Stanley Kutler in The Nation: Who's Afraid of History?

The University of Wisconsin's Emeritus Professor of Law and E. Gordon Fox Professor of American Institutions, Stanley Kutler, asks in The Nation, Who's Afraid of History?

They (the Senate Armed Services Committee) can heed John F. Kennedy's warning of exactly forty-five years ago. "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth--persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic," Kennedy warned. "Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

Now we have a new myth generating: We must remain in Iraq to "keep the peace." The Administration hints at various modes of maintaining our presence in the area, all underpinned by the example of our fifty-year "presence " in Korea.

Kutler reminds us that occupations, like wars, are built not so much on lies but on myths that  are continually fed by by an administration that prefers to ignore history.

Tragically that only results in more deaths and internationally, greater antipathy, towards the United States.

Comments

[Bob Keith]

With Iraq's best and brightest fleeing the county in droves to places like Syria and Turkey to what is described as quasi-concentration camps (better than staying in Iraq they say), the country is gutted of intellects as well as infrastructure. Talking head media goons who have never been there are now suggesting we pull back and let the Iraqis who are left in the country go at it. Is that not actually what we were basically doing from the first Gulf War to the 2003 invasion?

I can't thank the people who control this country (that includes the big sleepy American public) enough for putting us in this conundrum. If we leave Iraq, it is a defeat - the second in my life time. If we try to stay in Iraq for 50 years, the problem is in comparing it to the Cold War template of placing hundreds of thousands of soldiers all over the world (of which I was one.), we did not lose 30 soldiers in combat a week for 50 years in Germany and Korea (exception Viet Nam for a decade). I have written about this forbidden subject. See: Just what is Victory in Iraq; and, Forbidden Iraq Litmus Questions, at http://dailydadio.cooldadiomedia.com.

If I were an enemy of the United States, I would certainly be taking notes on the tendency of America to get bogged down in these types of Wars - Viet Nam, Iraq. We are sucked in by our leaders as the lazy public shops for shoes, cars, pants, and the latest get-rich scheme. The two inept political parties bicker while our soldiers die. Eventually enough of the average people are affected by combat deaths and casualties that there is an outcry. The two inept political parties bicker some more (there are some different faces by then because some party members periodically have to go to prison). We leave the war zone and claim our allies lost the war. Bravo America!

Leaving troops in combat in Iraq for 50 years would not only put the onus on our allies ("Iraq can't handle the pressure alone," excuse) but it would also put any future failures on an entire new generation. Blaming the next generation is right out of the Viet Nam construct. The World War II generation got us into "'Nam" and then blamed a great deal of the failures on the Baby Boom that fought it. Bravo "Greatest Generation." Now the Baby Boom can reciprocate that love to the Millennials in the Iraq saga. Bravo "Baby Boom!" Good luck Millennials - we are leaving you a mess.

[UW student]

But the real question is what is the future for the ME if we leave now Mr. Soglin? Vietnam was a walk in the park compared to the problems civil war in the ME could bring ... How do we fix this? I mean, your car does need oil, correct? Your bike tires are made of ... oil, correct?