A Tug of War

(Hugh Talman -- Smithsonian Institution)

To say that wars are defining episodes, however, is by itself to say almost nothing. It is the historian's job to suggest why and in what ways this is true. And although a focus on individuals has obvious appeal, using their unfiltered voices to deal with historical divisions -- as advisory committee member Sherry points out -- can also be a way to finesse difficult questions.

"It strikes me as punting," he says.

Yet it's worth noting, in this context, that one individual view presented is that of a Japanese survivor of the atomic bombing. This is a perspective that the Air and Space Museum was not permitted to present.

What, then, about the difficult question of where an exhibition on American military history should end? What went into the decision to include Iraq?

Advisory committee member Cayton says he was convinced by the argument that museum visitors would expect to see something about the current war, especially people who had relatives and friends serving overseas.

NMAH Director Glass says the museum talked with teachers, among others, about this question. "Teachers said to us, 'Our students need to see something about current events as a gateway into history,' " he says.

Project director Allison notes that the museum had done a well-received show on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and it wanted to include some of that material in the military history show. Yet it made no sense to do that, he says, "without saying something about the follow-on."

Deciding where to conclude the exhibition, as many involved point out, was going to be problematic in any case. A narrative of American wars that ended with Vietnam would send one message; one that ended with the first Gulf War would send quite another. What's more, both messages would be altered -- unavoidably and unpredictably -- when viewed in the context of whatever was happening in the current war.

Still, when Allison and Glass talk about the choice NMAH finally made, it's hard not to recall the Congress of Scholars' concerns about the impossibility of getting historical distance -- and avoiding the appearance of partisanship -- when dealing with an ongoing war.

How, the two men are asked, did NMAH address the question of why the United States attacked Saddam Hussein's regime?

"I think we basically say that we did," Allison says. Then he remembers that the views of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and former presidential candidate Howard Dean are highlighted. Both Rice and Dean believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the time, he says, but they drew opposite conclusions about whether the United States should go to war.

Does the exhibit deal with the fact that no such weapons have materialized?

"No," says Allison.

Glass elaborates.

"I think the end is really the fall of the regime," he says.