Tell me if this does not sound familiar:
The commentary by Doug Saunders of Toronto’s Globe and Mail began in a fashion familiar to readers and viewers of the Western news media:
“Six months before, the world had cheered as the statues of the dictator came crashing down. The Americans had seemed heroic. But now things were going very badly. The occupation was chaotic, the American soldiers were hated and they were facing threats from the surviving supporters of the dictator, whose whereabouts were uncertain.
“Washington seemed unwilling to pay the enormous bill for reconstruction, and the president didn’t appear to have any kind of workable plan to manage the transition to democracy. European allies, distrustful of the arrogant American outlook, were wary of cooperating.”
Groan- not another one of these. But wait- there is more:
Doug Saunders was writing not of Iraq in September, 2003. He was writing about Germany in November 1945. His article provided something rare in the news media today: perspective.
The more things change…
I would be vastly more impressed with this post if a CONTEMPORARY account of 1945 were quoted, and not a current one, tuned up to absolve GWB and his crew of incompetents. I wasn’t alive in November 1945 and I have little reason to believe this is an accurate picture of the situation.
As I pointed out yesterday, the Iraqi terrrorists killed more GIs in one bomb than the German terrorists did in the entire occupation (baseline: zero). Moreover: if Colin Powell announces a Middle East Marshall Plan (not inherently a bad idea), will GWB endorse it, and HOW WILL WE PAY FOR IT?
There were German terrorists?
More or less. That whole “werewolf” thing.
Apparently more “less” than “more”. Else the result would have been substantially more…quagmire-ish.
I’m not sure what Andrew’s point is, here. Should we have crushed Iraq as we crushed Germany in WWII? Or does he think our military is somehow less competent than it was in WWII? I don’t think either one of those ideas has much merit. Maybe his actual point is something quite different. Now, if we could just get him to make it…
Reviews of Biddiscombe’s book on the subject (which is apparently one of the definitive works on the subject) can be found here/a> on Amazon. Fair warning: only the first review looks like it was written by someone sane (the other two look like typical neo-Nazi trash).
Sorry about that.
Biddiscombe’s account contradicts current historical consensus, from what I can tell. Not that he’s wrong — he could be blazing new trails of scholarship — just that he is not in line with the current orthodoxy.
“Biddiscombe’s account contradicts current historical consensus, from what I can tell. Not that he’s wrong — he could be blazing new trails of scholarship — just that he is not in line with the current orthodoxy.”
That’s why I posted the link: the subject sounds interesting, but I tend to get just a mite nervous when a book gets favorable reviews from fascists. I was hoping to get more info before I decided to shell out the $20+ for a copy; thanks for the head’s-up.
I was trying, sarcastically, to point out that the German terrorists border on an urban legend. Here’s an LA Times article on this. Biddiscombe seems more restrained therein, and the other experts quite dismissive of the Werewolves.
I don’t think the US military is less capable now, but it is much, much smaller, and there are hints that the reconstruction sums (which we are pulling out of thin air) are neither adequate nor well spent. The $87B, which the Repubs reminded us is less than we spend on tobacco (but, they forgot, much more than we spend on unemployment compensation payments), assumed an Allied contribution of $55B, which seems over the mark by a factor of about 50.
Incidentally, the Israeli military is also very capable, but that didn’t help them much in Lebanon in the long run (a much better analogy, I think, than Vietnam).
If they border on urban legend, Andrew, why do you keep bringing them up? As far as I can tell, it’s you that keeps resurrecting this particular bit of silliness. Are you implying that the terrorist attacks on our troops are also urban legend? Or anything else of relevance?
“…but, they forgot, much more than we spend on unemployment compensation payments…”
Also, more than we spend rescuing dying puppies, which is just about of equal relevance. Not to mention that higher unemployment compensation payments=higher unemployment; we wouldn’t want anyone thinking you want the economy to tank, now, would we?
Oddly enough, no one wants to remember that the Soviets were fighting nazi-allied resistence movements for several years after the fall of Berlin.
I think the plan is to avoid Soviet-style occupation and exploitation.
I wonder how much of that umemployment compensation insurance is fraud and waste. Why, if you paid me as much as I earn at my present job in unemployment compesation I will stay home and play on my computer all day. Hell you could even take out taxes.
That’s part of what folks have to take into account, yep.
“Why, if you paid me as much as I earn at my present job in unemployment compesation I will stay home and play on my computer all day.”
Where did you get that crazy idea? Harry, unemployment comp is tied to your last wages, and it’s much lower. It varies by state, but in California it tops out at $330 a week (taxable), for six months.
I suspect very little UI is fraud and waste, because your previous employer is notified. So if you are working (on the books, obviously) while drawing UI, you’ll get caught. I doubt if it’s any more prevalent than income tax evasion (although that’s been climbing).
I know the 12% of American in poverty are just lazy deadbeats, but, Harry, either research what you’re talking about when you post, or keep quiet, OK?