Truth over Correctness
Useful Links
Leftism
Liberalism
Liberal Elite
THE AEGIS ARCHIVES
Neo-Cons
Conservatism
Paleo-Conservatism
SHAKESPEARE AND SEMANTICS
By Joan Heathrow
i dunno much about shakespeare. in fact, the only plays i read were back in highschool--romeo and julius caesar. i've seen a bunch of movies which i like very much--throne of blood, chimes at midnight, othello, macbeth--by welles and polanski, titus, etc.
anyway... i'm not sure but was it in a shakespeare play where someone said 'kill the all the lawyers'? now, excuse me for my ignorance but why did someone say this--if indeed this was said in a shakespeare play?
allow me to speculate--though i'm probably wrong--but was it cuz lawyers toy with words and twist meaning? and, in a way, was shakespeare admitting he was doing as much? or was he claiming to expose how the world is compromised and deceptive because the only reality we can know is thru words. and words can always be toyed with. lawyers--and artists--have special knowledge and skills of expression, but, often, instead of using this skill to gain truth, they use it to obfuscate truth and squeeze out new meanings which create newly mutated realities which may not be real at all. but, as long as we keep create castles in the air with words, we believe in this illusory reality. indeed, while castles in the air may not last in the physical world, they surely have a long lifespan in the mental world. actually, a longer lifespan. how many actual kingdoms have risen and fallen, yet the castle of heavenly bliss created by jesus is still going strong. and muslims who believed in a heaven with 70 virgins brought down the twin towers.
i got his funny feeling while watching polanski's macbeth on dvd. macbeth is told he is safe as long as the forest doesn't move and as long as he doesn't meet a man not born of a woman. now, at face value, we know forests can't move and we know all men are born of women. but, macbeth's hopes are trumped not by actual forests moving or an actual man not born of woman. it's really a matter of wordplay and interpretation. it's semantics. it's a lawyer's trick with words. technically, the forest can have said to move cuz the men carrried woods on their backs. technically, macbeth's foe was not born of a woman cuz he didn't actually squeeze out of his ma's poon. it all depends on how you define 'woman'. it's like bill clinton asking for the meaning of 'is' or defending himself by saying 'oral sex' wasn't really sex. he certainly was a great lawyer. and, now we have the same sort of word games with the bush administration regarding iraq. what, no weapons of mass destruction? but, hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction. torture? no, just tough interrogation.
so, macbeth starts from inside the bowels of lust and power in man but ends in a duel of wits as well as swords. it's not enough to win the war of weapons but the war of the words.
so, was shakespeare kinda going wink wink with 'kill all the lawyers'? was he saying he was a master of the same game? that drama is like artistic legal shenanigans? in a way, could one say all drama is like a courtroom? no wonder courtroom dramas are so popular, from perry mason to la law.
so far, the president has been strong and adamant about what must be done in iraq. but, he's mostly spoken to americans and world leaders. to my knowledge, he hasn't yet spoken directly to the iraqi people. at this juncture, i believe it is crucial that bush must talk to the iraqi people(via tv while visiting the middle east, as he periodically addresses the american people).
while this war may be good or bad for americans, america will still be america no matter what happens in iraq. whether iraq ends up in civil war or becomes a haven for terrorists, america will go on as usual. american image may suffer in the eyes of the world but that too can be corrected by a new administration which discards the bush doctrine and charts a new course. and, though american soldiers have paid a high price, iraqis have paid a much higher price in terms of body counts. america has itself been unscathed by the iraq war. in fact, most of us ignore it.
iraq is very important to US foreign policy but it is not a do-or-die situation for the US or for americans. most of us will go on as always. it will be essentially a psychological issue if things go badly in iraq. but, for iraqis, it's a do-or-die situation. what happens in iraq in the coming months and years will determine the fate of iraqis. if bush needs to reach out and talk to any people, it is the iraqis themselves. now, this is very risky but it must be done. it is crucial because despite the low approval ratings, most americans still support the troops if not bush's handling of the war. but, whether americans support bush or the troops is not the key determining issue in iraq. it's what iraqis think and do themselves. the fate of iraq is now in the hands of the iraqis. sunnis, shias, kurds, and others. those who welcomed us, those who resent us, those who hate, those who fear and loathe us. no matter how much we support the troops or no matter how much bush pleads for unity amongst the american people, the crucial issue is what iraqis do. and, this will be the product of how iraqis feel and think. and, bush must outline to the iraqis themselves what our goals have been and what the iraqis can do to chart a better future. it is war on their soil and iraqis are the ones who have paid the highest price.
it's also a moral duty for bush to speak to the iraqi people. america invaded iraq and changed its course of history. the 1990 gulf war set the foundation of iraq history for the next 13 yrs. sanctions hurt countless civilian iraqis. one estimate puts the dead from disease and malnutrition at over 300,000. also, while US severely hurt the iraqi economy, saddam hussein stayed in power. though US guaranteed security for kurds and shiites, those people lived in fear that the old way under hussein would return. and, in the war, despite our best intentions and caution, many civilians were killed, including women and children. and in the war against insurgents, civilian casualties were unavoidable. and 1000s of iraqis signing up for the police and army have also paid with their lives. iraq has also seen much social strife involving religious, ethnic, and social issues. all these are the result of the american invasion, and the invasion was bush's policy. bush must explain to the iraqi people--especially before the election--what is really at stake.
many iraqis and many in the arab world will be hostile to bush's speech. but, it's necessary in order to persuade iraqis that this is ultimately not about america but about iraq. so far, bush has said we're fighting in iraq because we don't wanna the war against terror to come over to america. to iraqis, this just sounds selfish, petty, and callous. the idea that iraqis died in the tens of thousands and are still dying everyday just because americans can sleep safe and sound understandably rubs iraqis--who have faced murder, kidnapping, shortages, joblessness, violence, etc. everyday--the wrong way. with japan or germany, the US president didn't need to explain the aims of the war. they were the clear aggressors and also their surrender was total. but, we were the aggressors--albeit as liberators--in iraq and we said this was for the good of the iraqis. then, isn't it reasonable that the man who so drastically changed the course of iraqi history should explain directly to the iraqis why this war took place, why americans are still there, why and how we are expecting iraqis to shoulder the burden for a better tomorrow. this war has had a great impact on americans but it totally changed the course of history for all iraqis. iraqis have most to gain or lose from this war. indeed, many have lost relatives in the conflict, from US attacks and from sectarian battles and terrorism.
bush's speech must be sober and must acknowledge the scope of this war, from its achievements, its hopes, and its heroism to its destruction, violence, and ill-effects. bush musn't be apologetic but he must appear the address the truth of this war. instead of cosmetizing it, he must discuss it as a real historical event with real people, real achievements, real danger, and real deaths. he must be 'acknowledgetic' than apologetic. bush has appeared cocksure, inflexible, and formulaic thus far. he seems to be repeating the same words over and over. its effect is wearing off on americans who hear the same rhetoric but see little in the way of progress. but, for most americans, the war is far away. most americans can tune it off and watch oprah or jimmy kimmel or play videogames or attend sporting events.
for iraqis, bush's speeches to americans have sounded irrelevant to them. also, the speeches seem to have ignored iraqis as though they don't really exist as people. they have been bearing the most burden in terms of violence and death and internal conflict but bush has only addressed issues that mean something to americans. the iraqi people don't feel like they are part of this process, of history. they feel helpless, as though real power is only in the hands of bush and US and iraqi government--hopelessly corrupt. iraqi people must feel as though they matter. indeed, that in the democratic process, that they matter MOST OF ALL.
if this speech succeeds, bush can fashion a new image for himself in the world community. not as some know-it-all cowboy but someone engaged politically and emotionally with world affairs. alot of people around the world felt clinton cared about what they thought. of course, clinton didn't care any more or less than bush. but, clinton made it seem as though his ears were open; his heart too. bush has not gotten this feeling across. he comes across as too cocksure, rigid, gungho. most people around the world are uncomfortable with american cowboy individualism. they like it in movies but not in politics. i believe bush can be both tough AND sensitive, at least in the international perception. and, the real key to achieving this is not to speak to european leaders or allies. it's to speak to the people of iraq who have beared the brunt of this conflict. whether for or against the war, the iraqi people--men, women, and children and gramps--are now caught in a historical hurricane. whether US war was justified or not, US is the reason for the events and developments now in iraq. if bush must explain himself to anyone, it's to the iraqi people. just as bush needed to connect with the people of new orleans after katrina--something he failed at--bush needs to connect with iraqis. no matter what the risk, bush must try. if for nothing else, he owes it to iraqis whose lives he has changed so drastically and inexorably. he must explain that it was done for noble causes. iraqi people will hopefully see the contrast between an open-hearted and candid president of US and hussein who remains defiant and totally remorseless and shrill.
what the speech can accomplish is to boost the morale of iraqis. iraqis might feel more empowered if they are told that this is really about them. bush isn't there to tell them what to do or shove something up their arse. bush is there to allow freedom in iraq so that iraqis can forge a new future. we keep saying we must iraq-ize the war but how can we do this unless the the man really in charge--bush--doesn't engage the iraqis directly and tell them that they are in power? that this is a great opportunity that they mustn't miss. that US is there to help and if iraqi people will join together to defeat the terrorists and saddam loyalists who want to bring back the old ways, the future of iraq is for iraqis to decide. if bush only seems engaged with iraqi leaders--many of whom are not even respected by iraqi people--and with the military and foreign nations, iraqi people will feel powerless, invisible, ignored, and left out. even if they oppose terrorism, they will feel it's beyond their power. they will feel the real fate of iraq is in the hands of bigshots and international politics. this psychological reality may actually drive many toward insurgency because it may seem that the only way an ordinary person can express himself in an effective--albeit evil--way is by blowing things up. just as the poor during the great depression sympathized with bonnie and clyde--a couple that seemed effective against the powerful rich--, iraqis may see the insurgency as the only populist channel of expression in iraq. this isn't only a political war but a psychological war. will bush repeat the same formulas over and over to tired americans or will he say something heartfelt, realistic, candid, and acknowledgetic to the iraqi people?
in south vietnam, we never won the imagination of the people and we lost the war. in china, we only supported the corrupt nationalists and didn't focus on the people. after WWII, US should have connected with the chinese people. then chinese communist revolution, korean war, and vietnam war would all have been prevented. but, US only dealt with bigshots like chiang. in iraq, of course, we must deal foremost with iraqi leaders. but when the government is weak, there has to be a populist sense of hope, empowerment, shared destiny, and confidence. when an iraqi leader addresses the iraqis, the iraqis see either a US puppet, a corrupt jerk, inept fool, or whatever. they don't feel like they are listening to the words of a big kahuna. also, no iraqi leader can appeal to all iraqis due to ethnic divisions. but, bush--whether iraqis like him or hate him--will be seen as a REAL leader with REAL power. also, he will be seen as someone without particular factional loyalties.
in asia, US power is welcomed by taiwan and south koreans and japanese because they don't see US power as necessarily favoring one or the other. US power is real but it plays a referee role. america's neutrality is seen as advantageous to all. if bush speaks to the iraqis, he'll be seen as a neutral and powerful voice. a man of real power and man capable of fairness--at least more than a leader of kurdish, sunni, or shiite background. bush must emphasize his neutrality. one of the reasons why US has a bad rep in the region is because we seem so much more partial to israel than to the palestinians.
above all, bush must come across as someone iraqis can take seriously. i doubt if we can expect iraqis to trust, love, or admire bush. but, if bush speaks seriously and sincerely, he can earn respect. even amongst enemies, there are those you respect and those you don't. bush must speak to iraqis in a way that seems surprising in the arab world. arab leaders never admit mistakes. hussein made himself god-king. while bush should come across as tough and resolute, he should also come across as a man of humility and reflection. a man capable of admitting mistakes and trying hard everyday to rectify the mistakes and misjudgments. for example, have bush mention abu gharib. have him even recount some of the details of the abuse of prisoners. bush should speak as though he has nothing to hide and wants to hide nothing. he must say part of democracy is getting to the truth. to admit mistakes. bush must say democracy is not a utopia but an ongoing process. democracy is like jihad in the spiritual sense of the word. a constant and daily struggle by politicians, bureaucrats, and most importantly the people themselves to clean up government, improve government, hang out the dirty laundry, discuss and wash the dirty laundry, and etc. there is no end to this process. it's the busiest political process in the world. democracy sometimes seems dirtier than dictatorships because the dirt is not swept under the rug but dusted and aired in public so it can be properly disposed of. and there's more dirt and the struggle goes on and on. indeed, democracy is more challenging and difficult than a dictatorship where you only need to follow orders blindly. but, the rewards of democracy is greater than the rewards of any dictatorship.
he must say america never was, isn't, and never will be a perfect nation. what makes US great is we engage in democracy everyday. in fact, the revelation of abu gharib in the US press is about democracy. the debate in the US about iraq and other issues is part of democracy. so, yes, US will admit mistakes and take the blame for its failures in iraq. bush must candidly discuss abu gharib and how US didn't do enough to control the social chaos unleashed by liberation. bush must say he understands the pain and frustration of everyone whose properties were looted. and bush must say that despite the best efforts of US, many iraqi civilians have died. he must say it pains him to call the families of the dead american soldiers. he can only imagine how iraqis have suffered as a result of the violence in this struggle. he must say he understands that much of the responsibility of this falls on his shoulders. he must admit all this to be true. he must honor the iraqis for having paid a great price for this freedom. and, bush must say that US troops couldn't have done it without the help of iraqis who rose up as US forces moved in. bush must mention how iraqis greeted the fall of hussein. bush must say how these people are still working bravely to carry forward the democratic ideal. bush must employ a compassionate neoconservatism.
bush must say we have alot to learn from iraqis. some say it's only about oil but we admire iraq's culture and history, the genius and strength of its people. the courage, stamina, and dignity of iraqis. the culture and values that flowed out of iraq since ancient times. and despite the nightmare of hussein's rule, iraq will again play a grand and important role in the region and in world affairs. yes, hussein was merely a drop in the bucket in the real rich history of iraq. people of the iraq region have done great things throughout the ages, and now without hussein, iraq will become a front-rank nation amongst nations. bush must dicuss iraq not only in terms of its economy and politics but in terms of its culture. bush must mention the greatness of iraq in the ancient times, its contributions, its role as the cradle of civilization. its accomplishments under islam, its advance into modernity in the 20th century. how iraq is about its people but how hussein usurped the authority from the people and ruled it as his private fiefdom with himself as god. bush must say the world is waiting for a new iraq which will take from the best of ancient and traditional heritage, which will adopt the ideas from rest of the world. bush must call iraqis a creative people. that iraqis are capable of great things. the era of ottoman imperialism ended. so did the era of european imperialism. US was there not to stay but to help topple a man who held the iraqis from fulfilling their true national and cultural destiny. US will not stay. whatever US does will ultimately pale to what iraqis do themselves. iraqis will determine the future by elections, by discussion, by peace, by mutual understanding, by sharing, by forgiving, and looking forward. looking forward at what ALL iraqis have to gain by working and living together. iraq is poised to be the key nation in the region. its history, geography, resources, and its greatest asset--its people--have destined greatness for the people.
bush must also be candid and say that he has tried to change the way americans deal with the region. he must admit that the main rule had been realpolitik. how US and other nations--europe, middle east, russia--had seen iraq with a cold eye, shaping policy and diplomacy solely on political grounds; indeed, many still see it that way. many say iraqis are undeserving of freedom, incapable of self-rule; that it's better to have a strong leader to keep the iraqis in order like cattle than have iraqis chart their own future. the realpolitik folks would choose stability in iraq under hussein no matter how many were killed or oppressed than allow iraqis to experiment with freedom and shape their own futures based on free will and liberty and personal conscience.
bush must say when hussein was in power, many nations--US included--tolerated the regime of hussein as long as it didn't seem to directly threaten US interests. but, after the suffering of iraqis after the gulf war from international sanctions and the ongoing tyranny of hussein and after the 9/11 tragedy in america, that way of thinking had to be discarded. bush must say this kind of short-term, opportunistic, and self-serving diplomacy became intolerable. that's why american soldiers lost their lives, why US spent over 200 billion, why the cancer of hussein's rule had to be removed. this was not easy. the easy thing would have been to end sanctions, coddle hussein again, and do business as usual. but, business as usual was no longer tenable. some say let hussein stay in power as long as he sells oil to other nation no matter how much he oppresses his own people or sponsors terrorists. this too was no longer tenable. something new and bold had to be done. when we see hussein during the trial, we see not a slightest shred of remorse or accountability. should such a man be lording over 25 million people? should such a man and his sons be ruling the great nation of iraq as their private fiefdom?
it's up to the iraqis. americans can keep the peace and fight the insurgents but only iraqis can embrace their neighbors, build a new nation, work toward freedom and dignity, preserve the best of its traditions, etc. it looks difficult now but bush must say US was once a vast wilderness without any industry. but, look what americans achieved with freedom, unity, and confidence. iraq can do as much.
bush must say iraq will become more powerful than hussein. but, not power as in bullying neighbors or satisfying the megalomania of one man but real power in representing the best hope, freedom, and prosperity in the region. 100,000s of iraqis are now being trained for the new army and that army will be one that protects its people from would-be tyrants; they will not be the puppets of a tyrants. it will be an army of the people, by the people, for the people. not a private army owned by a tyrant to serve the whims of the tyrant. iraq with a people's army will be powerful and just. and with justice and ideals of peace and freedom and serving the people, iraq's power will be many times than under hussein. and its power in the eyes of the world will not only be political, economic, military but also moral and spiritual.
bush must also say how he'll be leaving office in 2008. the future of iraq in the next decades, centuries, millenia is up to the iraqis. bush must say despite what how things may appear at the moment, he too is but a small player in a drama that is bigger than any man or policy or army. the real movers of history of any nation are the genius, courage, nobility, and values of its people. iraq is now at a critical point in its history where its people can choose freedom, peace, unity. some iraqis are thinking in terms of sect or clan or tribe. such people can only accomplish things in terms of sect or clan or tribe. but, those who think in terms of nation will gain in terms of nationhood.
bush must say how US was once divided during the civil war. bush must say how it looked like the end of american experiment. how after the war--where 100,000s died(often brother against brother)during four bitter and tragic years--, it seemed the north and south could never get along. but, time heals and the healing is aided by the willingless to bury the hatchet and face the future instead of looking back. those who look back can only walk backward. those who look forward master the future. bush could also explain how white and black america was divided. bush must say divisions in america still exist. but that doesn't mean we can't try harder to come together. that we are making progress. bush must mention how some people resisted social change and used terror in america, especially in the redneck south. bush must also mention how some radicals in the 60s turned to terrorism and tried to cause havoc and bloodshed. but, neither approach is what makes democracy work. democracy doesn't mean that you abandon your principles but that you understand that not everyone agrees with you and you solve problems by discussion, elections, debate, and etc. this isn't easy. every 4 yrs in the US, the debate and arguments can become bitter and passionate. but all said and done, democracy keeps americans working toward a compromise and mutual understanding, not to bloodshed. bush must say democracy is never ever about perfection or end of history. . it's about ongoing history where everyone plays a part, everyone has a voice, everyone has a stake. it's for leaders who do not fear their people and it's for people who join in the process thru law, military, business, politics, culture, etc. bush must say how the two experiments of the 20th century that tried to create perfect utopias were both anti-democratic and ended in disaster and millions of deaths--nazism and communism. and bush must say how one-man rule always leads to tyranny. hussein.
bush must stress what iraqis can accomplish together and what they can show to the world. iraq's historical greatness and importance. how hussein is not iraq. that the insurgency is not iraq. that interfactional conflict is not iraq. iraq is a beacon of hope in the middle east. a nation that can show to the world that muslims can live together, that modernity and democracy can coexist with traditional and timeless values of the forefathers. too often, people identify a nation with a leader or rigid ideology or ethnic group. but, a great nation is more than its leader. it's much more than the ideologies of various groups. it's much more than blood-ties. muhammad accepted and welcomed all people into his faith. he believed all people can live in peace, muslim with muslim, and muslim with infidel--if his head was not cut off by a muslim. iraq is a big nation, a great nation and its people have big hearts and open minds(okay, lie a little). iraq is BIG enough for its ethnic diversity, political viewpoints, cultural richness.
if there's one lesson to be drawn from hussein's rule, NO SINGLE person or faction should monopolize all power. rather, the people must work together. and when things don't go their way, they must use their freedom to persuade the other side and lead by example and argument. in the US, republicans and democrats win and lose all the time. in all democracies, leaders change frequently and governments change too. but there is greater longterm peace and stability because one thing is ever constant and sacred: the freedom of the people and their involvment in the process. iraq is not hussein. iraq is 25 million times greater than hussein. hussein is just one iraqi who made himself the only iraqi, who denied all other iraqis the chance to be free, to voice their views, to exercise their individuality.
bush shouldn't mention post-war japan and germany cuz that would imply iraqis are like japanese and germans. this would mean iraqis have been complicit in hussein's crime. not the way to go. instead, just mention individuals like hitler and stalin and how hussein was like them. make iraqis feel as though they were essentially the victims of hussein, not his goons. post war france had the myth of the resistance perfected by degaulle. create this myth of all iraqis having been equally crushed by hussein. do what degaulle did to pull the nation together instead of apart. now, the truth is french largely collaborated with the germans but the french needed a unifying and healing myth. so for the time being, iraqis must be made to feel they had nothing to do with hussein. that only a few iraqis worked for hussein. most were mere victims.
the examples of south korea and taiwan may also prove useful. bush should say how after after korean war, south korea was a total basketcase worse off than iraq now. the process of development into democracy and prosperity was very difficult. but, compare south korea that choose freedom and democracy and north korea which has a leader as bad as hussein. south is free and prosperous and dynamic. north is one of the poorest nations on the planet, where in the 90s, millions died; a slave state, a pariah in the eyes of th world. taiwan may also prove useful as an example but it might piss off the chinese so maybe not.
finally, bush should use some arabic and kurdish phrases. and even recite a few lines from the koran in arabic. while he makes this historical earthshattering speech, those standing behind him should be a careful mix of arab leaders, muslim leaders, american leaders, churchman. and don't mention anything about israel or jews. nothing wrong with jews but at this point, the arab world goes nuts the minute you say 'jew'.
it's often been said that the wars we've fought since World War II have been murky. WWII is remembered as the last 'good war' that americans and the good guy allies fought.
but, is this true? could one argue that korean, vietnam, and iraq wars are not considered good wars simply because there wasn't or isn't a clear end in sight? korean war dragged on for 3 yrs ending virtually where it started. neither side gained any meaningful territory. it ended in stalemate. in vietnam, US agreed to a ceasefire only to see its ally--south vietnam--easily overrun by north vietnam. and the iraq war has descended into factional fighting amongst sunnis, shiites, and kurds in which americans find themselves caught in the middle.
could all these wars have been considered as good wars if their outcome had been more decisive or positive? imagine if korean war had ended as mccarther wished. or if south vietnam had been fortified and saved. or, if iraq would today be in reconstruction phase without the insurgency. would we declare these as good wars? is 'goodness' determined more by reason for war or the result of the war?
and, suppose WWII had dragged on interminably with mounting casualties on the US side? suppose germans had won in the eastern front and US found it nearly impossible to topple the nazi regime, at least without tremendous US casualties. suppose US couldn't smash the japanese in the pacific and the japanese put up a fight with no end in sight. suppose we cut and ran and made peace with nazis and japanese instead of pushing for total victory. would we remember WWII as a good war?
of course there are other factors in this discussion. one is moral. it's often been argued that WWII was about freedom vs oppression, and that the good guys won. but, is it really that simple? the key ally of US and the nation most responsible for defeating hitler was USSR, one of the most murderous, radical, and insane states that ever existed. even before the rise of the nazis, the soviet communists had killed tens of millions if not more. they had committed horrendous acts of russian/leftwingjewish/communist imperialism in non-russian terrorities. they had created, in effect, a slave state. indeed, for eastern europeans who found themselves behind the iron curtain, the end of WWII was hardly the triumph of good over evil. it was another evil to take the place of one that had existed.
also, was great britain really a bastion of freedom? it was indeed a democracy, but it was also an imperialist power with an empire that stretched across the globe. in these empires, the british ruled over darkies, the treatment of whom ranged from benign condescension to periodic brutality and racial bigotry.
or, consider new zealand and australia. weren't they created by the british at the expense of the aboriginal darkies?
also, france, seen as a victim nation of the nazis, was also an major imperialist power that had holdings in asia, africa, and middleeast. were the french really crusaders for freedom?
also, wasn't united states--and canada--created out of imperialism? didn't US, in effect, steal the southwest territory from mexico?
and, though japan did attack america when it bombed hawaii, didn't americans grab hawaii from hawaiians? also, while americans accused japanese of mistreating chinese, wasn't american treatment of chinese-in-america one of hatred, contempt, violence, and bigotry?
seen in this light, was WWII really such a good war between good vs bad? or, was it a war between truly bad and not-as-bad? after all, the germans and japanese--and italians--, as late comers on the world stage, had legitimate gripes against the world order. who gave the british and americans--two anglo powers--the right to grab, own, and rule the world? why shouldn't germans have a place in the world matching their ambition and power? why shouldn't japanese dominate in the pacific sphere when americans dominated in the american hemishere? did japanese set the agenda for latin america? no, the americas were dominated by the US. so, why shouldn't the japanese dominate in the asian sphere? who were americans to meddle in asian affairs when japanese didn't meddle in the affairs of the americas? why did british and other europeans have colonies in asia when japanese didn't have colonies in europe, africa, and the middle east?
and, regarding the italians, though mussolini was allied with hitler, mussolini was hardly a murderous tyrant on the order of hitler or stalin.
of course, the allies deserved to win in WWII. though germany and japan had legitimate gripes, they went far beyond what those gripes merited. japan deserved a greater role in the pacific but not at the expense of the chinese and other asians whom they brutally slaughtered and exploited. and germans went so far as to commit genocide against a largely innocent jewish populaton--most of whom were not venal leftwing jews--and start wars of enslavement against the slavic peoples. it was one thing for nazism to be anti-communist. it was another matter altogether to be anti-slavic, to designate the entire peoples of eastern europe as less human than 'aryans' and reduce them to either neo-serfdom or slow extinction via enslavement and harsh forced labor; british imperialism was never this nasty and brutal; also, the brits targeted savages who had much to gain thru exposure to civilized europeans whereas russians and chinese were highly civilized people to begin with.
also, though US and UK were far from perfect and also had historical blood on their hands, there were mechanisms--political, economic, cultural--their societies that fueled social change toward greater human liberty, dignity, and justice. there was a strong core of universalist ethics in their liberal traditions that allowed what we call progress. and, one can say that even as USSR was one of the most horrendous systems devised by man, it didn't have the genocidal ideology of the nazis which relegated much of humanity to subhumanhood. though the soviets were brutal in their satellite states following WWII, they didn't peddle an ideology of russian superiority over the hungarians, poles, etc. granted, their brand of classicide had led to vast graveyards in the soviet union and wherever communism was to spread in the coming decades. however, at the very least, all communists had to pay lip-service to the notion of equality of mankind. of course, this ideology of radical equality could be just as murderous as nazi ideology as the cases of stalinism, maoism, and khmer-rouge-ism clearly indicate. but, communists still held some perverse hope that anyone could be saved. a baby born to the evil bourgeois wasn't necessarily condemned as a bloodsucker. he could be raised as a communist. or, even a bourgeois scumbag could be reeeducated. under nazism, there was no escape for jews who were condemned to every man, woman, and child. and slavs were deemed not quite human.
another reason for the notion of good war could well be that america was a more innocent nation in the 1940s. back then, people were more willing to believe in simple good vs bad. even tossing over 100,000 japanese-americans in concentration camps was considered acceptable. americans had a simpler sense of right and wrong. while there was much debate about whether US should or shouldn't enter the war prior to Pearl Harbor, the arguments were mostly very simple. americans simply did not want to be embroiled in a war where they would die in huge numbers. and when pearl harbor was attacked, the reasons for fighting also became very simple. we were attacked and so we must fight and kick butt. though we reacted similarly when we were attacked on september 11, there were still many who questioned our war against afghanistan. today, many americans feel more sophisticated and knowledgable. instead of seeing it merely as a day of infamy, many argued that US policy in the region led to 9/11. no one made such arguments in 1941, at least not publicly. it was japan vs US. when germany declared war, it was US vs japan & germany. americans thought more along b/w lines back then. and, with this mindset, the war effort was total and all-out. we didn't mind how many we killed overseas as we cared about such things in afghanistan and iraq. and, americans were willing to expend huge number of american lives. this was also true in previous wars such as WWI where over 200,000 of Americans died in a couple of yrs. and jouranlism was also a big factor. back then, coverage of the war was far more limited and journalists tended to be patriotic. as they were also mostly liberal, they were happy to boost the war effort as the war was against fascism. bloody images of war were censored and what most americans saw in newreels in movie theaters were glowing images of heroic americans battling the bad guys. and, it was not considered wrong to come up with the nastiest kind of propaganda against japs and krauts. today, no matter how angry we are at muslims, it wouldn't be allowed in the media to portray muslims as 'raghead sandniggers'. but, japanese and germans were painted this way and it was acceptable to most americans. so, WWII is remembered as a good war because more americans thought in simple terms of good vs bad. also, journalism and entertainment played a partnership role with the government. all this would change, especially in the 60s with vietnam.
another reason why WWII is considered good is perhaps its epic scale. in many ways, the taliban and alqaeda were just as bad as the nazis and the japanese. however, US war in afghanistan was all too easy. with minimum casualties and surgical strikes, the taliban fell in a matter of months. americans had expected a great struggle but it was like an elephant stepping on an ant. it was no contest. so, there was no thrill as when we defeated gigantic powers with huge empires in WWII.
if US had defeated japan in a matter of months, it too would have seemed less heroic, less epic, less mythical. another reason for the GOOD WAR was probably the union of right and left in america. the left wanted the war because they wanted nazi germany defeated. and right came to embrace the war because the idea of yellow japs attacking the US was just too much. some on the right would have preferred not to fight the germans but germans were allies of the japanese so the war in europe also became acceptable.
in contrast, the later wars did not lead to a unified american. all leftists and many liberals opposed the korean war as they didn't think communism was so bad. same with vietnam. and, when these wars dragged on for too long--thanks largely to liberal pussyfooting--, even the conservatives grew tired. also, because of the nature of this conflict, these war polarized people at home whereas WWII brought people together. the left refused to support the vietnam war and indeed cheered for communism. to this day, the left is happy that communists won in vietnam.
so, how GOOD war the 'good war'? and how ungood or grey were the later wars? essentially, the 'LAST' 'GOOD' WAR is a myth. in fact, US could have stayed out of the war altogether. japan did not want a war with the US. its war was with china. it was the oil embargo and the demand by US for japan to withdraw from china which led to pearl harbor. also, even pearl harbor was not an attempt to invade the US but merely a means to buy time to gain a decisive advantage in asia by the japanese. also, germany had no plan ever of attacking the americas. there was no reason for american national survival to fight germany. rather, american fear of germans was the product of liberal hatred of fascist doctrine--seen as worse than communism--and of the sharing of anglo fear of the rise of german power which went back to the 19th century. the war in europe was a european 'civil war' just as the civil war of 1861-65 was a war amongst americans and war with mexican war was a war about the future of america. just as europeans had no right to interfere with the mexican-american war and the american civil war, it could be argued that US had no right to interfere with the war in europe. and whether hitler succeeded or not, it was not our business just as it was not european business whether US or Mexico won the war for the SW territory.
of course, it could well be argued that by the 40s, the world had become far more globalized and what happened in europe or asia mattered to americans. ironically, it was western imperialism that had united the whole world into a global community yet it was against imperalism that US entered the war. in this sense, WWII was not only a war by US and its allies against nazi germany and japan but a war within US and democratic western nations for their own soul. it was a war that pitted liberal idealism of progress against the quasi-nazi/racist ideal of white domination around the globe. indeed, when europeans liberated southeast asia from japanese imperialism, they had a hard time justifying their own imperialism to the liberated natives. in africa, the british couldn't argue for permanent british rule over the darkies after having fought a war against german imperialism and racism. so, in a way, the GOOD WAR was good in the sense that it forced whites in democratic nations to come to terms with how hypocritical they'd been. US, after all, had its own racial laws againt blacks and chinese and beaners. and, british in india treated the natives as though they were hopeless without the guidance of the english. but, this is precisely why the GOOD WAR was not so good; because the good guys were so compromised themselves. belgium is seen as the victim of german aggression in both WWI and WWII. but consider its history in the Belgian Congo where 50% of darkies may have died thanks to the greed and ruthlessness of king leopold II. poor innocent belgium?
now, when we debate this issue, many will ask, what about the holocaust and the japanese brutality against the chinese. this is very true. however, we know full well that US and britain did not enter the war for humanitarian purposes. while americans and brits may have sincerely considered nazism evil and sympathized with oppressed peoples, the final reason for war was over politics and national power, not for saving lives. after all, if saving lives was so important, why didn't the free world intervene in USSR when 5 million ukrainians were dying as a result of stalin's policies?
why didn't US declare war on japan when japan had swallowed up korea and manchuria and began imposing its brutal rule? indeed, prior to japan's deeper penetration into china, US was very friendly and supportive of japan. US and britain applauded japan's 'civilizing mission' in korea, taiwan, and northern china.
so, all this talk of destroying the nazis and japanese cuz they were brutish and murderous is a rationalization during and after the victory. it was not the reason for the war. indeed, it's likely that if germany had attacked russia after poland instead of france, winston churchill would have been far more neutral, as churchill wanted the nazis and communists to neutralize eachother. it was when germany invaded france that britain became resolutely anti-german because britain didn't want a german dominance over all of europe and also because it now seemed as though germany might actually win in russia instead of self-destructing along with russia. in the 90s, we saw a horrible war in the former yugoslavia. for the most part, the civilized world didn't lift a finger. it was only in 1998 that clinton acted decisively but most americans opposed that humanitarian intervention. most leftists and most conservatives also opposed it as being none of our business. only hawkish liberals and neocons supported the war. so, the idea of humanitarian reasons motivating our war efforts is a fanciful lie. and look at rwanda, how the world stood by while nearly a million bros died in a few months. and, what are we doing in sudan? what is europe and africa doing about sudan? preciously little. what did the world do in the late 90s when communism was killing 3 million in north korea?
yes, japan acted horribly in nanking but that was not the reason we entered the war. it was pearl harbor and the fact that defeating japan would lead to american supremacy over the pacific region. it was politics. unless there's something to gain politically, americans don't want to sacrifice a single american life for a humantarian cause, even if it means saving the lives of 100,000s or millions. indeed, all those who say nazis had to be beaten because of the holocaust slept peacefully and soundly during the rwandan crisis though we did nothing. and, they sleep soundly while sudan crisis is reaching genocidal proportions.
if we judge WWII with the kind of lens we used on later wars, especially vietnam and thereafter, it doesn't look so good. suppose there was CNN back then and the kind of political culture as we have today. the high number of US casualties, reports of american atrocities--often against civilians--, the vivid images of suffering, etc would have dampened the mood for war. and, if WWII were fought today, would anyone allow the use of nuclear weapon on civilian targets? similarly, had we fought vietnam like we fought japan and if news coverage in the vietnam war had been like during WWII, we might have been far more united and the war might have been won. we would have been far more aggressive and perhaps even nuked vietnam and accepted US casualties in the 100,000s.
we must also consider who writes the history. in europe after WWII, nations like italy and france had experienced fascist oppression firsthand so their hatred of fascism was more personal and intimate. they didn't experience communism firsthand and many knew it only from afar or as a theory. and as communism had defeated fascism, it was also seen as the hope of mankind. in communist nations, there was no dissent allowed so people in the free world didn't hear about the horrors and failures of communism. instead, they got alot of propaganda about how great stalin was or how happy the russians were.
added to this is the fact that historians and intellectuals tend to be either liberal or leftist. intellectuals believe that they seek the uncompromised truth. in a capitalist/democratic nation where so much is compromised, bought and sold, and resolved with handshakes, the world of money and politics seem so tainted and compromised. intellectuals saw in leftism a means to think and act with a pure radical mind and heart. they were not only opposed to fascism but to american style democracy and consumerism where everything seemed philistine, crass, and up-for-sale. leftism was, paradoxically, as attractive to the european elite as to the proletarian. in some ways, intellectual elite found it more attractive. if the masses rose up the american way, it was a purely materialistic progress--homes, cars, tvs,etc. for there to be a spiritual and meaningful progress for the proles, they had to be led by the all-wise clergymen of the secular left. it was not enough to own a car or tv. it mattered more to think the right thoughts and feel the right feelings. this sense of intellectual duty was the modern version of noblesse oblige(sic). it made the intellectual feel powerful, meaningful, purposeful, piedpiperous.
in america, WWII seemed the 'good war' to liberals cuz it was associated with their democratic hero FDR and because it coincided with the end of the depression. it was not only a victory over fascism but over depression. it was associated with the new deal, with keynesian policies, with social revolution. when US finally won the war, US was unscathed like much of europe and asia. US economy was booming. there was euphoria everywhere, in all sectors. if the war had been won but the economy stank as in the bad yrs of depression, it wouldn't have seemed so 'good'.
in the postwar yrs, american academia and media were also dominated by liberals and they wrote a very stilted history of the war. to this day, everyone knows of hitler but few know of stalin though he was one of the great monsters of all time. this is even more true in popular history. how many books or PBS specials have focused on the evils of communism? how many have covered the level of destruction against civilian targets carried out by the US in dresden and tokyo? how many have covered the treatment of german POWS in US camps? few americans know that eisenhower didn't care about the deaths of 100,000s of german POWS in american camps. today, we say the war in iraq is grey cuz of abu gharib. but, that's nothing compared to some of the treatment of german POWS in US camps during WWII. and, we often hear about the evils of racial profiling and the suspension of civil liberties in the war against terror. but, during WWII, japanese americans were tossed into concentration camps and civil liberties were proscribed far more. indeed, how GOOD was that war when we consider all the facts and details?
today, the main reason why we think WWII was the last good war was because liberals write history. because of their bias, WWII was good because we fought the extreme right. indeed, even if US had attacked nazi germany and japan pre-emptively--as with iraq--it would be remembered as good war because when it came to the extreme right--especially the white right--leftists and liberals have zero tolerance. indeed, liberals and leftists are the greatest war-mongers when it comes to the far right.
but, in the wars after WWII, US was engaged basically against communism. now, anyone who knows anything knows that communism is a great evil. whether we choose good or bad, we need freedom. we learned this in 'clockwork orange'. if we can't choose to be good or bad, we are not moral. this kind of amorality is immorality even if in the name of morality communists believe freedom is bad because it leads to exploitation of man by man. so, man must be programmed, conditioned, brainwashed, and forced to be 'good'--as defined by leftwing jews. in a system where man cannot choose to be good or bad but is only forced to be 'good' as determined by leftwing jew radicals, there cannot be real good. this kind of system is evil.
in a free society, we can do good or bad. when we do bad, we are punished. but we allow the freedom to choose good or bad. but, communism doesn't allow the choice to begin with. it assumes most people will make the wrong choice so it's not worth the freedom. besides, 'freedom' is seen as just a bourgeois ruse. there is no freedom; all our thoughts and actions are merely the products of our class conditioning. so, the intellectual people--who can see beyond bourgeois 'good' and 'evil'--must take total power and force everyone to be truly good. the truly good people--who have broken free of bourgeois brainwashing and conditioning--are leftwing jews or leftwingjewoids--goyim trained in leftwingjewism. and the rest of us must be dragged to endless committee meetings, endless sermons and lectures, herded to endless rallies, etc. we must be made 'new' thru permanent revolution and indoctrination and baptism cuz if we think as free individuals, we fall prey to bourgeoisitis in no time. as individuals, we may prefer 'midnight run' to some commie propaganda. we might prefer some bourgeois fantasy like the 'great gatsby' or 'catcher in the rye' to 'comrade lenin is the best fisherman and he caught more fish than any fatassed capitalist and shared his fish with the workers'.
is this evil or not? it is evil, but leftists and many liberals in the postwar era saw much promise in social engineering. one reason was the great depression. capitalism would fail if left alone so the economy had to be managed tightly. also, there was the notion of social factors as determining social reality. so if there was crime and poverty, all you needed to do was have more government programs and more spending. people were seen as lab rats who could be controlled and conditioned. the exrteme case was B. F. Skinner and his behavioralism. so, while leftists and liberals didn't necessarily agree with communist totalitarianism, they found the idea of social engineering via big government and institutions like media and public education very appealing, especially if the stated goal was equality for all.
for this reason, communism was not seen as a great evil but misguided overzealous effort to do what was essentially the right thing. the truth was communism wasn't simply misguided but downright murderous and tyrannical, spreading countless deaths and slavery whereever it spread. also, the notions of the liberals of the postwar era was overly optimistic to say the least. look at the results of GREAT SOCIETY or the miserable results of socialism in britain. look at the burning and looting in france.
anyway, the liberals wrote the history books in the postwar era and they understandably focused on the evil of nazism and how noble WWII was in defeating it. and, because of their biases, they portrayed the war against communism in ambiguous or even downright anti-american tones. when we discuss vietnam, we constantly hear of war atrocities. yet, if dresden, firebombing of tokyo, hiroshima, and treatment of german POWS were not war crimes, what is? nor, do we hear much about how great many german civilians were reduced to prostitution or how 3 million german women were raped by russians(though to be fair, germans asked for it since they started the war). nor, how soviet union set up the iron curtain and imprisoned eastern europe under its iron rule.
nor, do we hear about how the communists in italy killed 150,000 italians with the fall of fascism(far far far far more than italians killed by facists during its 23 yr reign). nor, do we hear of the witchhunts in france that led to 300,000 murders in the postwar period; many were falsely accused of being collaborators. nor, do we hear of 6 million germans uprooted in eastern europe, among whom 3 million were to perish in lynchings and by starvation. and, rarely do we hear about the japanese internment camps in america. yet, we hear constantly about mccarthy's redbaiting which, as violation of civil liberties go, was pipsqueakish compared to FDR's herding the japs into camps. why? cuz mccarthy was anti-leftist and that's a cardinal sin. nazi-baiting is good, no matter how virulent. japbashing is good--even if we lock up all the japs--, no matter how hysterical and extreme. but, dare to say communism is evil, and liberals who dominate the media say you're a 'paranoid', 'bigoted', 'thuggish' 'red-baiter'.
so, we need to ask how good was the GOOD war. and how ungood were the later wars. i personally believe the good war was good cuz nazism and japanese militarism had to be defeated. and i believe korean war, vietnam war, kosovo war, and the iraq war are also good cuz they are wars against tyranny and evil. yes, in all these wars, we fought mainly for political reasons and for reasons of national interest. but, for whatever reason, when we are engaged in a war against an evil sumfabitch, it's pretty good to me. we aint perfect but we have the right to bash those far less perfect than us.
