Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Bret Stephens: Suleimani Wasn’t Like That Good Nazi

Bret Stephens: Suleimani Wasn’t Like That Good Nazi

Last updated on: January 6, 2020 at 9:22 am by Libby Anne

Bret Stephens: Suleimani Wasn’t Like That Good Nazi 2020-01-06T09:22:53-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Right-wing New York Times columnist Bret Stephens has done it again. On Friday, in a piece titled Suleimani Died as He Killed, Stephens, a neoconservative known for his climate science denial, among other things, defended Trump’s assassination of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander Qassim Suleimani as follows:

As an agent of international mayhem, Suleimani’s peers were Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. To think of him as a worthy adversary — an Iranian Erwin Rommel — is wrong. He was an evil man who died as he had killed so many others.

Yes, you read that right. Erwin Rommel was a general in the German army during WWII. Stephens defended the killing of Suleimani by favorably comparing a Nazi general to him. Soleimani, Stephens argued, wasn’t a “worthy adversary” like that Nazi general, so it was fine that the U.S. killed him in an air strike.

Um. Okay.

Except for two very small teeny tiny points.

First, describing Rommel as a “worthy adversary” is … well … iffy. David Walsh, a history PhD student at Princeton, explained as follows on Twitter:

It cannot be emphasized enough that Bret Stephens is the laziest columnist writing for a major publication in the United States today.

His latest masterpiece justifying the assassination of Suleimani goes out of its way to praise Erwin Rommel as a “worthy adversary.” A couple of things here.

One, it’s abundantly clear that Stephens does not know what he’s talking about. Troops under Rommel’s command murdered Jews in North Africa.

Two, it’s also abundantly clear that all that Stephens knows about Rommel was probably gleaned from History Channel documentaries in the 1990s, or hack “Good War” books like Andrew Roberts’, or from the James Mason biopic. Probably from all three.

The broader point is that he’s pretty clearly drawing his information on World War II from older sources that are committed to the myth of the “clean” Wehrmacht, where it wasn’t the honorable German soldiers who committed war crimes, but rather the evil Waffen-SS.

This is *patently* untrue — Wehrmacht officers and ordinary German soldiers routinely committed war crimes and were actively complicit in the Holocaust.

The reason why this is incredibly lazy of Bret is because the myth of the clean Wehrmacht has been debunked by historians — and studied in its own right as an important postwar phenomenon — for DECADES.

If you want to know more, I’d point you to this article in the Independent. Rommel was one of Hitler’s earliest supporters, and praised him for restoring the country’s pride. At the very least, he turned a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing his troops carried out in North Africa, and by some accounts he was directly involved. Rommel committees suicide in 1944 after being either involved in or framed for a plot against Hitler. But, while he had urged Hitler to sue for peace with the Allies, Rommel went to his death praising Hitler and insisting that he wasn’t involved. The view of Rommel that Stephens uncritically repeats in his column is a myth.

I’m genuinely unclear as to why it was necessary for Stephens to praise a Nazi general in order to defend the killing of Qassim Suleimani. Look, we get it. Suleimani spent two decades planning and orchestrating attacks on both civilians and American troops that made our world a more dangerous place. I haven’t seen a single person claim that he was a good guy. You know what’s bizarre? Stephens’ decision to use “Suleimani wasn’t like that good Nazi” as his argument for the moral rightness of his assassination.

But there’s another issue. The British did try to take Rommel out. Once again, from David Walsh on Twitter:

ADDENDUM: Upon re-reading the column, it occurs to me that the implication Stephens is making is that it would be wrong to assassinate a “worthy adversary” like a Rommel, as opposed to a genuinely evil man like Suleimani. Well, funny story…

The British TRIED to kill Rommel. [link]

And the United States DID assassinate Admiral Yamamoto Isokoru, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack who has been consistently portrayed in postwar media (think “Tora, Tora, Tora” though there are others) as a “worthy adversary.” [link]

I’m sure Stephens feels like we’re picking the fleas (bedbugs?) in his pocket, attacking him for all of four words in a column. But it actually undercuts the way he frames his piece — as talking about the assassination as an act of moral justice!

This hits the nail on the head.

Few people have a problem with attempts to assassinate enemy generals … in war time. If we were at war with Iran and word came out that our forces had killed their head general in a targeted airstrike, the reaction in the U.S. would be unambiguous jubilation. It’s just that we’re not actually at war with Iran.

Stephens doesn’t seem to get why people are upset right now. People aren’t concerned because they think Suleimani was a good guy. They don’t. They’re concerned because assassinating another country’s top general seems like a very good way to end up at war with that country, and Congress has not authorized a war, and the American people don’t want a war. But then, Stephens is a neocon who wants the U.S. to be more interventionist and ends his post arguing for “deliberately disproportionate retaliation,” so there’s that.

In his column, Stephens argues that the assassination of Qassim Suleimani is a moral good because he wasn’t a worthy adversary like Nazi general Erwin Rommel, when in fact Allied forces actually did try to assassinate Erwin Rommel, because that’s what you do in war.

Sure, that tracks! Way to go, New York Times!

Ugh.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Previous Post

January 5, 2020

Lesbian Duplex 257: An Open Thread

Next Post

January 7, 2020 Jim Bakker: "Only saved people can love Trump"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the first Christian martyr?

Select your answer to see how you score.

James Paul Peter Stephen