Blogs and Stories
Lessons from Another War
AP Photo
Christopher Buckley, in London as Britain marks Armistice Day, reports on how the allies' Afghanistan conundrum looks under the long shadow of World War I.
I arrived in London a bit after noon, having gotten off the Queen Mary 2 in Southampton a few hours earlier, so I had missed the two-minute moment of silence. On the way in, I almost expected the cars on the M3 motorway to pull over at 11 o’clock. Maybe they were all too busy texting.
But in Trafalgar Square and at Whitehall and Westminster and St. Paul’s, everything did come to a stop at eleven. The British observe this sacred ritual every November 11, commemorating the armistice that began on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918.
WWI was fought on terrain no larger that Manhattan’s Central Park, over the period of about ten months, at a cost of 700,000 casualties. And for—what?
Walking in the rain toward the cenotaph, I observed that about every other person wore a red paper poppy in the lapel. As you probably already know, the symbol derives from a poem written by a Canadian military doctor, John McCrae, in 1915. The occasion was the funeral service for a friend who’d been killed by an exploding shell. The chaplain was unavailable, so McCrae scribbled a few lines, which began,
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row.
It ends, two stanzas later:
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
I tried, as I made my way, to think of a comparable American personal gesture of remembrance of our own war dead on Memorial Day. I couldn’t, other than the thousands of little American flags that sprout, as if organically, from the graves of veterans each Memorial Day.
The Great War ended 91 years ago, but when I reached the Cenotaph, with its problematic inscription—“The Glorious Dead”—the roadway around it was thickly blanketed with wreathes of paper poppies, most of them personally inscribed. There are also abundant tiny wooden crucifixes, with names written on them in ink runny from the rain. It wasn’t anything to match the floral extravagance outside Diana’s residence in 1997, but as a commemoration of a war nearly one century old, it was impressive. I was wearing a hat against the rain, and it seemed only right to remove it, and stand for a delayed two minutes, in awed and grateful remembrance.
I say “problematic” above, only there was so little glory in those awful deaths, celebrated richly in war literature, most memorably in the poetry that sprang from the trenches. In a brilliant and moving piece by Robert Fisk in The Independent titled “Language of the Lost,” he quotes his own father, a veteran of the war, calling it all “just one great waste.” One year into the war, the Kaiser Wilhelm was asked by someone what the war was about; he allegedly responded, “I wish to God I knew.”
• Reihan Salam: Is Saving Karzai Worth U.S. Lives?
• Gayle Tzemach Lemmon: Don't Abandon Us, ObamaI met up for lunch with my old friend Sir Alistair Horne, one of England’s pre-eminent military historians. Alistair first came into fame with his book about the Battle of Verdun, The Price of Glory. (That word again.) I did a paper on it in sixth grade, and remember still, the arresting statistic: that it was fought on terrain no larger that Manhattan’s Central Park, over the period of about ten months, at a cost of 700,000 casualties. And for—what?
World War I, as Paul Fussell wrote in his masterful The Great War and Modern Memory, is the war that continues to define us. Germany was defeated, but then driven to humiliation and despair by the overly punitive terms of the Versailles Treaty. Out of that toxic soil rose Hitler, whose racial obsessions brought about the Holocaust and the subsequent Jewish diaspora and founding of Israel, a major determinant of American politics in the Middle East. So the bullet that Gavrilo Princip fired at old Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo (a redolent place-name) goes on echoing.








nkjhnjhvgvbhbjmn
Flags do not "organically sprout" from graves each memorial day and veteran's day in the US as Mr. Buckley suggests. Human beings who have lost family members plant the flags in memorium of their family members. Some American families whose history in America goes back several generations also plant flags on the graves of great great great grandparents who gave their lives to free the slaves in the civil war, or who fought and died in the Revolutionary War.
Plantagenet - Lincoln did not fight the civil war to free the slaves. His purpose was the preserve the Union, and he said if that required not abolishing slavery, that would be his choice.
I avoided being "called to serve" in our nations military. My impression is that the reasons that we serve vary widely from the reasons we are called to serve and they are not always compatible reasons - more to the shame of our leaders (?) for their hypocrisy and deception and to our own shame for our ignorance of the motives or our elected representatives. As Christopher quotes - "I wish to God I knew" why we serve.
Plantagenet,
As someone who plants flags on family graves from both of those wars,if that isn't organic, I don't know what is.
You forget, Mr. Buckley, the commemoration of 9/11 every year in this country. America is sentimental too...
I'm waiting for Mr. Buckley to grovel in mortification over his endorsement of Obama in 2008.
He knows by now that he made a big mistake. He owes us at least a pseudo-heartfelt mea culpa, preferably of the maxima sort.
Until then, he remains supremely negligible.
Mr. Buckley owes you nothing, least of all an apology. If anyone is negligible it is you.
Buckley should apologize why -- because if McCain, or Clinton, or Huckabee, or (etc.) had won, the pieces in Afghanistan would have fallen neatly into place and we'd have video of Osama Bin Laden signing surrender documents on the deck of the USS Missouri?
I didn't vote for Obama either, but the problem here is much bigger than him.
Are you kidding? (Maladapted) Obama is the best thing that has happened to America, and the Reps will never realize it because they don't live in reality.
Christopher Buckley is not the conservative that his father was, because, I think, he realized his father didn't really know how the 'other half' lived. It is easy to be conservative when you don't have to work at sh#t jobs to make a living, when you have a yacht to sail, and can hobnob with the rich and famous.
So you think Christopher is a blue collar kind of guy? That he learned all about minimum wage lifestyles growing in up in Stamford CT.
This is one of hte dumbest posts I have encountered on this site, and that is saying quite a lot....
Christopher bought Obama's campaign bullshit like a sophomore psych major. He embarrassed himself and should admit it. I notice that he has been keeping a fairly low profile these days....
"I'm waiting for Mr. Buckley to grovel in mortification over his endorsement of Obama in 2008"
Ha! So am I! You just KNOW he regrets it now, but just wont come right out and openly admit it.
"Christopher bought Obama's campaign bullshit like a sophomore psych major."
Aint that the truth!
What a joy to read one of our very best writers absolutely free on the internet!
"And for-what?" indeed!
The title of Mr. Buckley's article is"Lessons from Another War". It is not, "How poorly the USA remembers her fallen...." Sadly, the lessons have not been learned. The war(s) continue. Thank you Mr. Buckley for your thoughts.
Minor correction, but I believe the key mistake Brown made in his letter was misspelling the mother's surname, not her son's first name. He wrote 'James', rather than the correct 'Janes'.
The woman's complaints about poorly-resourced soldiers are legitimate, but her cause was hijacked by the Sun newspaper, harking on about Brown's misspelling. Never mind that the man has one poorly-functioning eye and doubtless a long to-do list.
It was idiotic and sentimental to fixate on an excusable error, rather than address the (far harder) questions about why we go to war, and at what cost. I don't doubt the grieving mother has these questions uppermost in her mind, but for a few days the lede was all about Prime Ministerial penmanship.
Isn't the Sun a tabloid?
Fair point. Complaining about tabloid newspapers parsing key issues for its readership is only slightly more productive than howling at the moon.
Actually it may be slightly less productive since the readers are actively pursuing what spews forth from the tabloids whereas the Moon is rather passive in it's response.
Mr. Buckley: Why does the smart set cohort of the commentariate want so much to refight the last wars, via their media offerings? Stick to fluff, please. The conflict in Afghanisitan is not WWI, and it's not Vietnam, WWII, or any other war or military action. The President -- any US President -- cannot allow Afganistan to become a staging area/training center for terrorists and any hostile acts against America and its allies. Also, neighboring Pakistan has nukes which cannot be allowed to fall into the wrong hands. The only way we'll see casualties on the scale of WWI is if the US and its NATO allies and other countries in the region fail to stabilize Afghanistan/Pakistan. Please stick to being court jester of the New Yorker/TDB set. And leave serious commentary to adults. George Patton
Patton, the piece seems a pretty brief look at the commentary coming out of the UK. Whatever Buckley's own opinions on the matter, he's noting that the first world war still has a firm place in the British (and European) psyche.
In their attitudes towards WW1 the British square gratitude and pride in their forebears' sacrifice with an understanding of the seeming futility of the whole adventure. Whether or not previous wars resonate emotionally, they are reminders of the maxim that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Adults (and even New Yorker readers!) are capable of balancing realpolitik and pragmatic military policy with a careful appreciation of what the past tells us about the wars we fight today.
DRMC10: FYI, Mr. Buckley's musings are just defeatist claptrap. George Patton
You seem to forget that WW1 has important place in the British mind because the war was fought in Europe, on their doorstep, and they lost so many men in those battles. We only came into the war in 1916, or we might have lost more men. I think that is why we sort of forget that war and remember WW2 as 'the war to end all wars', G.Patton.
Patton,
The war in Afghanistan is the war in Afghanistan.
The same war the USSR fought, and lost.
The same war the British Empire fought, and lost.
There, feel better now?
I feel great. Sad to say though, we'll be fighting low intensity wars, like now in Afghanistan, for the rest of our lifetimes, certainly. The alternative, guys like O Bin Laden getting their hands on nukes, and using them, is too terrible to contemplate. And if we surrender to the terrorists, we're as good as finished. Why is it so difficult for so many to connect the dots? George Patton
The problem G is that you don't stop terrorists in Afghanistan (or Iraq) for that matter. You have to stop them at the source - ask yourself why these people "hate" America (actually what do they hate?). What about "America" is it that causes others around the world to pick up arms, bombs, biological weapons and nukes and commit suicide in an attempt (pitiful at best) to kill whatever it is that has offended them.
Look closely or you will expose your ignorance and prejudice.
George,
Did you lose a war in Afghanistan in one of your previous lives? So many have.
"And leave serious commentary to adults"
You seem to really enjoy this refrain, and I;m wondering how you mean it. Who counts as an "adult"? If age, education, career success, and clarity of thought are not, as appears to be the case, valid indicators of adulthood, then what criteria do you use to judge this label?
it's difficult to glorify war if you're remembering the dead.
Let India go back to fighting and policing Pakistan and Afghanistan. What the @F*K*@ are we doing there?
mclaubr1 - Gorbachev says India, Pakistan and Iran should work together to bring at least minimal stability to Afghanistan (and keep the Taliban out of Kabul). He says US military activities are counter-productive.
Gorbachev is suspect. We need India, Pakistan and Iran saying they should work together, that would be a breakthrough.
The downside to abandoning Afghanistan is that the Taliban resume control and the following problems ensue: 1. Al Qaeda has a safe base of operations once again. 2. World heroin trade gets huge influx as it's the primary income source for the Taliban. 3. Woman in Afghanistan are reduced to brutal slavery once again. 4. Pakistan and it's nukes become more vulnerable to a long, sustained Taliban assault.
To prevent this from happening the U.S. must maintain a sufficient military presence to thwart Taliban dominance, and that will probably be for a least a decade.
I think Obama will seek to do this with the minimal military force he can.
periscope - I'm afraid you are dead wrong on your basic premise, that a return of the Taliban to power in Kabul would bring al-Qaeda back into play in Afghanistan.
Periscope: You're so right! George Patton
Periscope, do you think the women will allow themselves to return to their previous existence if the Taliban return? I understand the people do not like the Taliban, so maybe the men will fight them, if properly supplied.
The women will have little power to resist. If we look at Iran after the downfall of the Shah, we see a society where women were practically westernized, and then reduced to wearing head cover and veils after the power grab by the Ayatollah.
These religious Taliban fanatics don't tolerate dissent, and usually kill anyone who refuses to obey them.
Very fine piece, Chris. Perhaps a majority of Americans will come to comprehend before long that the US military campaign in Afghanistan is not making them more safe.
The foolish Austrian generals started the Great War under the delusion they could crush Serbia and thereby preserve the territorial integrity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The Great War started when the Kaiser said he was going to teach those Slavs a lesson.
thank you for your thoughts
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.