The Reactionary Utopian

Listening to Ourselves

September 6, 2007

Four years ago, President Bush enjoyed overwhelming popular support for war on Iraq. Saddam Hussein had something to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; he had, “no doubt,” weapons of mass destruction, probably nuclear, that threatened the entire Western world; after his overthrow, democracy would erupt contagiously throughout the Middle East; and the risks of inaction were greater than the risks of action. Saddam was quickly routed, his sons were killed, he was captured and eventually hanged.

Today's column is "Listening to
Ourselves" -- Read Joe's columns the day he writes them.

The exultant theme was “Mission Accomplished.” Bush won reelection.

But somehow the war continued. Somehow victory was incomplete. Europe and indeed most of the world opposed the war. Still, after two years, optimism persisted. National Review ran a cover story assuring us that “We’re Winning!”; Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard wrote that the invasion of Iraq was “the greatest act of benevolence one nation has ever performed for another.”

Over the next two years, though, most Americans soured on the war; most Iraqis wanted the American troops to leave. The optimists became a defensive and desperate minority. The Democrats recaptured both houses of Congress. Republicans shunned association with Bush; many were, and are, edging away from their former support. The Iraq war had become the worst disaster since Vietnam.

Even Bush, the archoptimist, has had to change his tune. He assured the American public that a “troop surge” would reverse recent misfortunes; and a few days ago he surprisingly embraced the Vietnam parallel — not to admit his folly, of course, but to warn us of the horrifying consequences of another American defeat: massacres, refugees, tyranny.

Other apologists for the war insist that the surge is making “progress,” or at least proving, in the words of former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, that “progress is possible.” These claims are always made in the vaguest terms: the surge has made “significant progress” or shown “significant results.” (Or “positive results.”)

But notice that the optimists have long since stopped talking about “victory”; Gerson is honest enough to admit that in Iraq, a U.S. victory isn’t even “definable.” The world hasn’t heard such evasiveness since, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Emperor Hirohito announced to his people that “certain developments have occurred which are not necessarily favorable to Japan.” We have gone from “Mission Accomplished” to “Progress Is Possible.” And instead of golden promises of the fruits of victory, Bush is reduced to warning of what could happen if we lose.

[Breaker quote for Listening to Ourselves: From

[Breaker quote for Listening to Ourselves: From

If? Speaking of Japan, Bush reminds one of the aging Japanese soldiers we used to discover on isolated Pacific islands even in the 1970s, still ready to fight for their emperor, because they didn’t know the war had ended decades earlier. The parallel isn’t perfect: Bush himself is our emperor, even if he seems as out of touch as those poor soldiers. And Hirohito had the sense to know when he was licked.

Will Bush really be insane enough to attack Iran, as his neoconservative courtiers want him to do? Probably. His self-righteousness, which he calls “resolution,” knows no limits, and the Democrats, for all their whining about the Iraq war, are in thrall to the pro-war Israel lobby and won’t try to stop him, especially since he, not they, will take the heat for it.

It seems impossible, until you try to imagine an alternative. Remember, with his Truman Complex Bush is convinced that history will vindicate him. Nothing will persuade him otherwise. He is like a man with magical powers who knows he must use them before the spell expires at midnight.

Now, like cats burying their turds, such brainy fellows as Christopher Hitchens and George Will are doing their best to make us forget they originally favored invading Iraq. Both have adopted the simple strategy of changing the subject. Hitchens now prefers to parade his aggressive atheism (he blames religion for, among other evils, war!); Will argues that, after all, war is sometimes necessary (he cites World War II, on the assumption that nobody can argue with that; beg to differ).

I am mildly curious to see how these brave highbrows will address an aggressive war on Iran. Of course nobody is proposing that they take up arms to serve their country themselves, any more than that they fight poverty by going to Calcutta to wash the sores of beggars with their own hands. Still, I’m curious.

Joseph Sobran

Send this article to a friend.

Archive Table of Contents

Current Column

Return to the SOBRAN’S home page.