« Comcast delenda est | Main | Tibetan solidarity » Department of ugly Americanism21 Mar 2008 01:51 pm Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Somehow I missed this: While I'm in my testy mood, I guess I might as well remind Barack Obama that the war in Iraq hasn't lasted longer than WW2. There were, in fact, some isolated outbreaks of fighting before Pearl Harbour. And he was doing so much to improve our image abroad . . . Comments (30)
Right. I mean this is a clear example of someone deliberating misunderstanding a point in order to gain the pleasure of being offended. He knew Obama meant US involvement, he just preferred to have an opportunity to sermonize. 
US involvement in the Iraq War has last longer (about 2 years longer) than US involvement in WWII. But that's not what the critics are saying about the war. Oh, and US forces were effectively in the Battle of the Atlantic in 1940....
Eh, I've worked in London, and this really is a shockingly common mistake by Americans.
So much for his Kenyan heritage.
So much for his Kenyan heritage.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/.spectator.co.uk/clivedavis/567371/nurturing-or-not-nurturing-the-special-relationship.thtml I had to change it to
To be fair, the "official" date that WWII started is something of an open question. Was it when Germany invaded Poland in 1939? Annexed Czechoslovakia? The Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937? The Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935? The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931? I think just about everybody can agree that WWII was in full swing by 1939, but beyond that it depends on who you ask.
Some historians think that WWI and WWII were all the same war with just a bit of a breather in between to grow new soldiers.
"Some historians think that WWI and WWII were all the same war with just a bit of a breather in between to grow new soldiers." I thought I might be able to connect them with the White/Red civil war and the Polish-Soviet war, but there's still a 10 year gap.
I've seen some claims that the Cold War was just an extension of WW2, which was the extension of WW1...
"Eh, I've worked in London, and this really is a shockingly common mistake by Americans." Brits make their share of shocking mistakes, and chief among them is thinking WWII started in Europe, with the idea that it ended there coming right in behind, and the idea that Europe was the main theatre of combat belongs in there somewhere too. "The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931?" ahem
Well, I think it's rather obvious that Obama's referring to OFFICIAL US involvement in WW2, when, you know, we actually declared war. Otherwise, if we are just going to go by when other people started conflicts--or, and this is goes to those who want to talk about being De Facto in WW2 before Pearl Harbor, we could easily conclude that our war with Iraq actually began in 1990, and we've been at war with them de facto for the last 18 years--which would make the war even longer than the 1931 Japan-China onset of WW2. Willful misunderstanding of statements is dumb, people. In any case, given most Republican's professed statements, if McCain is elected, this Iraq war (2003+) will definitely end up being longer than any possible choice for WW2's beginning. What fun that'll be.
Depends on perspective. While some might claim that WWII was just the continuation of WWI, it's also true that we've had a military presence in Iraq ever since the first Gulf War, which would make this war in Iraq a continuation of the first Gulf War, and this a 17-year war. And if the Cold War was a continuation of WWI & WWII perhaps it's also true that our military involvement in the First Gulf War was a continuation of our involvement of the Iran/Iraq War 25 years ago. And I'm sure there's some that might even accept that we wouldn't have been involved in the Iran/Iraq War if not for the Cold War, in which case we can connect the dots and point out that our latest Middle Eastern adventure is actually the result of our European adventure almost a century ago.
Obama meant "US involvement in WW2", sure, but the way he phrased it (which, admittedly, is a typical way for Americans to phrase it) did make it sound like the parts of the war America wasn't involved in didn't count. The same thing is true of Iraq in a way. There's been fighting and sectarian strife going on since 1991 -- Kurds vs. Baathists in the no-fly zones, for example, Hussein's crackdown on the rebellions Shiites, shots exchanged between the USA and Iraqi forces, etc. But people only count the strife that happened after the we invaded.
Quibbling about the exact length of WWII misses the point entirely. Why doesn't any journalist ever ask Obama exactly how long he thinks a war should last? If we are in a war that lasts longer than 4.x years, does that automatically make it an unjustified war, or a failure? If we are clearly in the process of winning a war, and spending another two years would end up saving thousands of lives and making our victory definitive, should we just surrender if the arbitrary sand in Senator Obama's hourglass runs out? From his minister's remarks, I take it Sen. Obama believes dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an atrocity and a war crime. Yet it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives (and possibly Japanese lives as well), and it lopped months if not years off the length of the war. So in that case, given his devotion to restricting American involvement to exactly 4.x years, I assume Obama would have dropped the bomb. The whole argument is absurd and it's amazing to me that we are spending five minutes listening to or defending this facile fraud's specious arguments.
Is duration the most useful basis of comparison? How about casualties?
Ok, I admit it! I started this war 10000 years ago when I clubbed Gorg the Spearmaker over the head for stealing my mud. It has gotten out of hand since then.
ajmalkov, that is speculative at best. our fire bombing of Tokyo was going better than expected, and the bombing of Nagasaki is seen by many as unnecessary even when positing that the first bomb was necessary. also, nice trying to make wright's words obama's.
"So in that case, given his devotion to restricting American involvement to exactly 4.x years, I assume Obama would have dropped the bomb." But we could have ended the war without killing anyone if we'd simply surrendered.
That's right. Look at the agony of the continued war in the Koreas, with US troops trapped in a quagmire. And Germany - how can we say that WWII has ended when we still have troops in Germany????
Technically, we aren't at war in Iraq because Congress never declared war. We were at war in WWII. There has been lots of quibbling over when a war begins, but when does a war end? Is it when foreign forces surrender? If so, didn't Iraq war end at mission accomplished, despite continued acts of terrorism and guerilla actions. Perhaps the war ends when we turn governance over to the new government? If it is when we bring our troops home, then as Ann pointed out, aren't we still at war in Germany? If not, when did WWII end?
It is a little funny to be lectured by Brits on US foreign intervention. North America, Africa, India, Arabia, Australia, China, Caribbea, etcetera.* They are, of course, correct to advise against it, a bit of wisdom gained the hard way. * For those of you accustomed to listening to BBC reporters, these should of course be pronounced, "North Americer, Africer, Indier, Arabier," etc.
Perhaps Obama should have said that the war is going to last longer than WWII?
Why doesn't any journalist ever ask Obama exactly how long he thinks a war should last? I think he would probably respond that this war should never have started.
If WWII ended when the Japanese surrendered, then the Iraq war only lasted two or three months. The European part of WWII started Sept. 1, 1939 with the German invasion of Poland, and ended officially May 8, 1945 with the German surrender. That's 5 years and 8 months - but the occupation of Germany went on for several years afterwards, and we still have troops there. The Japanese part of the war started at the latest with the invasion of China in 1937, and ended in 1945 - but not only did we occupy Japan for years after the war and still have forces stationed there, but it took decades for all the Japanese troops isolated on Pacific islands to surrender. Or die of old age and privation... You can't compare those Japanese holdouts to the terrorist actions now going on in Iraq, and in Germany in spite of Nazi plans for guerrilla resistance (look up "Operation Werwolf") the Germans were just too orderly and too thoroughly beaten to carry it very far. But neither the Japanese nor the Germans had "neutral" nations encouraging them to continue with guerrilla warfare/terrorism[1], or feeding terrorists and weapons across the border. [1] The difference between terrorist and guerrilla warrior can be subtle, but it sounds like the ones in Iraq now are far more likely to attack Iraqi civilians in attempts to frighten them out of supporting the new government than to attack the occupying military forces or any part of the new Iraqi government, and to me that clearly makes them terrorists. Guerrilla fighters fight their enemies using tactics of surprise attacks, ambushes, and concealment. Terrorists attack others in an attempt to influence their enemies through terror.
Congress did pass a declaration of war against Iraq, it just wasn't titled "Declaration of War Vs. Iraq." The current war in Iraq is a continuation of the first war when we invaded after Iraq invaded Kuwait. That war never technically ended... there was a cease fire with conditions that Iraq never met. The justification for going to war with Iraq has been there for the last ten year as Iraq failed to ever comply with the terms of the cease fire.
izcn rkbauhly wpmvhytji myspil ntmxdzbu equzdslp uwzvktbp
Useful site. Thank you!!
Useful site. Thanks!!!
jdgf xsohfu zfpb cakel
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
 Should I call myself a feminist? Series III Tivo
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
US involvement in the Iraq War has last longer (about 2 years longer) than US involvement in WWII.
Posted by John | March 21, 2008 2:13 PM