Was World War II Worth It? by Patrick J. Buchanan

Was World War II Worth It? by Patrick J. Buchanan

As Bush's chaotic Iraqi war moves toward a civil war that will probably be won by Muslim extremists, it isn't hard to fathom why Bush would begin to uncoil and criticize an imperfect history of WWII. Bush wants to look like a pure moral warrior in comparison. Buchanan is making an effort to help a fellow philosophical "purist."

Buchanan's defense of isolationism at the cost of allowing Hitler's Germany to survive and prosper in France, etc., is another example of making the perfect (purism) the enemy of the good. We currently have a country run by imperfect politicians and framed by imperfect journalists (like the rest of us) who are nearly all greedy ideologues and narcissists who have invented a fantasy world where good and evil are pure forces (no one can possibly be good and bad, or good and imperfect) and lies to keep the facade alive are the "truth."

In this purist worldview paternalism can exist (do what I tell you to do), but cooperation (let's find a solution with our opposition) is not valued, imagined, or necessary. That is how Buchanan can "purely" rationalize that since we did not stop Stalin, we didn't need to stop Hitler. That's insane--we won what we could and there is never, ever, a perfect war. To frame FDR and Churchill's reformist policy attempts as a sell out (Stalin was the one who reneged on the liberation agreements) is unfairly judgmental of those great leaders (especially compared to today's dishonest leaders--and I think it's a bad sign when our "leaders" swat at the really important legacies of past leaders) and robs every difficult negotiation of any merit. Bush has shown us that to use this kind of argument as a justification for paternalism with other countries has simply increased the number of countries with nuclear warheads. Conservatives appear to have no patience with diplomacy until they are sure they'll lose a fight. And that's usually too late because they've started several fights that are lose/lose with their paternalistic we win/you lose threats. Most Americans would agree to fight only just wars that we can win--just like WWII--and not to pick them, but that involves using diplomacy (imperfect cooperation) a hell of a lot more than war.

Ironically, that's why we're still in Iraq. People perceive it and defend it as a just and honorable war (Hussein has been stopped), but forget that that is not why we are there, and justice is not what we have brought there. Have we brought a fantasy world of good (U.S.) vs. evil (Iraqis, Muslims) and paternalism? Yup.