FIGHTING THE LAST WAR : Bush Insists It’s World War II, Anti-War Activists See Vietnam

The war in the Persian Gulf is not just a shooting war. It is also a war of images. Hawks believe we are fighting World War II. They say we are leading a global coalition to protect civilization against a ruthless and aggressive dictatorship. Doves believe we are fighting Vietnam. They say we are engaged in an imperialist war to protect our commercial interests and extend our political control over the Third World.

President George Bush loses no opportunity to pursue the World War II analogy. At a meeting of the Republican National Committee, Bush explained the moral reasoning behind his decision to go to war. “Was it moral for us in 1939 not to stop Hitler from going into Poland?” he asked. “Perhaps if we had, hundreds of Polish patriots would have lived, perhaps millions of Jews would have survived.”

Anti-war protesters have resurrected the language and symbols of Vietnam. They hold mass marches. Their signs say, “Bring the troops home now,” “Give peace a chance” and “No blood for oil.”

Bush’s strategy at home is the same as in the Gulf: We will not fight the Vietnam War. In the Gulf, that means we are not fighting a limited war for limited objectives. We are fighting an all-out war for total victory.

Saddam Hussein knows he cannot win a military victory. So he is pursuing a political strategy. His objective is to break U.S. political resolve. He goes on television to show that, after all the bombing, he is still in control. He stages an oil spill in the Persian Gulf to prove this war will have terrible consequences. He tries to lure the United States into a bloody ground war to drive up our casualty count. Maybe we’re not fighting the Vietnam War, but he is.

Hussein’s strategy is aimed at U.S. domestic politics. His great hope is to turn the Persian Gulf into Vietnam and thereby break our resolve. Bush has to counter that objective. Despite the goading of the anti-war movement, Bush has to keep the political situation in the United States from becoming polarized.

That’s why the President stated categorically at his news conference last week, “I have absolutely no intention of reinstating the draft.” That is also why he has chosen to play down domestic divisions over the war. Bush refuses to condemn the protesters.

You want to see the campuses explode? Bring back the draft and crack down on protests. That will radicalize a generation of students and divide the country. It will also play directly into Hussein’s hands, so Bush is determined not to let it happen.

The anti-war movement wants it to happen--not because they sympathize with Hussein (few do), but because they want to end the war. They know the best way to end the war is to turn it into Vietnam. So they talk about a “poverty draft”--poor youths go into the military because they have no other choice.

And they thrive on attacks from Vice President Dan Quayle, who said protesters were getting much more attention from the news media than they deserved. Bush’s chief spokesman disagreed. “I think the coverage has been fine,” Marlin Fitzwater said--meaning the silent majority should please remain silent.

There is another reason why controversy over the war has been limited: The left has not been deeply engaged by the anti-war cause. Liberals are ambivalent. They distrust military force and criticize what they regard as Bush’s “rush to war.” But Hussein is not an attractive cause for the left. The “new world order” does have some appeal, particularly since Bush has defined it non-ideologically.

Before the Cold War, conservatives were the most ardent isolationists. The United States was a leading anti-fascist and anti-colonial power. In those days, we were identified with the international left, and many conservatives felt we were on the wrong side of history.

After World War II, the United States switched sides. We became the leader of the free world against communism. That made us the enemy of Third World liberation movements, many of which were inspired by Marxism and supported by international communism. We were identified with the international right, and many liberals felt we were on the wrong side of history.

Now liberals don’t know what to think. The Cold War is over, and communism no longer inspires anyone. Mikhail S. Gorbachev, who captivated the left for a while, now looks like just another Soviet dictator clinging to power. And what exactly is Hussein’s cause? He did not overthrow a colonial power; he invaded another country. He did not lead a revolution against a despotic ruler; he is a despotic ruler.

Hussein is not the leader of a Third World liberation movement. The whole world sees his support for the Palestinian cause for what it is--diversion. He is associated with Iraq’s Arab Baath Socialist Party, but the world’s socialists and communists do not claim him. He declared a holy war, adding, “God is Great” to the Iraqi flag, but no one believes he is a religious leader. When he dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf, that was it for American liberals. Some environmentalists were ready to put on buttons saying “Blood for oil.”

So what is Hussein? Paul Berman, a liberal intellectual, came up with the answer. “Maybe this war is, on balance, anti-fascist,” he wrote. “Maybe standing up for a flawed democracy (like Israel) should be a point of pride, the way standing up for those other non-Utopias, the France and Britain of 50 years ago, was.” What a revelation! Bush is right: Hussein is a fascist, this is like World War II and the United States is once again on the right side of history.

There are three strains of U.S. anti-war sentiment: liberal, which is ideological; religious, which is pacifist, and populist, which is isolationist. The liberal strain is newest, dating from Vietnam. It is also the weakest, since liberals are getting mixed ideological signals.

Religious pacifism is a much older and stronger tradition. Every war in American history, with the exception of World War II, has produced a significant anti-war movement, often with religious roots.

The populist strain of anti-war sentiment is also very old and strong. This is the belief, most common among the poor and the poorly educated, that we have limited interests abroad and should go to war only if those interests are threatened.

Populists argue that the poor are doing the fighting. That is true--at least for white enlistees. White soldiers tend to be poorer and less well-educated than their civilian counterparts.

Blacks have an even more serious cause for resentment. Only one in eight Americans is black. But one-quarter of those serving in the Gulf are black. Moreover, the military attracts the most qualified black youth.

Populists also argue that the war diverts attention from the nation’s domestic needs. That is true as well. With an estimated $318-billion deficit and strict spending limits imposed by last year’s budget agreement, the new budget sent to Congress by Bush last week offers no anti-recession measures, no new social programs and, for the first time, significant cuts in entitlements.

The Vietnam and Persian Gulf wars are not alike. And neither are the anti-war movements. The anti-war movement in Vietnam was less populist and more liberal. The anti-war movement in the Gulf is less liberal and more populist. But they have the same objective--to turn the country against the war.

Americans never accepted the liberal values of the Vietnam anti-war movement. That’s why a lot of activists believed the movement failed. But it didn’t fail. It succeeded in convincing Americans war was not worth the cost.

The purpose of the anti-war movement today is not to convert people to isolationism or pacifism. It is to demonstrate that the Gulf War is tearing the country apart. But the Administration has also learned the lesson of Vietnam. It has to make sure the war is won as quickly as possible--before it can tear the country apart.