History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Considering conservatives are fond of prognosticating the enduring weakness of the EU on the basis of "not having gone through a Civil War like the US," why should it not be logical, if the US is a normative model of nationalization, that a civil conflict should erupt in the future before the Iraqis can become a united people?
Also, Ronald Reagan, "the mujahideen are the moral equivalent of the founding fathers of Afghanistan" about the Mujhadeen [later taliban]...
No, he is part of a long tradition of Presidents using reference to the American revolution as a way to suggest that a repressive regime deserves American support. Please see, for example, Lyndon Johnson, "Diem is the George Washington of South Vietnam"; and Ronald Reagan, "The contreas in Nicaragua are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers"
Interesting. Does that also mean that Bush is saying that Iraq will need substantial assistance from foreign militaries in order to achieve their democracy?
Agreed, but I think part of it is also the (unsavory) American habit of idolizing our founding era and its participants. It's a natural analogy since most Americans think of our founding as a blessed, providential event. I could be overreading Bush here, but I detect overtones of that sentiment in his speeches as well.
I suspect his goal is to suggest that contemporary Iraqis are forging a fledgeling democracy, as were the early citizens of the US.