Pajamas Media

World War IV with the Wrong Rosie

Pajamas Media CEO Roger L. Simon reviews Norman Podhoretz's %%AMAZON=0385522215 World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism%%, published on the sixth anniversary of 9/11.

September 11, 2007 - by Roger L Simon

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

I kept thinking of that line - often attributed to Trotsky - when reading %%AMAZON=0385522215 World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism%%, Norman Podhoretz’s analysis of the evolution of our current situation.

Not interested, indeed. What normal person would be? Like a lot of people, I was hoping Francis Fukuyama was right back in 1992 when he proffered the “End of History.” No such luck.

Podhoretz might be considered the anti-Fukuyama. His work - published today for the sixth anniversary of 9/11 and amplifying an essay he did for Commentary in August 2004 - posits a view of modern history as one long sequence of sometimes overlapping global wars from World Wars I and II through the Cold War (World War III) to the confrontation with Islamofascism (World War IV), which may be the most intractable and endless conflict of all. Not to pick on Fukuyama - who has long since abandoned his theory - at the present moment, unhappily for all of us, Podhoretz seems to be correct.

Of course not everyone accepts this overview or, if they do, agrees with how this current war is being fought. The best part of Podhoretz’s book is a tour d’horizon of all this opposition. He has a nose for the sturm und drang of intellectual conflict, whether it be the posturing of a Sontag or a Mailer, the slithering realpolitik of a Brent Scowcroft or the preening prevarications of a Joseph C. Wilson. For decades, since Making It and Breaking Ranks, Podhoretz has written brilliantly about this blood sport of the intelligentsia - and the stakes around it now are perhaps higher than ever.

In all Podhoretz is Bush’s best theoretical defender by far, at least that I have read. In fact, the selections he makes from the President’s speeches advocating the “Bush Doctrine” (preemptive action against terrorism) are quite eloquent and persuasive.

But… and there is almost always a “but” in a book review, as Norman Podhoretz, of all people, would know (and, yes, %%AMAZON=0385522215 buy this book%% - it is one of the musts of our time)… Podhoretz’s analysis contains a serious omission. In his understandable zeal to defend Bush and his doctrine from admittedly disingenuous opponents, he overlooks an inadequacy on the part of the President and his administration that is nearly fatal.

I am not referring to the strategic errors that may or may not have been made - whether there were too few troops, etc. Podhoretz makes it clear such errors were probably even worse in WWII. The “fog of war” is a clich√© for a reason. Nor am I even referring to the decision to emphasize the pursuit of WMDs over the promotion of democracy as justification for the war. (Podhoretz sees this as an error, as I do, although he soft pedals it.)

I am referring to the extraordinary inability of Bush and those surrounding him to understand and to respond to the paramount importance of public relations in asymmetrical war. Indeed, it can be argued that asymmetrical war is in essence about public relations. You would think, given the recent history of our time, the Tet Offensive, indeed the whole story of Vietnam, the administration would have known that, seen the inevitability that a powerful opposition would coalesce in the media and in the political classes (one that Podhoretz describes so well) and moved to head it off, to co-opt their opponents, but they did the opposite. They told us to go shopping.

What a basic misunderstanding or lack of understanding of human psychology is that! In World War II, all Americans were asked to participate, to come together against a common enemy. No such thing was asked of us. We were told to stand aside and let the military and the government handle things. Result? In World War II, we had Rosie the Riveter; in World War IV, we have Rosie O’Donnell.

And the Bush Administration is at least in part responsible for this. I’m not saying they should have solicited the participation of Sontag or Mailer, although who knows what would have happened even with them? But the Administration had natural allies they never thought to enlist, because all of us - Democrat, Republican or Independent - are threatened by the rise of Islamofascism. They should have fought at every moment not to make this a partisan issue, because it is not. The very things the left wing of our Democratic party says they abhor - misogyny, homophobia, lack of religious freedom - are the very things Islamism represents and promotes. That should have been exploited and co-opted. We’re all in this together in the defense of the Enlightenment.

Yes, I know that’s not easy in our society where hypocrisy is rife and so many think first of their own power. Our current Democratic Party is particularly a moral disgrace in that regard, as Podhoretz demonstrates in his book with quote after quote from Kennedy, Reid, et al, excoriating Saddam and urging he be deposed, justifying their votes for the war with ringing words, etc. Now they act as if they never said any such thing, blaming Bush for supposed lies while preening for the cameras and lusting after the throne like bad actors from a road show Macbeth.

But truth to tell, the president has been the enabler of these hypocrites. He has not stood four square in front of the public and done his job FDR-style in keeping us together. “What we have here,” as Strother Martin told us so memorably in Cool Hand Luke, “is a failure to communicate.” We also, sadly, have a leader who, for all his reading of history, forgot the most famous words of the great military strategist Sun-Tzu: “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.”

I have a sense, although I certainly cannot prove it, that Norman Podhoretz knows this. He also knows that few could do what history demanded of George W. Bush. For that reason perhaps he does not emphasize Bush’s failings in World War IV. In any case, the jury is still out - and will be for many years. What I have just written may be seen as way too harsh or too lenient in the days to come. For now, Podhoretz’s book is the best analysis we have of our recent history.

Roger L. Simon is an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter, novelist and blogger.

Art by Oleg Atbashian

UPDATE: Video interview of Podhoretz here.

Mark Steyn on Podhoretz here.

24 Comments

Banjo:

The left knows how to deal with Podhoretz and his kind. Call them neocons. End of argument. They have closed their minds to reason and even discussion in their whorish pursuit of political advantage. The Rosies and smirking comics like Maher and other useful idiots will always be with us, given the corruption of the age. Even the next terrorism atrocity on our shores will only silence them for a time.

Sep 11, 2007 - 7:03 am Gandalin:

Roger,

In general I agree with your cogent points, but I think you are succumbing to the general pandemic of BDS.

The President has tried to keep us together, and if you read the actual text of his speeches, he has been very clear and forthright.

His problem –our problem– is that during WWII (if only because FDR had the luck to enter the war on the same side as Uncle Joe) FDR had Hollywood, the media, and academia with him. In our free society, we have always relied on these non-governmental civil institutions to provide “morale re-armament” and propaganda.

It is an unfortunate fact that in WWIV, Hollywood, the media, and the academy are standing four square against America, and against the American people, in open and flagrant support of the most vicious and despicable enemies this country has ever faced.

It has been very difficult for the President to counter the enormous propaganda efforts of Hollywood, the media, and the academy all by himself. He’s only had part of the blogosphere with him, and without that . . .

Sep 11, 2007 - 7:12 am BMOON:

Yes, Bush is no Reagan in that regard. But the audience has changed radically too, and perhaps even a Reagan would have failed with the current citizenry who, either are much less literate in American history, Government or even in Fun With Phonics, or they are hopelessly “educated into imbecility” by the stifling stranglehold on the universities and media by the post-modernist, decontructionist, neo-Marxist universal acid doctrine that has corroded rational thinking and just plain decency on a scale that is frightening.

Hence the mindboggling treason and shameless politicizing, powerlust and Goebellian use of the Big Lie tactic as seen in the DailyKos ad against Gen. Petraeus yesterday in the NYT.

Sep 11, 2007 - 7:17 am Jon S.:

Roger is absolutely correct. This is not a surrender to BDS-style assaults as Gandalin says. Rather, the president’s lack of any kind of defense of his policies is manifestly the problem this administration has had since day one, and certainly since 9/11 and the development of a response to state-sponsored terrorism and regional instability. It’s like they suddenly became members of the submarine service and are running deep and silent. Given the overwhelming hostility on behalf of the media wing of the Democratic Party (ie, the MSM), the PR strategy had to be clear, articulate, and repeated every day by all senior members of the administration, especially the president. I doubt that he could have kept many of these types on board, but he could still have won in the court of public opinion decisively. Now, we are all on the defensive in what should have been a slam-dunk, if I can use those now-discredited words!

Sep 11, 2007 - 7:55 am bfwebster:

I am referring to the extraordinary inability of Bush and those surrounding him to understand and to respond to the paramount importance of public relations in asymmetrical war.

Amen and amen. For years now, I have been dumbfounded by this Administration’s inability and/or unwillingness to be out there every single week to talk about what we’re doing and why — and what the other side is doing, and why. IMHO, Bush should have been holding weekly news conferences for the last 6 six years.

I can’t quite figure out if the Administration is afraid of being labeled ‘propagandists’ (which they are called anyway) or if they think such efforts are just beneath them. But I agree that it has been the single biggest disaster in the Administration’s handling of this war. ..bruce..

Sep 11, 2007 - 8:17 am Art - SF Bay Area:

President Bush’s most costly and avoidable failure consists in not accurately and persistently defining for the American people the identity of our enemy in WWIV. President Bush fails in this by surrendering to the regnant political correctness that shields Islam from critical analysis - meanwhile the President otherwise demonstrates courage and resolve in the struggle that one cannot divine in any current Democrat and perhaps in no other Republican. But neither President Bush nor any other President will prevail in WWIV unless and until the Islamist element of Islamofascism is made clear to the people of the US. Media/academia/Democrats being what they are, this will not be possible until after the next major terrorist action in the US, and not then if there remains potential for domestic political gains by the left in the US losing WWIV.

Sep 11, 2007 - 9:12 am Gandalin:

Jon,

May I suggest you read Jim Kuyper’s “Bush’s War”? He shows, speech after speech, how the mainstream media “framed” the President’s speeches on the war, and depicted him as being as much an enemy as are the terrorists.

Sep 11, 2007 - 9:24 am heather:

great review. And this is why the Republican nominee must be either Rudy or Fred. It is essential that the President understand “communications” and be charismatic (another way of saying, the camera must love him.) The Armed Forces can’t/won’t do this, because of its position relative to the civilian power of the USA.

And Romney, now. A great manager, very smart, personally charming (I understand.) But he can’t get past 15% because.. The camera doesn’t love him.

Sep 11, 2007 - 9:50 am David Thomson:

“The very things the left wing of our Democratic party says they abhor - misogyny, homophobia, lack of religious freedom - are the very things Islamism represents and promotes. That should have been exploited and co-opted.”

This would have been an impossible goal. The leftist establishment is psychologically incapable of behaving like adults. They prefer to run from reality. Our very best option was always to marginalize them and prevent these individuals from causing further harm.

Roger L. Simon has not quite realized just how bad things are. The allies he is seeking are not even slightly interested in joining the fight. On the contrary, they wish to align themselves with those dedicated to their own destruction! These leftists are existentially committed to suicide.

Sep 11, 2007 - 9:52 am Mahon:

There is much in what most of you say, but it is not the whole story. Bush is trying to act like a grown-up, making coherent arguments, and maintaining a somewhat dignified tone. Unfortunately, the media wind is blowing hard in his face and the opposition prefers sniping and slandering. Plus, he knows that you cannot sustain the intensity of a WWII mobilization for the perhaps decades needed to get through this (not Iraq, but the broader struggle.) And we do need to distinguish between Islamic and Islamist. We have to learn to think of “the war” as part of business as usual for a long time to come, even though we will not always have 160,000 troops engaged abroad. Bush’s overall conduct will look a lot better to all of us 20 years out.

Sep 11, 2007 - 10:01 am David Thomson:

“Bush is trying to act like a grown-up, making coherent arguments, and maintaining a somewhat dignified tone.”

George W. Bush was the lesser of evils in the last two elections. Sadly, he is a politically correct whack job. The president is perhaps too “dignified.” His reluctance to confront the Democratic Party leadership is perceived as a sign of weakness—if not even deception—by many Americans. Rudy Giuliani will not make this mistake.

Sep 11, 2007 - 10:27 am valjean:

Roger,

Interesting ideas, but (and yes, there’s always a “but” in comments) … I thought this was a book review. Beyond telling us that Podhoretz “tours the opposition” and “theoretically defends” Bush, how about something else about the book — writing style? detailed arguments? debates?

No offense — I’m a regular reader of your blog — but your own opinion about Bush’s lack of PR belongs in another column. I’m here for your view of Podhoretz’s book — not your own riffs.

Sep 11, 2007 - 11:45 am schnargley:

I just noticed something. Rosie O lost some significant weight! Hey, she really doesn’t look half bad - if you could somehow put a bag over that revolting smug sneer.

Sep 11, 2007 - 12:58 pm Sigmund, Carl and Alfred:

“..the extraordinary inability of Bush and those surrounding him to understand and to respond to the paramount importance of public relations in asymmetrical war.”

Touche.

‘Walk softly and carry a big stick’ are no longer words upon to predicate a political ideology.

We live in a culture where watching a PBS special on whales or the environment has people believing they are experts on the subject. No matter that there are those that have spent lifetimes doing research and engaged in study. Sixty minutes on PBS qualifies viewers to have an ‘informed opinion.’

The same is true of politics. Michael Moore gives us 90 minutes of drivel and multitudes believe they are ‘informed.’ Greenpeace sends out direct mail pieces by the million and 8 1/2X10 glossy pictures of baby seals are enough to make people who can barely spell ‘Greenpeace.’

Simon is right. The ability to reach out and effectively communicate ideas to the nation is part of the job description for the Office of the President of the United States. Moses had a lisp and Adam Michnik of Poland has a speech impediment, but they didn’t have to run for high office in the United States.

The presidency of The United States is one tough gig.

Sep 11, 2007 - 1:44 pm Carol in Oregon:

Oh, for Petty’s sake! You take up the subject of Podhoretz’s book and turn it into an off-the-point critique of the limitations of President Bush? Focus, man, focus!

I’m one of those swing voters folks talk about, but I become more of an admirer of George Bush every year.
I register as an Independent because of the entrenched excesses on both sides of the aisle. I liked Clinton fine and voted for him twice, even as I voted Republican for lower races. I voted for Bush not because he impressed me so, but because Gore had not earned my vote, wasted his time in eight years as No.2, and surely was the most insufferable candidate ever.

But ever since that 2000 election, my estimation of President Bush has continued to grow. I am stunned at his grace under the pressure of these toxic-talking times.

Too bad you’re wasting your space adding more quibbling like the breathless Leftosphere, where every triviality is cause to ignore the enormous tasks at hand.

It’s like a room in our national house has caught fire, and Mom is fussy-butting around about who left the candle burning and darnnit she just bought those curtains, too, such a shame, and does everyone have on their good underwear just in case?, and we need to sit down and have a discussion about personal safety and who is at fault…

Meanwhile, WWIV smolders and the Democrats smirk and complain, and you’re fussing at President Bush?

Today of all days, six years counting, I’m awfully glad he is the President.

Sep 11, 2007 - 4:35 pm Andy Rigrod:

Simon’s comments resonate, alas. Bush has failed as a communicator. And I agree he should known his enemies better. They are painfully o=bvious.

Sep 11, 2007 - 4:54 pm Linda Frank:

Carol in Oregon, you say “Focus, man, focus!”

That is what Bush did not do to the degree necessary under these amazing circumstances. Not to criticize that is to put your head in the sand. You will just get more of the same and we cannot afford it. Indeed, Bush made some wonderful speeches and acted courageously, but then he has often inexplicably disappeared. The antiwar crowd is relentless. We need a president who is as relentless as they are and can explain things to the American people. Perhaps Giuliani is that person. I hope he is.

Sep 11, 2007 - 5:37 pm Carol in Oregon:

Linda,
Looking ahead is a different matter, and I, too, am excited about what Giuliani brings to the nation.

But for the battles that have been fought these last years and the ones now, we have the Commander we have, and I, for one, have to praise the soldier he is and not harp on the one that he is not.

And, between Gore and Kerry and Bush, thank Goodness we have HIM.

Sep 11, 2007 - 5:57 pm Larry Sheldon:

schnargley said:

“I just noticed something. Rosie O lost some significant weight! ”

That’s what I cam to comment about. Way too flattering for O’Donnell. But far more importantly, way too demeaning for Rosie the Riviter. That women represented a lot of what was fine about American women in genuine support of the troops. And she looked good!

(My mother was a journeyman Machinist–I have her union card here in the collection somewhere, and think the memory deserves more respect.)

Sep 11, 2007 - 6:48 pm Drew Kelley:

Roger: I second your criticism of the Administration for falling down in the PR war. As criticism from the usual subjects was getting traction after the taking of Baghdad, I advocated that the videos made by Saddam’s sadistic off-spring be shown at the daily WH press briefing. The press corp should have been forced to watch the depravity that their elite/intellectual allies were trying to defend. Plus, they should have been put on the internet for everyone to see. I think the public at large would have a different viewpoint of our efforts if this, and other things, had been done to show the depravity that we were attempting to stamp out.

Sep 11, 2007 - 8:47 pm E.T.:

I hope people are still around today to continue this thread because I have a simple question: How?

Roger, et. al., are putting forth a (to me) tiresome mantra I’ve heard for years. In essence, “Bush’s PR sucks.” To quote Jon on this thread: “the PR strategy had to be clear, articulate, and repeated every day by all senior members of the administration.”

I am tired of hearing this Bush bash from conservatives and all other parties to the right of Kucinich. To me, Bush, et. al. HAVE been trying to communicate. They HAVE made speeches, had press conferences, etc., but the Press consistently has cut and paste what they feel like printing. And this more often than not consists solely of spinning or twisting the speeches in a negative light, emphasis on quotes where failures or shortcomings are admitted, and outright exclusion of the knockout lines of Bush’s arguments.

Please, tell me I’m wrong as I return to my original question, “How?”. Can somebody still on this thread explain to me “How?”. How can someone, anyone, even the President of the United States of America, get his thoughts communicated on a widespread basis if the G-D mainstream media refuses to print/broadcast (or twists and distorts) the message that is trying to be conveyed?

Sep 12, 2007 - 5:40 am Jon S.:

E.T.: You say: “Roger, et. al., are putting forth a (to me) tiresome mantra I’ve heard for years. In essence, “Bush’s PR sucks.” To quote Jon on this thread: “the PR strategy had to be clear, articulate, and repeated every day by all senior members of the administration.” … Please, tell me I’m wrong as I return to my original question, “How?”.

I do not believe that either Roger or I were engaging in a Bush bash, but rather in sorely needed constructive criticism. There are numerous examples of how to do this; again, when you’re attempting something monumental but the deck is stacked against you, what’s required is a strategy much like the one we’re finally pursuing in Iraq: aggressive counterattack. That hasn’t happened at all since the early Rumsfeld press conferences during the first few months of the war, despite a few Cheney remarks made in the year prior to the 2004 election.

You ask how is this to be done? I’ll give you a few examples: perhaps the first and best place to start is the manifestly untrue Joe Wilson op-ed that began an avalanche of hyper-criticism of the ‘Bush Lied/People Died’ sort. The White House public response was utter silence (note I said public response!). Every piece of this execrable op-ed should have been picked apart by Powell or Rumsfeld, or even Bush, as soon as they saw it had legs (pretty much the next day or so). Had it been exposed for the sham that it was, an entire cottage industry of anti-war hysteria would have been stopped dead in its tracks.

Same goes for Abu Ghraib. A minor scandal that the military themselves uncovered was allowed to turn into a media circus that continues unabated to this day; Sen. Kennedy should have been ridiculed for his ‘under new managament’ speech by the president himself, or certainly by Rummy or Powell. No holds barred. And there are many other nonsensical media battles that should have been joined but were not.

The presidency remains a bully pulpit and the much vaunted Karl Rove very much missed the boat on this. Sadly, as much as I support him, GWB seems not to have learned this essential truth that TR understood so well.

Sep 12, 2007 - 10:06 am michael i:

Y’all do recognize don’cha, that the vast majority of factory workers building America’s Arsenal of Democracy were MEN. All that “Rosie the Riveter” recruitment hoo-haw was made necessary by the reluctance of women to pitch in at all. Look up the records and see for yourself just how fast the large majority of the relatively few women who did participate in wartime production fled back to the kitchen and gladly shed their work boots for bare feet and a baby boom when their men returned and could be put back to doing the icky work.

Sep 12, 2007 - 2:13 pm Larry Sheldon:

No, michael i, I don’t recognize….

Of course I was pretty young at the time, but I remember Dad taking Mom to the gate at Lockheed for the swing shift, and I do remember lots of women, and not many men. (Dad was 4F I think–he was sick in bed a good lot of the time, in case you wondered.)

Sep 12, 2007 - 7:01 pm