[Mb-civic] Arthur Schlesinger's phone call with G.W.Bush

[Alexander Harper]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main page content:
A quiet telephone call with George W. Bush
By Arthur Schlesinger 
Published: September 28 2005 19:41 | Last updated: September 28 2005 19:41

The operator said: “The president of the United States is calling.” Then, a vibrant Texas voice broke in: “Hey, Artie, how goes it?” This confirmed the caller was indeed George W. Bush, whom I had never met but whose predilection for nicknames – no one in 87 years has ever called me “Artie” – is well known. “I am holding conversations about the Iraq war,” the president continued. “And I would like to know what you think I should be doing."
 
“I would seize an appropriate moment to declare victory – and cut and run, Mr President,” I said. 

Mr Bush replied: “My people tell me that cut and run would be a disaster, a calamity. If we were to pull out now and dump the mess on the Iraqis, what foreign government could rely on the future word of the United States? It would wreck our credibility. We must above all stay the course.”

“Cut and run has a bad reputation,” I said, “and the last time the US cut and ran in a major way was 30 years ago in Vietnam. The stakes were ostensibly high. The collapse of south Vietnam, according to President Eisenhower’s domino theory, would mean communist control of south-east Asia. ‘Our defeat and humiliation in south Vietnam,’ President Nixon further said, ‘without question would promote recklessness in councils of those great ­powers who have not abandoned their goals of world conquest.’

“Nevertheless,” I added, “Nixon cut and ran from Vietnam. The spectacle of our Vietnamese friends clinging to American helicopters underlined American defeat and humiliation. But the crisis in our credibility did not materialise. The reaction of most foreigners was to see America, after a long aberration, coming to its senses. Cut and run got us out of an unwinnable war in which our vital interests were not involved. Cut and run liberated US armed forces for containment and deterrence elsewhere. Our withdrawal from Vietnam actually increased our credibility – as de Gaulle’s retreat from Algeria increased French credibility. 

“And the aftermath refuted the domino theory that got us into the Vietnam war – just as the aftermath refutes the weapons of mass destruction theory that got us into the Iraq war. Mr President, please contemplate our withdrawal from Vietnam as a historic precedent.

“Moreover,” I said, “there were distinct obligations we owed to Vietnamese friends – obligations that do not exist in Iraq. We intervened in the ­Vietnamese civil war in support of one side. This meant that, when we ­withdrew, we abandoned our Vietnamese comrades. It was a moral betrayal for which our friends paid a heavy price. We had to make a cruel choice between persisting in a pointless war or sacrificing our friends. International geopolitics is a hard game. But despite the death and ruin we brought to ­Vietnam – far more than we have brought to Iraq – Americans today are very popular in communist Vietnam.

“The future of Iraq is uncertain. Cut and run might lead to anarchy or to Islamic domination; but it might precipitate Sunni-Shia-Kurd collaboration in containing the insurgency and governing the country. Maybe the shock of US withdrawal will stimulate the rise of Iraqi responsibility.”

“As long as I’m the president,” Mr Bush responded, “we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.” “But Mr President,” I said, “surely so long as the American military occupation lasts, it serves as a recruiting incentive for terrorists from all over the Middle East. As Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and senator from your own party, says: ‘The longer we stay, the more problems we’re going to have.’ That is the fatal contradiction in the policy of staying the course. Another fatal contradiction is if the Iraq army is to be made strong enough to destroy the insurgency, it needs heavy American weapons; but, given the murky future, no one can tell when such weapons might be turned against the occupying army itself.”

“We owe them something,” the president said referring to the soldiers killed in the Iraq war. “We will finish the task they gave their lives for.” 

As Stephen Schlesinger, director of the World Policy Institute, notes: “By this logic, we should have continued fighting in Vietnam because we ‘owed’ it to the over 50,000 Americans killed in that conflict . . . The issue in Iraq today is assessing where our true national interests lie.”

“Mr President,” I said, “our true national interests lie in ending this senseless war.”

And then I woke up.


The writer is the author, most recently, of War and the American Presidency (W. W. Norton & Company)
 


-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm