Denial

post from Daily Kos on 01 November 2007 09:32:13 PM. © Daily Kos

George W. Bush and his vapid sloganeers come up with some profoundly stupid things to say on a regular basis, but this is much stupider than their average fare:

Bush tells Dems war denial is dangerous

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush compared Congress' Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

[...]

Bush argued the current debate over the Iraq war and the administration's anti-terror methods harkens back to debates decades ago over resisting action when Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin first talked about launching a communist revolution, when Adolf Hitler began moves to establish an "Aryan superstate" in Germany, and in the early days of the Cold War when some advocated accommodation of the Soviet Union.

"Now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding, this time regarding my policy in the Middle East," Bush said. "Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be stability."

Bush said any denial of war is dangerous.

"History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake," Bush said. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"

That is So. Damn. Stupid it makes my hair hurt.

One of the essential appeals of Nazism was that it was, in the eyes of many Germans, a bulwark against Communism. Yes, there are essential lessons to be learned from the appeasement over Czechoslovakia. But there’s this other important lesson to learn, one that Bush apparently doesn’t know: Hitler stupidly invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, ostensibly to deal with the threat of Communism. The end result? In 1945, Germany was totally defeated, the Soviet flag was flying over Berlin, and for over 40 years Eastern and Central Europe—almost all of which was controlled in 1941 by fascist governments—was under the control of communists governments which were, in turn, under the control of the Soviet Union.

And what about the Soviet Union itself? In 1917, the Russian empire fell to revolutionary forces. By 1918, the Bolshevik communists under the control of Lenin had seized control of the government in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but a massive civil war raged throughout the lands that had once been imperial Russia. Several countries contributed to the military effort to prop up the counter-revolutionary "White Russians." The result? The eventual solidification of Bolshevik rule over the entire area of Imperial Russia.
What do both cases have in common? They’re both examples of what is colloquially referred to as the "law of unintended consequences." That’s a "lesson of history" that George Bush must have missed out on. Maybe he skipped class to be at cheerleading practice or something.

Finally, the example of the Cold War. What happened then? Well, unlike now, our government took the war seriously. For better or worse, we mobilized our economy to be prepared for war with the Soviet Union. We took seriously the role of "nation building," as evidenced by the Marshall Plan. We took seriously the role of ideas, and at least in Europe during the early days of the Cold War, instead of trying to coerce and strong-arm the populations of countries where there was a real contest between communists and anti-communists, we tried to appeal to the populations and convince them of the virtues of democracy and resistance to Communism. We recognized that alienating people around the world was, you know, a really bad idea. Our leaders were often aware that our actions could be counterproductive to our espoused goals. Hence, instead of relying simply on claims of our own virtue, they also tried to act in ways that would be effective.

While the United States did a lot of stupid things during the Cold War—such as the Vietnam war, or meddling in other counties’ internal politics like the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup in Iran—we did the most important thing, something Bush probably doesn’t understand: we avoided war with the Soviet Union.

These clowns on the right and in the administration who spew vapid historical analogies never discuss the difference between espoused—and possibly sincere—beliefs and the unintended results that can ensue when you don’t have an effective plan, or your idea is at heart destructive and wrong. The Iraq war was poorly planned and executed. But much worse than that, it was a horrible idea to begin with, a stupid idea that almost anyone who stepped away from their fantasies of being the next Winston Churchill or the next George Orwell, would have realized would result in the US being mired in a miasma of death and destruction.

I think there are few intellectual endeavors more important to political actors and analysts than a deep and wide study of history. However, the rhetoric, beliefs and actions of the Bush administration and their intellectual boot-lickers shows that it may be better to be completely ignorant of all history than to know just enough to be dangerous. And worse than "war denial" is the failure of Bush and his allies: a denial of reality.