Watering The Tree

This is one of those pieces I probably shouldn’t write, but it’s been gnawing away at the back of my mind for… good lord, close to two decades. And I’m tired of holding it back.

Years and years ago, I read one of the more fascinating and troubling novels I’ve ever read — Larry Beinhart’s “American Hero.” It was later optioned into a movie, and became the legendary “Wag The Dog” — but man, was it bastardized in the making. They took the core concept — a president engineering a war for political gain — but turned it into a comedy.

The original novel was no comedy. It was dead serious, and it named names. In the book, dying Republican operative and genius Lee Atwater came up with one last scheme to help President George H. W. Bush win re-election. He talked about how a war — quick, relatively bloodless, and with a clear bad guy — could give him a lock. It took a Hollywood producer to put together the whole package. And they even found a way to persuade Saddam Hussein to play along — guarantee his regime would stand, and he’d become a hero to the Arab world for standing up to The Great Satan.

And the most disturbing thing? This was the only fictional novel I’d ever seen with over 100 footnotes.

Anyway, one of the key points was how Atwater would persuade Bush — a fundamentally decent man — to do something like engineer a war. And the rationale was one that has stuck with me. I don’t know if I buy into it, but damn if it isn’t something worth thinking about.

From 1952 through 1992, every single American president was a military veteran — and, with the exception of Carter, a World War II veteran. (And from 1960 to 1980, they were all Navy veterans.) Since then, both Clinton and Bush II were also products of the Viet Nam era. Obama is the first president since… good lord, I can’t think of one — who was pretty much completely divorced from war.

The theory put forth in the book is that America needs wars, every now and then, to produce leaders. That war forces the truly capable to the forefront, that it is a crucible where our younger generation is tested and learns the hard lessons that seeing combat — or, at least, living through war — teaches.

It also tends to remind us, collectively, that freedom isn’t free, that liberty is not the natural state of man. That most of history consists of people oppressing, exploiting, enslaving, and slaughtering each other, and how our current state is not destiny, but was deliberately created by some very intelligent and committed people — and we need to constantly work to preserve that.

I think that is the real message — or, at least, one interpretation — of Jefferson’s statement that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It’s not an exhortation, it’s a warning of an actual necessity — if we want to preserve that tree, we will need to defend it. We must defend it against those who would cut it down, and be willing to die if necessary.

In that sense, Beinart’s rationale makes a very disturbing sense. If we go too long without a war, or some other threat, we grow complacent and lazy. We begin to take our freedom for granted, and we lose a bit of the drive and… well, magic that makes America what it is.

We end up, quite frankly, an “entitlement nation.” Or, as Obama thinks of them, “my base.”

Sorry, this was supposed to be a meta piece, bigger issues than today’s transient politics. That just slipped out.

Anyway, we’re now seeing a lot of veterans of the first Gulf War get up in age where they’re taking on significant leadership roles. And the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have given us a bumper crop of younger veterans, who will keep the lessons of those conflicts with them — not the arguments for or against the wars, but the actual experiences learned on the battlefield — for the rest of their lives.

And I think that is a good thing for the country. Of our 42 presidents, only 12 had no military experience, according to Wikipedia. But they also note that Franklin Roosevelt had been Secretary of the Navy, Herbert Hoover was a Guide for the Marines during the Boxer Rebellion, Taft was Secretary of War during Theodore Roosevelt’s second term, and both John Adams and John Quincy Adams were tangentially involved in the Revolutionary War. That leaves just Van Buren, Cleveland, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Clinton, and Obama who made it to the presidency completely apart from the military.

This is the kind of thing that comes to my mind when I hear talk about “the cost of war,” “avoiding war at any cost,” “war as the last option,” and other similar sentiments. It’s terribly un-PC to discuss the benefits of war — but they are quite real.

Beinart was not completely off base when he put that argument into Lee Atwater’s mouth.

Shortlink:

Posted by on November 30, 2011.
Filed under Military, Philosophy, Politics, War On Terror.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Anonymous

    Interesting thesis.  Problem is that now we have become an “entitlement society” and it costs a lot of money.  When you pile the costs of a war on top of that, we get into serious economic problems, as we are now.  Of course, many other forces were at work to cause our present economic problems, but the combined costs of an entitlement society and the war have made it very difficult to recover from our weak economy.  Compounding the problem further is a group of politicians who seem to think government spending helps the economy.

    We are in deep do-do and it will take a big change in political thinking to get us out.

    • PBunyan

      Becoming an entitlement society, like America has become, always gets you into serious economic problems.  You don’t need to add the cost of a war for that to happen.  The cost of a war merely speeds things up, but doesn’t at all change the ultimate results of becoming an entitlement society– economic failure and near universal poverty.  Always has, always will. 

      • Anonymous

        Agree.

  • herddog505

    Military service, as Robert Heinlein points out in “Starship Troopers”, does not confer some special virtue or genius.  AT BEST it gives the veteran a bit more maturity than he might otherwise have, or perhaps a slightly greater appreciation for the country that he fought for.

    But, on the other hand, a number of scummy politicians have been vets: Algore, Jean-Francois, Duke Cunningham and Yosemite Sam leap to mind.

  • http://www.harlemghost.blogspot.com/ HarlemGhost

    I would point out that only veterans could vote in Starship Troopers … 

    • herddog505

      True.  It might even be that a voting public of veterans might smoke out a poser like Jean-Francois more readily than what we have.

    • Anonymous

      Veterans or people who enrolled in a similarly dangerous public service job.  Basically, “if you want to vote, you have to take some risk with your own life.”

    • Anonymous

      Loved the movie.  Turned the premise of the book into a brutal satire of the book.

  • Anonymous

    Utterly insane thesis, except for the perverse idea that you would not have written it if you had actually been in a war. Point to a society in history that suffered because it did not fight enough wars. Of course, there are many which were ruined by fighting too many wars.

    Guys like Beinart romanticize war because they allow themselves to be trapped by the thought of Samuel Johnson’s quote “Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea.”   There’s no reason to “think meanly” of yourself because you weren’t a swabbie, or a private, or at Fallujah.  I was lucky enough to serve in basically peacetime and game the system for maximum benefits, big deal.  At times I could have been bored to death or drowned in the bullshit, I suppose.

    Unfortunately, too many of those guys think war’s a great national and individual character booster – once they’re not of enlistment age – and start stumping for war. 

    War lost it’s romantic chivalry at least 100 years ago.  For every war veteran elected to office, there are 100 or more who are adversely affected by war – physically or mentally – to the point where they have trouble in large or small ways. 

    There’s no essential reason for the USA to fight wars, with its natural boundaries on the oceans, and peaceful relations with Canada and Mexico (yeah, I know the latter not perfectly peaceful).  The insanity of trying to dominate places like Afghanistan will destroy this country.  Better to trade with the world and maintain distance free from “entangling alliances.”

    There is always the space program, the Peace Corps and peacetime military training to “build character.” 

    If you want to read a better book on the theme of political wars, the cry of the chickenhawk, and the futile sacrifice of good men, read Something to Die For by (Senator) James Webb.

    • Anonymous

      Way to miss the point, Chico. Beinart’s book was a satire (I think) about how the first Gulf War was a staged event, an engineered war, st up by a conspiracy between the Bush (I) administration and Saddam Hussein. How the HELL did you get it the idea that it “romanticizes” war?

      And yeah, you and Ron Paul are totes in love with our big oceans. Too bad neither of you can quite grasp the notion that we have interests all around the world. Plus, how exactly did being based out of Afghanistan slow down Al Qaeda on 9/11?

      J.

      • Anonymous

        Satire?  Well, forgive me for taking this seriously - The original novel was no comedy. It was dead serious, and it named names

        You were adopting the words of the fictional Lee Atwater and saying  If we go too long without a war, or some other threat, we grow complacent and lazy.  . . . . It’s terribly un-PC to discuss the benefits of war — but they are quite real.  If that isn’t romanticizing war, I don’t know what is.  War keeps a country from becoming “complacent and lazy?” 

        It’s the kind of thing Kipling wrote, before his son was killed at the Somme.

        Of course we have interests all over the world. It’s best we pursue them with trade and not military occupations. Al Qaeda came here because we were over there, propping up the corrupt House of Saud and Saddam Hussein (before 1991) among other things.

        • Anonymous

          Because, Chico, authors always believe everything they have characters say. Beinart, if you didn’t know, is a big ol’ leftist. Former editor of the New Republic, author of “The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.” Currently writes for The Daily Beast.

          J.

        • Anonymous

          Way to miss the point, Chico. Because, hey, every author believes everything they have a character say. Atwater is one of the villains of the book.

          Beinhart is a big ol’ leftist. Here’s his Puffington Host diary: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-beinhart/  

          Note the one posting titled “Afghaninam, Vietnamistan.” Yeah, real glory hound, that guy.

          J.

          • Anonymous

            So I missed the point, because you were trying to satirize the satiric words of the fictional Lee Atwater, and that you stand for the opposite of what he said? 

            You don’t believe the country needs a war now and then, to “water the tree” (with blood)?

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

            You also missed Jefferson’s point – surprise!  The “tree of Liberty” doesn’t need to be “watered with the blood of patriots” in wars, but in revolutions.

          • Anonymous

            I didn’t miss it – the reference is taken from the title of JT’s post.   How could you forget that?  It was on Tim McVeigh’s t-shirt when he was caught.

          • retired.military

            Oh.  Nice stereotyping there Chico.  joining your buddy Steve in that respect I see.

            Shall we bring up the guy who recently fired shots at the WH Chico? After all he was one of your Occupy buddies simply expressing he right to free speech.

    • retired.military

      “Point to a society in history that suffered because it did not fight enough wars.”

      That is simply becuase every civilization in history didnt fight their last war well enough to survive. They got conquered.

      ” For every war veteran elected to office, there are 100 or more who are adversely affected by war – physically or mentally – to the point where they have trouble in large or small ways.

      We know know why Chico is as disfunctional as he is.

      I will stick with St Crispin’s day and have better company because of it.

  • Anonymous

    stipulating that it is necessary, it is also necessary that there be a legitimate threat to respond to- an engineered ‘war’ (we have not had a War since 1945) does not suffice, as the result is also engineered for the consumer, it’s not an actual fight for liberty.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    Why rot your brain with that hack Beinart, and put money in his pocket besides?

  • Anonymous

    Truman was an artillery battery commander in WW1. He spoke of his experience quite a bit and was beloved by his troops. It is quite an interesting story.

  • Anonymous

    Yes the Beithart book was certainly fictional! For Lee Atwater’s real deathbed conversion, read “I’m Still Lee Atwater” ,

    Atwater’s “deathbed confession” remains controversial to this day. Many interpreted it as a renunciation of the political decade he had helped make possible. “Long before I was struck with cancer, I felt something stirring in American society,” he said. “It was a sense among the people of the country — Republicans and Democrats alike — that something was missing from their lives, something crucial. I was trying to position the Republican Party to take advantage of it. But I wasn’t exactly sure what ‘it’ was. My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood.”… In 1988, fighting Dukakis, I said that I ‘would strip the bark off the little bastard’ and ‘make Willie Horton his running mate.’ I am sorry for both
    statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me
    sound racist, which I am not. Mostly I am sorry for the way I thought of other
    people. Like a good general, I had treated everyone who wasn’t with me as
    against me.”

  • Bob Gilkison

    Authors like Beithart have a free rein, and unfortunately there is always an audience ready to read–and apparently believe–their delusional tripe.

    If Beithart meant to write a fantasy, why  use real people, and why the footnotes?  I can only interpret his intent as a slam at G.H.W. Bush, a damn good man, and at Lee Atwater the Democrat’s nightmare.

    Sorry, but this thread should never have hatched.  Bush did a good thing in liberating Kuwait and stopping Saddam; there is no reason to question the motives in reality or in someone’s fantasy world.

    Now Commander Chico is playing the aggrieved veteran.  I wonder if he ever answered my earlier question about the nature of his service, and how he is qualified to use Commander in his name.