Lessons of 1864
By Barry Casselman
It is almost the perfect contrarian moment in the Iraq War. Emboldened by the 2006 mid-term elections, the Democrats are openly calling for withdrawal, and opposing the president's call for more troops. The media continue their drumbeat that the war was wrong, unwinnable, and that the nation was deceived into it. Some Republican supporters of the president are now abandoning him, particularly many of those who face re-election in 2008. The president's favorable numbers are now below 30%. Conventional wisdom has thrown in the towel.
Despite some valid accounts of improvements in sectors and infrastructure, our casualties and those of Iraqi civilians continue unabated, and any sense of a turnaround eludes our forces.
The decisive congressional elections have returned power on Capitol Hill to the Democrats. Clearly, the American voters are fatigued by our apparent defeats, although our casualties, grievous as they are, remain nonetheless much smaller than in our previous major war conflicts.
As soon as the exit polls were in, in fact, most of the mainstream media declared the War over, and once they were sworn in, the Democratic leadership repeated their demands for withdrawal, labelling the president's new direction as "escalation."
Another similar circumstance, already cited by other observers, was the period of American history in the spring and summer of 1864. A "country bumpkin" president had taken the nation into a civil war, and in spite of the victory at Gettysburg the year before, the conflict had bogged down while the brilliant Confederate commander Robert E. Lee eluded his nothern counterparts. There were draft riots in New York City, and open calls to end the war. The Union commander, General McClellan, had been fired by President Lincoln, and was now the Democratic nominee for president, running as the "peace" candidate and bitterly criticising his old commander-in-chief. Lincoln himself, at this time, thought McLellan would win in November. Desperately, he took command of the war, fired many other generals, and prepared for the worst.
There is an uncanny similarity here in the two presidents' desperate circumstances. Call it luck, call it fate, call it stubborn perserverence, Lincoln found success with Grant and Sherman, and in only a few months the civil war turned decisively to the North. Only weeks after that, Lincoln was hailed as a hero, and after he was assassinated, universally mourned in the North, eulogized as a great leader, and as time moves by, is clearly recalled as our greatest and most eloquent president. So much for the dumb, awkward country bumpkin.
Recently, after the death of former President Gerald Ford, former President Bill Clinton made the comment that, in regard to Mr. Ford's pardon of former President Nixon, "it was easy for us to criticize (Ford) because we were caught up in the moment. (Ford) was not caught up in the moment, and (he) was right." Mr. Clinton knows, as the rest of us who have not served as president don't, that the Oval Office induces a certain deafening silence even as the whole country and world clamors noisily around it.
Mr. Bush has not taken an oath to Mrs. Pelosi, nor to Mr. Boehner. He has not taken an oath to The New York Times, nor to The Washington Times. He has not even taken an oath to Molly Ivins, nor to a mere prairie editor such as myself. He has taken an oath "to preseve, protect and defend the United States of America." He was re-elected decisively in 2004. Those who opposed him then, and those who disagree with him now, have every right to criticise him and second-guess him. I myself have consistently taken issue with his communicating about the war to the American people (he's neither a Lincoln nor a Ford), the mistakes in our performance in Iraq, and with those he hired to conduct the war, even as I supported his overall vision. But he is still the commander-in-chief, and doing what he feels will fulfill his oath.
Before he was president, Mr. Lincoln famously observed, after it became obvious that the Democratic party, the party of Jefferson, would do nothing to stop the growth of slavery, that the two parties had switched "coats" (identities). The Republican party, advocating halting slavery, was now the party of Jefferson, he said, and the Democratic party, placating the slave states, was now the party of Hamilton. Mr. Bush is criticized for his advocacy of allowing democracy to be introduced where totalitarianism now flourishes. Many of his Democratic opponents say that this is naive, and that democracy can only flourish in the elite industrialized world. Perhaps the two parties have switched "coats" again.
I do not know if Mr. Bush's policy of adding troops is the right one. It does make sense, yet it may, as his critics say, fail. But I do know that he is the only one currently with the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the nation as commander-in-chief. The election is over. All of us, including most of Mr. Bush's harshest critics, need now to look at the national long-term interests, and not be caught up in the moment.
Today's apparent defeats can turn quickly into astonishing and unexpected victories.
Barry Casselman writes about national politics for Preludium News Service.
Page Printed from:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/nothing_succeeds.html at January 13, 2007 - 08:04:13 PM CST
