July 25, 2009: Obama Redefines Victory, Misremembers US History
Wake up, Mr. President.Well, isn't this interesting. It seems our Commander-In-Chief isn't hung up on winning the war in Afghanistan. Does that worry you? Does it frighten you? Well, how about an incorrect historical reference to put your mind ease?
President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.
Source: FoxNews
Oh my. It may have been a good idea to ask a follow-up question: "Given that you aren't too concerned with victory in Afghanistan, are you willing to say you actually would accept a military victory if it was achieved through no fault of your own? Do you even want us to win?"
Of course, that question wasn't asked. But what about Hirohito?
Source: Washington Times
Fidelity to history requires us to note that Emperor Hirohito did not sign the Japanese articles of surrender on the Battleship Missouri on Sept. 2, 1945, and was not even at the ceremony.
There is no harm, and a great deal of good, in calling the achievement of war objectives a victory. After all, if you can't say you won a war, the implication is you lost it. The pursuit of victory also makes war's sacrifices more meaningful. John P. Roche, special assistant to President Johnson, wrote in 1968 that the basic issue in Vietnam was whether a free society could fight a limited war for limited objectives. "It is very difficult to tell a young soldier," he wrote, "Go out there and fight, perhaps die, for a good bargaining position."
Aside from the simple fact that the Japanese emperor wasn't present at the Japanese surrender, Obama's latest gaffe is illustrative:
Is Obama's specific error about Hirohito important? Not really; it's quite minor. But it's another indication of Obama's view of history: a lot of dramatic images (or, as he said, "notions") and very little detail or understanding of what's going on, or the need to do so. And I suspect Obama is ignorant in the worst way: he's ignorant of the extent of his ignorance. Or perhaps he's not ignorant at all, but purposely twisting the truth. Or maybe each, at different times.Video:
Source: American Thinker
