Validating the post war comparison: the left responds

At a certain few points in the President's speech in London one could believe for a minute that his writer was not unfamiliar with the blogosphere, as I heard the echo of a few points I've seen touted here and there over the past few weeks.

Take for instance the comparison of post-war Iraq to post war Germany. As noted by the CINC:

Since the liberation of Iraq, we have seen changes that could hardly have been imagined a year ago. A new Iraqi police force protects the people, instead of bullying them. More than 150 Iraqi newspapers are now in circulation, printing what they choose, not what they're ordered. Schools are open with textbooks free of propaganda. Hospitals are functioning and are well-supplied. Iraq has a new currency, the first battalion of a new army, representative local governments, and a Governing Council with an aggressive timetable for national sovereignty. This is substantial progress. And much of it has proceeded faster than similar efforts in Germany and Japan after World War II.

Now, certainly the blogosphere can't claim to be the source of this comparison point; one could as successfully claim the patent for the wheel. But without a doubt Glenn Reynolds has been the internet clearinghouse for supporting information, having linked numerous other bloggers' commendable efforts to document and validate the similarities.

Jessica's Well, perhaps the first out the gate, with the Life Magazine article that became an internet phenomenon:

The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American.

We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.

Then this from Instapundit's look at The Saturday Evening Post:

We have got into this German job without understanding what we were tackling or why. Imagine how incredulous we would have been if anybody had told us---even so recently as five years ago---that hundreds of thousands of Americans would be camped in the middle of Europe in 1946, completely responsible for the conduct and welfare of approximately 20,000,000 Germans?

No wonder so many Americans are asking, “What are we doing in Germany?” They can see that the Russians and British and French are initiating projects which promise some direct benefits to them in their zones. But when they look at our zone they see only headaches.

And most recently this on occupied Japan:

Tokyo endured [the] winter [of 1945-1946] on the workings of an illegal economy. The black market encompassed thousands of sellers and millions of buyers dealing in every commodity of daily life. It was also a vast jungle of lawlessness that began with thefts and led to gang killings, turf wars, and casual murders, becoming at last a criminal demimonde of immense proportions. It embraced all classes and kinds of people. <...> It was the beginning for many mobster organizations, some of whose descendants still operate today. In Tokyo there were eight major syndicates, each with its own piece of turf around the major train stations...They fought amongst themselves and against other gangs, the Japanese mobs battling constantly for territory against the Koreans and Chinese. Guns were plentiful, another result of looted army depots. Unable or unwilling to intervene, police let gangs have at one another, and the shootouts continued for several years into the Occupation.

True or not it's well within the realm of possibility, and perhaps likely, that members of "Team Bush" are more then passingly familiar with Instapundit (and perhaps even Jessica's Well, it being a Midland, Texas based blog). So some influence from that source may have contributed to that brief mention in the speech.

You see the similarities, yes? The above articles give you that feeling of deja-vu? Of course, all of them are wrong. Thus sayeth Richard Benedetto of USA Today in an article Comparing Iraq To Nations After WWII (originally subtitled President's analogy draws criticism):

"It is correct to say that it took two to three years to establish democratic government in Japan," says John Dower, author of Japan in War and Peace. "But throughout that period, you had a stable society and an intact (local) government. You had terrific misery and confusion in Japan, but no chaos like you have in Iraq."

Japan adopted its constitution nearly two years after the war ended and put it into effect a year later.

Bush's timetable for Iraq envisions establishment of an assembly by May to form a provisional government by June. That would be the end of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council. By 2005, Iraq would write a constitution and elect a democratic government.

William Hitchcock, author of The Struggle for Europe, says the situation in Germany was similar to the one in Japan. Allied bombs had leveled many cities, and millions were hungry and homeless.

"The German story of U.S. occupation is an amazing success story, but you would not know it six months after the war ended," he says. "It took time."

It was three years before Germany had a constitution and four years before democratic elections.

Iraq is not as devastated as those countries were. That means things Bush named, such as schools, hospitals and newspapers, were back in operation more quickly.

Iraq is different in other ways:

• Unlike the violent daily attacks in Iraq, there was no resistance to occupying forces in Germany and Japan.

• Germany and Japan formally surrendered, which gave the United States authority in their countries. Iraq did not.

• Essential government-run services continued after the war ended. Iraq has no such system.

Note the introduction of the concept that Iraq never surrendered, thus the US has no authority to be there, a none-too-subtle hint as to the slant of this "news story". (Hopefully this isn't another pointless meme-flag to wave for the Baathists, al Queda, and the American Left)

If the contrast points were valid in the context of the argument (is there a legitimate comparison?) one might still wonder why such effort is put into refuting 18 words (count 'em: 'And much of it has proceeded faster than similar efforts in Germany and Japan after World War II') of a 4025 word (trust me) speech.

There are differences, but USA Today has missed the point. They could more effectively argue that "Germany" and "Japan" start with "G" and "J" while clearly "Iraq" is spelled with an I. Yes, Germany and Japan had been bombed into submission. The population was weak and demoralized with a significant number of draft-age men gone. Everyone needed shelter and food and the US was the only source of hope for survival. Generally this precludes even the angriest of vanquished combatants from taking pot-shots at the victors. This situation clearly does not exist in Iraq. (Because of US efforts, foresight, and humanity, I might add) But for those who "get it" the gist of the comparison argument is not academic, and is valid only in the context of supporting the "stay the course" position vs. the "cut and run" mantra perversely making it's way through certain quarters of the American population.

The point of the post-war comparison is akin to that nothing worth doing is easy concept that parents once instilled in their children. (And assuredly many still do.) But I believe that Mr. Benedetto and his USA Today editor (and the folks there that sign the paychecks) do 'get it' - and their reasons for attempting to cast doubt on an essentially minor supporting detail in one of the most important political speeches of this era obviously lie elsewhere.

Whatever their motives, they've proved the need to make the comparisons. There are those in our own country who would insist we can not overcome the degree of hardship we face in Iraq. Doubtless they state this in the full knowledge that they themselves could certainly not accomplish such a lofty goal. That's to be expected, but I ask that they please stand aside; there are those made of stronger stuff, those with a bit more intestinal fortitude who will carry this task to its conclusion.

USA Today's chooses to end their "news" article with an unsupported opinion:

"It is not, in fact, a great analogy," says Tom Engelhardt, a fellow of the liberal Nation Institute and author of The End of Victory Culture.

I'll add this insight on Mr. Engelhardt's worldview from the editorial review by Publishers Weekly on Amazon.com's site:

Freelance writer Engelhardt here traces the roots of American "triumphalism" back to early New England, where the massacre of Indians set the pattern for the self-justified slaughter of external enemies, a ritual that would be replayed endlessly not only in life but also in fiction, movies, toys and comics. In his sprawling meditation, he considers the effect of our "loss of enemy" when the Japanese surrendered in 1945. In his tedious recap of the Vietnam tragedy Engelhardt suggests that the American public's inability to view the Viet Cong as a savage, lesser adversary contributed to our becoming "the world's most extraordinary [because least expected] losers." The desire to create a Third World battlefield with maximum U.S. weaponry and minimum U.S. casualties was briefly satisfied, he contends, by the Gulf War with its seemingly bloodless, machine-versus-machine destructiveness. America, according to Engelhardt, is still yearning for a revival of our national identity via the victory culture, "the story of their slaughter and our triumph."

Far be it from me to refute a sprawling meditator, so I'll say indeed, it's not a great analogy. We've done far more and faster in Iraq, against greater opposition. Three cheers for our side, and thank you Mr. Bush.

To Mr.’s Benedetto and Engelhardt and others of like mind, another 'compare and contrast' topic: 'The difference between making history and making noise'.