two lost wars later (part 2)

Via Atrios, the normally fairly Bush-friendly Saletan at Slate parses Bush's heroism.

More importantly, Krugman in the Times does his usual superb job of distilling A No-Win Situation (though his recommendation for handing the place over to Sistani is a bit strange):

For a long time, anyone suggesting analogies with Vietnam was ridiculed. But Iraq optimists have, by my count, already declared victory three times. First there was "Mission Accomplished" - followed by an escalating insurgency. Then there was the capture of Saddam - followed by April's bloody uprising. Finally there was the furtive transfer of formal sovereignty to Ayad Allawi, with implausible claims that this showed progress - a fantasy exploded by the guns of August.

Now, serious security analysts have begun to admit that the goal of a democratic, pro-American Iraq has receded out of reach. Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies - no peacenik - writes that "there is little prospect for peace and stability in Iraq before late 2005, if then."

Cordesman is far from a flaming liberal, and his piece is worth reading in full.

Also worth reading is Larry Diamond's What Went Wrong in Iraq from this month's issue of Foreign Affairs.

Actually, the best piece I have read on how the Bush administration conducted the Iraq war is already a bit old, but still extraordinary reporting: James Fallows' Blind into Baghdad from the January/February 2004 Atlantic Monthly. WPU students can get the full article through our library homepage. Fallows documents the amazing amount of work that went into planning for the aftermath of a military victory over Saddam. Fallows shows the various reports and study groups etc that have been meeting for the past ten years at least. And he shows how the Bush administration -- for many different reasons -- ignored each one. That is, what Bush now calls "catastrophic success" was all foreseen. You have to read the article to get the full sense of how much and why they ignored the planning, but I will try to summarize a few of the reasons: arrogance, interdepartmental turf battles, Clinton hating (Rumsfeld even firing someone for actually having previous successful experience in nation building -- alas, in Kosovo, for the Clinton administration).... Perhaps the most important reason they refused to plan (again, Rumsfeld explicitly instructing his employees NOT to attend postwar planning meetings) was that if they opened up any of this to discussion, then they might have to discuss the costs of the war and the possibility that things might not go as planned. But since they had no plans, things could never not go as planned! got that?

What are you voting for?

For those of you who are still undecided about the presidential election and like your words with pictures (and who doesnt?), check out my friend Larry Fessenden's excellent comic What Are You Voting For? There is a printed comic, but the web-based version is quiet cool. The graphics are wonderful and Larry wrote the text -- and did a great job packing everything in clearly and cogently.... and if you have been paying attention you know there is an overwhelming amount to pack in there. If you haven't been paying attention, this thing is a must read.

Normally a filmmaker, Larry likes to spread his subversion in all media.

My footnote: I had the pleasure of reading this in proof form and caught something that I didnt think withstood scrutiny. Check out this delicious treat for Bush haters entitled "Bush's erratic behavior worries White House aides." I, too, relished this:

President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

[snip]

But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them “fucking assholes” in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.”

Alas, history students, what is wrong with this article? Can you spot the problem with evidence? There is not one quote actually attributed to a real live human being. Ah well, no matter how believable it may be, without the evidence it is no more than fantasy (and if you want fantasy, check out Rush and O'Reilly -- they who are unbound by rules of evidence or anything else).

But then again, check out today's White House Briefing from the Washington Post. Dan Froomkin summarizes a slew of pre-convention profiles of Bush:

In describing his character, profilers consistently see Bush as a risk-taker who acts decisively and never looks back. Supporters see this as strength, critics see this as foolishness.

Looking at his leadership style, reporters conclude that while Bush is indeed assertive, he also often lacks curiosity and patience and has little interest in details.

Several also report that he has a private, darker side, describing him as prickly and cranky, particularly at the end of the day.

The upshot? Maybe you were on to something, Larry, after all...

But if you want some real insight into Bush, read this whole thing about the great conservative thinker Kevin Phillips.

two lost wars later

Well, I guess it might be too early to make the claim that Bush has lost two wars while president; we historians need to take the long view, and there is always a chance that things will turn around. But as it stands today, we are losing wars in Afghanistan (remember that place?) and Iraq.

As for the war on terror, it seems our president no longer believes we can win that one. Whatever happened to optimism?

American Experience on U.S. elections

this comes to me from the American Experience (PBS series) newsletter:

POLITICAL PARTIES: DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, OR... FREE SOIL?

Today, there are two major political camps in the United
States -- Republicans and Democrats. In the 1800s, there
were more partisan politics to figure out. In the span of
just 28 years, from 1836 to 1864, prominent candidates
emerged from the Democratic Party, the Whig Party, the
Republican Party, the Free Soil Party, the Liberty Party,
the American Party, and the Constitutional Union Party,
among others. Keeping voter registrations current must have
been quite a task! Learn about the parties and their
candidates:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lincolns/politics/tl_tree.html

******
THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES

We saw the power of third party candidates in the 2000
election, when Ralph Nader took 2.74% of the vote -- a
margin larger than that between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
But before Nader and Ross Perot became symbols of third
party influence, George Wallace made his mark. Failing three
times to garner the Democratic nomination, George Wallace
put his name on the presidential ballot in 1968 as an
American Independent -- and won over 50% of the vote in some
Southern states. See the results of Wallace's bids for the
presidency:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/maps/index.html

******
VOTE ON THE ISSUES

Can't wait 'til November 2nd to cast a vote? Take a trip
back in time to weigh in on the major issues of past
elections, and learn which candidates you would have
favored. You may be surprised by just how familiar these
issues sound!

Election of 1912
- Theodore Roosevelt vs. Woodrow Wilson
- Major issues: women's suffrage, trusts, import tariffs
- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/26_t_roosevelt/t_roosevelt_vote.html

Election of 1936
- Franklin Roosevelt vs. Alfred Landon
- Major issues: the economy, Social Security, America's role in the world:
- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/32_f_roosevelt/f_roosevelt_vote.html

Election of 1948
- Harry Truman vs. Thomas Dewey
- Major issues: housing costs, postwar reconstruction, financial aid to foreign governments:
- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/33_truman/truman_vote.html

Election of 1960
- John Kennedy vs. Richard Nixon
- Major issues: U.S. leadership in the Cold War, the economy, defense spending:
- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/kennedy_vote.html

history guide for college students

I just came across this site called Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, which I haven't fully vetted, but pass along for your edification.

Kerry, Bush & Vietnam

DemFromCT at Daily Kos discusses two recent articles papers on why Vietnam is still such a big deal. Todd Purdum in the New York Times and Richard Holbrooke in the Washington Post both bring some historical persective to the situation.

Todd Gitlin's piece in Salon and Neil Sheehan's recent op-ed in the Times are also essential to understanding the situation.

Historical Methods sources and links

Since this blog is being set up for a course in Historical Methods, let me link to a couple of important sites. I will eventually have all my links open in new windows, when I can figure out how. And I will eventually have a long list of links along the border of the page.

The main site we will be using for the course is History Matters, out of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. This site, with resources for teaching the American History survey course, will be useful especially for those of you who intend to become history teachers. They also have a new site for World History teachers called World History Matters.

Check out the section on History Matters called Making Sense of Evidence. We will be reading a number of these articles throughout the semester.

While we are here, I encourage you also to check out the History News Network, a site which often engages with the links between the past and current political controversies -- something we will be doing alot of this term. More later.

Brad Delong -- another smart guy blogging

Whooooeee! Since that last post seemed to actually work, I am going to keep going, introducing you folks to some of my favorite blogs and catching up on some of the great material I have read in the past several months.

Brad Delong is a very smart economist out of Berkeley who writes clearly and intelligibly about current and historical economic issues, as well as politics, the media and computer stuff.

One of his posts from a couple of months ago really highlights the power of the internet and of blogs more generally. Placing two columns by Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland side by side, he eviscerates Hoagland and points out the inconsistency and "two-faced" nature of the U.S. press corps. There are several bloggers out there doing good work on the pathetic work that passes for journalism in the U.S. , but Delong and Bob Somerby at Daily Howler are among the best.

Digby at Hullaballoo

Going to try to post something here, just testing my abilities. So don't expect anything to actually work. Might as well point readers to my favorite blog these days. Digby is a bit more intemperate than me, his language a bit saltier, but I think his analysis is most often dead on. Now I will try to see if I can link to a particular post.... Here is his analysis of how Karl Rove's attacks on Kerry work; as usual this is the smartest thing I have read on the topic.

Okay, I am gonna hit publish now and see what happens.