A Will and a Way

I'm not sure my estimation of George W. Bush is quite low enough to believe this really happened:

"Kick ass!" [General Ricardo Sanchez] quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

On the other hand, Sanchez has no reason to make that up. Either way, though unusually juvenile in its phrasing, the underlying sentiment is typical of what I've called the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics -- the conservative conceit that willpower is the crucial variable in making our national security policy work. Thus, when resistance to national objectives is encountered, instead of dealing with them pragmatically the resistance is seen as a test of will. Since it's a test of will, the most important thing becomes not resolving the issue in a productive way, but demonstrating the implacability of our will. When strategies motivated in this manner fail to achieve their goals, that merely shows the need for more will because to change strategy at all would send the wrong sort of message about our resolve.

Comments

wingnuts really need to take off their Vietnam-colored glasses.

Posted by cleek | June 3, 2008 9:18 AM

The willpower approach to foreign policy is not original -- Barbara Tuchman does a great job describing how the French analogue in WWI was a similarly miserable failure.

Posted by Joe | June 3, 2008 9:22 AM

And this is the same with McCain, or should I say, McSame. In speech after speech recently, he has shown the same tone as Bush.

This same message is simply a rather juvenile one: I'm macho, I'm strong, my way or the highway, I won't talk only fight, blah blah, blah...

As the campaign progresses, McSame morphs more and more into Bush, as the advisors that control him convince him more and more that he has to follow the Bush template to win.

Keep in mind that Rove is also advising the McSame campaign; that tells you a whole lot.

Also, watch for a phony display of supposed independence from Bush given by McSame tonight in New Orleans. He will strongly condemn Bush response to Katrina, but still forge ahead with the same Bush policies. It's all a deception for the American people; offer the same Bush policy, but just talk differently.

Posted by cm | June 3, 2008 9:24 AM

This is not a particularly new pathology. See Barbara Tuchman's classic "The Guns of August" re the French emphasis on "cran" in the advent of WW I. As the old saying has it: "You go to war with the leaders you have...".

Posted by Bryan C Kennedy | June 3, 2008 9:25 AM

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them."

I agree with that sentence.

Posted by peep | June 3, 2008 9:26 AM

Yeah, this is just so out of character for Bush Jr., it stretches the imagination. Okay.

Posted by El Cid | June 3, 2008 9:31 AM

Confirmed - The President of the United States IS Eric Cartman. With slightly less class, wit and insight.

Posted by calipygian | June 3, 2008 9:33 AM

I, too, wondered about the veracity of this long quote. Did Sanchez have a recorder running, or was he "reconstructing" the message he heard? If the latter is the case, then I would guess that the substance of the message is accurately portrayed--but the music and lyrics may be wholly made up, and that, after all, is the nub of what is hilarious/pathetic/outrageous about the whole passage. So...I'd counsel agnosticism on this one. In contrast to "Suck. On. This," I don't think this really deserves to go into the horror-quote hall of fame, unless someone can verify the words themselves.

Posted by elle loco | June 3, 2008 9:35 AM

As is evident from any number of religious texts, the Almighty will, from time to time, challenge the faithful by putting obstacles in their path. To test their resolution.

Posted by CharleyCarp | June 3, 2008 9:35 AM

It's a good thing Bush doesn't use his Super Willpower Beam on Anna Kournikova. She would be so laid!!

Posted by steve duncan | June 3, 2008 9:36 AM

I'm not sure my estimation of George W. Bush is quite low enough to believe this really happened

Where have you been, anyway?

Posted by ed | June 3, 2008 9:37 AM

I prefer the Peter Pan Theory of Geopolitics to the Green Lantern. The Green Lantern was too cool for this idiocy.

Posted by Th | June 3, 2008 9:44 AM

If the quote is verbatim, or nearly so, it's nice that Bush finally got straight the difference between being resolute and being "resolved." I remember in an '04 debate with Kerry that Bush talked about how he was so very "resolved" and therefore a stronger leader. To which Kerry replied, of course, 'I'm resolved too.'

Posted by tinisoli | June 3, 2008 9:52 AM

Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics

I think you're being very unfair to the Green Lanterns here. Unless, of course, you're thinking of Bush as G'nort:

"Hal Jordan explains that G'nort became a Green Lantern due to the influence of his relative who was a famous member of the Lantern Corps. Despite his obviously limited intelligence (not intelligent enough to read a map) and profoundly lacking tactical judgment, the character is consistently depicted as brave, loyal, and honorable. This fact is overlooked by most heroes, although Superman has pointed it out on occasion."

Posted by Roddy McCorley | June 3, 2008 9:57 AM

So, if this is the Green Lantern theory of geopolitics..does that make George Bush Guy Gardner? Or G'Nort?

Posted by bostondreams | June 3, 2008 9:58 AM

BUSH: You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha Ha Ha Ha ....

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 3, 2008 10:00 AM

So, if this is the Green Lantern theory of geopolitics..does that make George Bush Guy Gardner? Or G'Nort?

Posted by bostondreams | June 3, 2008 10:01 AM

Matt, although you are surely right to disdain the sort of adolescent ranting that Sanchez attributes to Bush, I think you frequently go too far in your general contempt for the very idea of demonstraing resolve in contests of wills. You love so much to trot out your "Green Lantern Theory", your unique contribution to the theory of international relations. But there are indeed such things as tests of will and contests of will, whether in foreign and national security affairs, business dealings and negotiations or even ordinary interpersonal relations. And it really is important in many situations to demonstrate resolve in order to best protect one's own interests, or the interests of others for whom one is responsible.

In some cases, credibly demonstrating the firmness of one's resolve and commitment to certain red lines can even save lives.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 3, 2008 10:01 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, the first MBA president:
"And so the fact that they purchased the machine meant somebody had to make the machine. And when somebody makes a machine, it means there's jobs at the machine-making place."

Posted by Hoyt Pollard | June 3, 2008 10:01 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, the first MBA president:
"And so the fact that they purchased the machine meant somebody had to make the machine. And when somebody makes a machine, it means there's jobs at the machine-making place."

Posted by Hoyt Pollard | June 3, 2008 10:03 AM

I'm not sure my estimation of George W. Bush is quite low enough to believe this really happened:

Ed beat me to the obvious "where the hell have you been?" question, so....

Either way, though unusually juvenile in its phrasing,

Unusually juvenile for whom? "Bring'em on!" "Mission accomplished!" "W're gonna smoke'im out!" "Dead or alive...."

After all these years, MY shows once again the force of the Broderist mentality with regard to Bush, even among those you'd think would know better: "O! He simply can't be as bad as foul-mouthed lefty bloggers and my own lyin' eyes say he is!"

Posted by Jim | June 3, 2008 10:05 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, the first MBA president: "And so the fact that they purchased the machine meant somebody had to make the machine. And when somebody makes a machine, it means there's jobs at the machine-making place."

If I didn't know any better, I'd say he got his MBA from one of those diploma making places - you know, a mill.

Harvard must be proud.

Posted by calipygian | June 3, 2008 10:10 AM

I just want to know if he said this while also eating a hotdog.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 10:11 AM

So, if this is the Green Lantern theory of geopolitics..does that make George Bush Guy Gardner? Or G'Nort?
Posted by bostondreams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think Bush is more akin to Chauncey Gardner. Picture Chauncey as a mean drunk and that nails him.

Posted by steve duncan | June 3, 2008 10:17 AM

They would love to make a film about Iraq called "Triumph of the Will" but Leni Riefenstahl stole the name.

Bush could always call his memoirs "My Struggle", though

Posted by toby | June 3, 2008 10:18 AM

Frankly it reminded me of Der Furher's rants while the German 6th army struggled to take Stalingrad; unintelligent, pointless, and ultimately self defeating.

Posted by Northern Observer | June 3, 2008 10:23 AM

Peep and El Cid have already own this thread.

Posted by Jeff S. | June 3, 2008 10:27 AM

I've always thought it was more like the Hulk theory of international relations: the madder Bush get, the stronger Bush get!

Posted by DonBoy | June 3, 2008 10:28 AM

Once you accept the fact that the United States is currently run by a 13-year-old "tough" guy, everything that has happened over the past 8 years makes perfect sense.

Posted by jim | June 3, 2008 10:32 AM

Going back to Bryan C Kennedy's post, the French at least had the excuse that their country was partially occupied.

Posted by Shrike58 | June 3, 2008 10:41 AM

1) Of course, the fact that Bush has never been within 1000 miles of an active battlefield makes it a lot easier to be "resolute".

As is the fact that his daughters can be modeling $5000 gowns on the cover of Vogue while the daughters of West Virginia blue collar families are suffering as POWs.

2) And pace Dan Kervick, but Sun Tzu pointed out 2500 years ago that the quickest way to destroy a country is to have it run by a moron with an ego
problem.

3) Bush is not fighting for democracy in Iraq -- he fighting to redeem a life of mediocre failures. And creating yet another one.

The Chinese must be laughing their asses off as they march to global supremacy.

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 10:43 AM

In some cases, credibly demonstrating the firmness of one's resolve and commitment to certain red lines can even save lives.
Posted by Dan Kervick

And when a conservative finds himself in such a moment, and if he handles it well, you let us know.

Posted by Cyrus | June 3, 2008 10:44 AM

To be fair, Bush may or may not have snorted a few lines of coke before giving this pep talk. It sure sounds like it. But we'll never know, since his brain, never so hot to start with, is fried from all the wild parties back in the day.

Posted by Richard Cownie | June 3, 2008 10:51 AM

"3) Bush is not fighting for democracy in Iraq -- he fighting to redeem a life of mediocre failures. And creating yet another one"

No, his previous career, as you say, was a succession of mediocre failures: but he has really risen to the occasion as president, and has failed in a spectacular and extraordinary way. When you've got a $500B+ military to play with, it takes unusual talent to start an unnecessary war and *lose* it. And it's pretty remarkable for the party that claims to aspire to limited government to run a massive increase in federal spending and huge deficits.

Add in Abu Ghraib, GTMO, and the destruction of New Orleans and you've really got the kind of cataclysmic failure that only comes every 100 years or so. It's impressive in its way: but it goes far beyond anything we could have predicted from his earlier bumbling (though I have to admit the Onion's version of his inaugural nailed most of it, starting with "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over at last" ...)

Worst. President. Ever.

Posted by Richard Cownie | June 3, 2008 11:06 AM

Where have you been since the 2000 campaign started that makes that phrasing seem "unusually juvenile" of Bush?

Posted by aleks | June 3, 2008 11:06 AM

Dan Kervick -- "In some cases, credibly demonstrating the firmness of one's resolve and commitment to certain red lines can even save lives."

Of course. Few people make it through third grade recess without learning that caving in to threats can leave you vulnerable to additional threats. The problem here is that most conservatives and far too many liberals learned the wrong lessons from recent history, and have concluded that consistent displays of resolve and will and an unwillingness to negotiate with hostile parties should be the fundamental principles that guide our entire approach to foreign policy.

In other words, it's always third grade recess. Every crisis is Munich, 1938, and Chamberlain's great crime was evidently not that he sold the Czechs down the river for a grab bag of empty promises, but that he showed up at the peace talks in the first place.

This is a deeply, pathologically juvenile and stupid way of looking at the world, unbecoming of a bar bouncer, let alone the commander in chief of the world's most powerful military.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 3, 2008 11:25 AM

I completely endorse DonBoy's Hulk Theory of International Relations, since the Green Lantern Theory seems a little too intellectual for these types.

The Hulk Theory also helps by giving us a chronological sequence:

(1) Please, don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry!
(2) Hulk mad!
(3) Hulk smash!
(4) When Hulk get mad, Hulk get stronger!
(5) Hulk is strongest of all!
(6) Oh, dear god, it happened again, what have I done?

Posted by El Cid | June 3, 2008 11:28 AM

El Cid, I give you the El Cruzado comment of the Year award.

Worth jack and shit, true, but it still beats having to clean the computer screen of spilled coffee.

Posted by El Cruzado | June 3, 2008 11:45 AM

Concerning Matthew's post: Nailed It! Good job.

Posted by Joe | June 3, 2008 11:48 AM

he has really risen to the occasion as president, and has failed in a spectacular and extraordinary way

True. He's going to be the first president to to 0-2 in wars.

Posted by croatoan | June 3, 2008 12:26 PM

They would love to make a film about Iraq called "Triumph of the Will" but Leni Riefenstahl stole the name.
Bush could always call his memoirs "My Struggle", though

With all respect to El Cid, *Toby* owns the thread.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 3, 2008 12:30 PM

willpower != cheerleading.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 3, 2008 12:39 PM

The problem - well, one of the problems - with this crowd of cowardly bullies is that they interpret "rising to the challenge" to mean "getting an erection".

Posted by Bruce Baugh | June 3, 2008 12:42 PM

La Follette Progressive, you are entirely right. But Matt's continuing comments on these matters haven't been so sober and mature as yours. Instead they are just a series of smug and snarky jibes, deploying his Green Lantern conceit, that tend to err just as badly in the opposite direction.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 3, 2008 1:02 PM

As my wingnut father says, "This proves that George Bush has the GUTS to win a war. Unlike you guys."

When obstacles are encountered, the enemy is not insufficient intelligence and misguided strategy, it IMMEDIATELY becomes the naysaying voices. And forget winning through strategy - winning is then about silencing dissent.

Cue Sean Hannity.

Posted by Tersan | June 3, 2008 1:06 PM

As my wingnut father says, "This proves that George Bush has the GUTS to win a war. Unlike you guys."

When obstacles are encountered, the enemy is not insufficient intelligence and misguided strategy, it IMMEDIATELY becomes the naysaying voices. And forget winning through strategy - winning is then about silencing dissent.

Cue Sean Hannity.

Posted by Tersan | June 3, 2008 1:09 PM

"Kick ass!"

Does anyone else hear that in Eric Cartman's voice?

Posted by too many steves | June 3, 2008 1:15 PM

"I'm not sure my estimation of George W. Bush is quite low enough to believe this really happened"

OK, is this subtle sarcasm or are you sucking up for an even better MSM gig by displaying your High Broderism? Well, the latter always goes without saying with careerist Matt. If your passion for issues and politics were a tenth as much as your passion for career advancement (or even pro basketball, bad music, and juvenile movies) this would be a much better site.

Obviously, I can't absolutely state that this was said, nor is the disgruntled Sanchez the most reliable of mesengers. Nonetheless, eaxctly what raises such doubts that Bush could have said these things? As others have commented, the schooyard bully rhetoric, thought-free bumper sticker phrases, and mindless bellicosity of these statements are stylistically identical with a myriad of the Dauphin's other greatest hits.

Posted by Marlowe | June 3, 2008 1:24 PM

Resolve, willpower, endurance, sacrifice--are anathema and childish to the Left, because Lefties know better and are smarter and cleverer than those of us on the Right. We're just dumb brutes, incapable of change, and mule-headed; we're not thinking people.

Posted by Jose Chung | June 3, 2008 1:38 PM

No Marlowe, you don't understand, or you don't care to understand. The problem with talking about GWB is that he is simply such a uniquely horrible president that it's difficult to convey the depth of it. Since he's in his own category of terribleness, comparisons don't do him justice. And because Bush has been so incredibly bad on so many different scores, it's easy to forget some terrible aspects. If it were just Katrina, or just tax policy, or just Iraq, or just the failure in Afghanistan, or just torture, or just corruption, or just the DOJ, or just, etc., it would be easier: he would simply be a bad president. But the sheer volume is overwhelming.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 3, 2008 1:38 PM

Well at least we know now why Fallujah was destroyed. The quote doesn't shock me at all. In the "battle for Fallujah" ambulances couldn't take the wounded off the streets, because US snipers shot at them - and at anything else that moved. When even the Red Cross/Red Crescent is shot at, by Americans no less, you know something is very, very wrong. It goes beyond cruelty. "Kickass". Matt's willpower explanation is a good one.

Posted by Hans B | June 3, 2008 1:40 PM

Resolve, willpower, endurance, sacrifice--are anathema and childish to the Left, because Lefties know better and are smarter and cleverer than those of us on the Right. We're just dumb brutes, incapable of change, and mule-headed; we're not thinking people.

Posted by Jose Chung | June 3, 2008 1:41 PM

It's hard to believe we have to endure another 7+ months of this juvenile assclown and his inane pronouncements. January 20, 2009, the day he finally gets the hell out and moves on to his true passion, driving Laura around to private bukkake parties thrown by oil executives, will be a day of national celebration.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 3, 2008 1:42 PM

Re Jose Chung's comment "Resolve, willpower, endurance, sacrifice--are anathema and childish to the Left, because Lefties know better and are smarter and cleverer than those of us on the Right"
-------------
Well, we're pretty well resolved that we're going to cut your fucking throats this November.

And if you want to dispense with the election process, that works too.

Bullets or ballots, motherfucker. Your choice.

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 2:15 PM

"Bullets or ballots, motherfucker"

This was the original title of WB's 1936 gangster movie with Edward G. Robinson, Joan Blondell, and Humphrey Bogart until the Hays Office requested removal of the last word.

Posted by Marlowe | June 3, 2008 2:41 PM

"Resolve, willpower, endurance, sacrifice--are anathema and childish to the Left, because Lefties know better and are smarter and cleverer than those of us on the Right. We're just dumb brutes, incapable of change, and mule-headed; we're not thinking people."

No, what's anathema and childish to us is when the Right preaches these things, because the Right is only concerned about getting other people to perform these actions. That's why so many leaders and opinionmakers in today's GOP avoided serving in Vietnam (Dubya, Cheney, Rommney, Giuliani, Limbaugh, even Sylvester Stallone.)

McCain has many faults, but at least he's willing to actually make personal sacrifices in defense of his wrongheaded militaristic ideas. Go emulate the example set by hawks like McCain and by doves like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Max Cleland and Jim Webb, and demonstrate resolve, willpower, endurance, and sacrifice by serving in our military in an actual theater of combat.

Posted by eltoro | June 3, 2008 2:52 PM

I love seeing Vietnam mentioned; that was a Green Lantern war too. Anyone remember how our early bombing policy was designed to show the North that we were [i]really serious[/i] about not letting them conquer South Vietnam? As opposed to, say, actually harming their capacity to fight the war, since we were in no position to do that.

Posted by AlanC9 | June 3, 2008 3:59 PM

Whoops! I keep forgetting where to use HTML and where to use UBB.

Posted by AlanC9 | June 3, 2008 4:02 PM

Resolve, willpower, endurance, sacrifice--are anathema and childish to the Left, because Lefties know better and are smarter and cleverer than those of us on the Right. We're just dumb brutes, incapable of change, and mule-headed; we're not thinking people.

Posted by Jose Chung

I don't often find myself agreeing with Jose Chung and the other selfosophists.

But this time I really think he's got the latter half of this statement correct.

Posted by El Cid | June 3, 2008 8:25 PM