeners pick up on that supporters as well as opponents
and they don't like it. Moreover, the president's delivery isn't always
effective. For instance, on his recent Sunday evening talk-to-the-nation
he sounded tired and woefully unconvincing.
So be it. Very few of our wartime presidents have had the combination of
skills to both fight a war successfully and also explain it clearly and,
alas, President Bush doesn't seem to be among them. Personally, I love the
guy and would crawl through machine-gun fire for him. But to put it bluntly,
there is a difference between landing on the Abraham Lincoln and being
Abraham Lincoln.
In the last few months I've been traveling around the country talking to
groups of business executives, college students, and just plain Americans.
To be sure, some oppose the war; their minds are made up and there is nothing
anyone can say, let alone the president, that will win their support. But
the overwhelming majority of Americans I meet want an explanation of what
this war is about that they can understand, that makes sense to them, that
they can explain to others, and that they can hold on to as events unfold.
Here's my best shot at it, and it seems to work with the audiences I talk
to. If you can improve on my way of explaining what this war is about, by
all means go ahead. (And send your text to me, please.) Otherwise, try this
out on your audiences, or perhaps just your family and friends, and see if
it doesn't help them understand:
WHY INSTABILITY IS DANGEROUS
This war is about stability, and the point we all need to keep in mind is
this: When the world becomes unstable, sooner or later a lot of Americans
get hurt. So our national objective is the restoration of global stability.
Let's get beyond today's partisanship by looking at an earlier episode in
our history. World War II actually began overseas. Japan had invaded
Manchuria, Italy had attacked Ethiopia, and Germany had unleashed its
blitzkrieg against Poland. In short, the world had become very unstable,
very quickly. All we wanted was to stay out of it. But on December 7, 1941,
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. We had no choice but to get involved. And what
we said, in effect, was this: "Look, what all these Axis powers have in
common is that they are destabilizing the world. And they will keep
destabilizing the world until they are removed from power and stability
restored. Perhaps we should have acted sooner to stop the rot. But we
didn't, and now we've paid the price. What's the difference which one of
the Axis powers hit us? They all want to see us destroyed. Okay, so it
was Japan that carried out the first attack on our homeland, not Italy
or Germany. But it would be foolish to go to war against Japan, win it,
and then come home and wait for Germany or Italy to strike. So, since
we've got to gear up and go into action, let's do it right and get 'em all."
What we did not do in the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack was start
arguing like a bunch of talking heads on cable television. We didn't
waste our time trying to prove whether the Italian ambassador in Tokyo
knew about the attack before it happened, or whether the Luftwaffe
provided any training to Japan's bomber pilots. It didn't matter. We
understood the Axis powers all shared the same objective to destroy
Western Civilization, including us so the only sensible thing to do was
to go after them all. And we did. In the event Italy fell first, Germany
second and Japan which actually hit us fell last. So what. When the
shooting stopped, all three murderous regimes were gone. And we then spent
years and literally a fortune helping to rebuild those countries indeed,
to restructure their societies to assure that instability would be unlikely
to return.
Now let's fast forward, past the Cold War, to the 1990s. During this decade
the world once again became unstable. Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iraq
under Saddam Hussein, and Iran under the mullahs started causing trouble
wherever they could, and giving refuge and support to terrorist groups
including al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. These groups, and
others like them, grew stronger and bolder every year. North Korea began
literally starving its population to fund a nuclear-weapons program. Yasser
Arafat's PLO strapped bombs to children and launched its Intifada against
Israel.
A HOLIDAY FROM HISTORY
We let it all go on, and on. Indeed, during the 1990s we Americans took a
holiday from history. We prospered as the economic boom, ignited by the
1980s tax cuts, took hold; we played with our new electronic toys; we twice
elected as president a man who saw the Oval Office as a chick magnet and
all the while we blithely ignored the key lesson of World War II: that global
instability spreads unless checked by military force, and that unchecked
instability sooner or later, in one way or another, hits us at home.
Our holiday from history ended catastrophically on 9/11. We had no choice but
to gear up and get going. Just as in World War II, it doesn't matter which
of the creeps actually hit us, or whether those creeps were acting alone
that day or working with the other creeps. We need to "get 'em all" because
they all share the same objective which is to destroy Western civilization,
including us. And just as we did in World War II, we will need not only to
remove these regimes, but also to work towards restructuring their societies
so they are likely to be stable in the future.
It isn't possible to know how long this will take, or how much it will cost
in terms of lives and money. It took four years to defeat the fascists and
Nazis in World War II, and more than 40 years to win the Cold War. And by
the way, after World War II ended it took five years to organize elections
in Germany and six years in Japan both of which were more stable societies
than today's Iraq. Moreover, the course of war is never predictable, and
history teaches that the costs escalate as victory looms; rising casualties,
and rising taxes, more often are signs of progress rather than setbacks.
No one is suggesting a wartime moratorium on politics. By all means let the
Democrats tell us how they propose to restore global stability more quickly
and at a lower cost, in terms of lives and money, than the president is doing.
Indeed, since the Democrats pride themselves on their expertise at government,
surely they ought to have some useful suggestions for instance, on how
Iraq's new civil society should be shaped, or how Afghanistan's President
Karzai can get a grip on things beyond the city limits of Kabul. (Indeed,
if any Democrat or any Frenchman, for that matter has made a useful
suggestion along these lines, I sure haven't heard it.) By all means make
the president defend his approach versus theirs. And let next year's election
turn on which candidate the voters judge will restore global stability sooner
and at a lower cost.
But as we move into the 2004 election cycle (and the next UN General Assembly
session) let's agree that in a world with weapons of mass destruction that can
fit into a briefcase or a cruise-missile warhead, and be delivered anywhere
on earth in minutes, our tolerance for global instability must be very, very
low. And that, should we ignore this lesson of history a third time, it may
well be our last.