Day of Infamy
Sixty-five years ago today we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. I wrote today in my weekly Tribune Media Services column , why, unlike our forefathers, we haven’t been able to finish the war within four years following that similar preemptory and surprise attack on American soil.
Suffice to say that when the Democrats allege incompetence because we are not yet victorious, they forget we have lost 50 soldiers a month since September 11, not 8,000 as was true of every month during World War II. And it is much easier to carpet bomb Tokyo, as horrendously difficult as that was, than to go into Fallujah and sort out the terrorists from the “innocent” under the glare of a hostile globalized media, and a disunited American public, some of whom believe that Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore should be consulted for their superior wisdom.
Mistakes and then there were mistakes
I haven’t engaged much in the parlor game of identifying mistakes in the occupation, because none of them (and there were many) reached a magnitude of those in World War II (e.g., daylight bombing without fighter escort in 1942-3, intelligence failures about the hedgerows, surprise at the Bulge, etc) or Korea (surprise at the Yalu). Nor were any fatal to our cause, despite the ‘disbanding’ of the army, Abu Ghraib, etc. If there were any serious blunders, they concerned the sense of hesitation that gave our enemies confidence—the sudden departure of Gen. Franks, the pullback from first Fallujah, the reprieve given Sadr, etc. In other words, once we were in a war, whatever public downside there was to using too much force was far outweighed by losing our sense of control and power, and ceding momentum to the terrorists. So we can learn from that, and begin again cracking down hard on the insurgents before calling for more troops.
A Bad Spell
We, deliberately or inadvertently, have empowered our enemies this last month or so by the Rumsfeld departure, the grandstanding comments about failure in the Gates confirmation hearing, the Bolton resignation, and now the Iraq Study Group, all of which conspired to convey the image of an overripe, juicy American plum easy to be picked off by assorted enemies. Which brings us back to …
The Baker Commission…
I just finished reading the 107 page PDF version of the Iraqi Study Group report, and posted something on National Review about initial reactions. There is the obviously accurate diagnosis of the problem that a weak elected government in Iraq has been able neither to provide enough basic services to the people to ensure their support, nor to marshal the will to kill the jihadists—given various Shiite and Sunni militias’ infection of the government itself.
Some of their suggestions are likewise clearly sober, such as more training of Iraqi troops and the blunt threat to the Iraqi government to rein in the militias since the American commitment is not open-ended. But while accurately describing symptoms and forming a diagnosis, most of its other recommended therapy and prognosis are surreal.
Does anyone really believe that Syria and Iran, at least in the short-term, abhor chaos in Iraq? Iran fought a long war with Iraq, and fears deeply American scrutiny of its nuclear program. Only a perceived mess in Iraq keeps the attention of the United States and, indeed, the world community away from Teheran. Ditto Syria that does not want more Cedar Revolutions on its borders, given that democracies or the efforts at such in Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and Turkey now surround this dictatorship.
There were three wars fought to destroy Israel before the Golan Heights were taken. The withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza did not lead to commensurate moderation on the part of the Islamists or dictators. And if the Study Group believes that Israeli concessions will result in Syria and Iran “helping” us in Iraq, they are wrong on both counts. The most these two terrorist regimes will do is offer a safe “escort” out before the deluge; and, second, we will have reestablished the old principle that the way for radical Islamic and Arab regimes to pressure Israel is through attacking American interests in the Middle East.
The Syrian Enigma
Finally, why are there not terrorists attacks originating from Syria on the Golan Heights? That is, why don’t the Syrians send in various teams to broach the borders and ascend into Israel, or at least shell or send missiles against Israeli positions? Why not at least one Kassem or Katyusha targeting an Israeli outpost or winery in the Golan? The answer probably is deterrence; that is, Syria knows that a single Israel plane might in response take out the power grid of Damascus for a year or so.
So the Assad regime use surrogates in Lebanon or the West Bank that offer deniability of culpability of sorts. After all, hit back at the West Bank and you only add to the “misery” of the poor “refugees” and end up on CNN. The same is true of Lebanon.
But Damascus? That is a horse of a different color. The regime is hated; its infrastructure is vulnerable to conventional attack; and a few GPS strikes in the middle of the night to hit an airfield or power station would be finished by the time of CNN’s or Al Jazeera’s morning news.
So Syria understands that it can be harmed, without much publicized collateral damage, and to the silent satisfaction of the most of the Middle East. And as a result, Damascus does not actively wish to be seen mounting terrorist attacks—and why there is such hesitance should be a lesson for everyone involved. After all, even the French do not advocate talking with the Syrians.
Our Military
It seems banal to suggest that we need to change “tactics” in Iraq, not either withdraw or pour in more troops. But I think that is still the correct approach. We forget that the jihadist websites are still worried about Iraq, both the losses suffered there, and the emergence of a democratic government. We think we are not winning, but so do they think they aren’t either.
Without new rules of engagement and a radical shake-up in operations, 30-40,000 more American troops, circa the pattern in Vietnam around 1965, will only increase the rear echelon compounds and offer more targets, while assuring Iraqi dependency. Instead, we should aim for the situation in Vietnam around 1973-4 where we had withdrawn ground troops, but not air support and material aid.
But FIRST to get to that point the United States military is going to have to offer a broader window of opportunity for the political solution by defeating the jihadists and killers. I am all for more troops—but only if the parameters of action are commensurately enlarged as well and then, and only then, we are sure that we presently don’t have sufficient manpower to conduct air strikes on the borders to stop infiltration or enough embedded American troops within Iraqi units.
In the meantime we can change our ratios of deployment: less soldiers in enormous compounds to the rear, and the green light to target militias heads like Moqtadar Sadr, preferably with mixed American and Iraqi units.
Otherwise pouring in more manpower will only exacerbate the situation. Right now with all coalition troops and Iraqi security forces combined, we must be nearing 450,000-500,000 soldiers pitted against perhaps 10,000 terrorists. Thus the problem is not numbers per se, but the conditions of engagement under which the enemy finds advantage regardless of numerical inferiority.
California Dreaming–Again
I have developed a sort of ritual recently of driving from the High Sierra (Huntington Lake, ca. 7,200 feet), descending into the San Joaquin Valley and stopping at the farm for work and maintenance (southwest of Selma, between Fresno and Visalia), and then continuing over to sea-level at the Hoover on the Stanford Campus.
Trying to be empirical rather than romantic, one nevertheless must admit that this state offers one of the most rare landscapes in the world. Anyone can leave a vast untouched Sierra alpine forest, snowbound, and on the edge of an even more vast wildness to the immediate east over Kaiser Pass, and then within one-and-a half hours descend through foothills into the richest agricultural land in the world—still at this late date not yet completely turned into a San Jose or San Fernando Valley, and replete with orange groves, table-grape vineyards, and endless miles of tree-fruit. Then in a little less than three hours, you drive over a Mediterranean-like coast range and end up near the Pacific with a climate like the Greek or Italian seaside.
We sometimes rightly cry about despoiling our natural heritage. But eastward 50 miles from the Stanford campus to the coast are literally millions of acres that are untouched, and relatively unknown—as is true even in the corridor surrounding the 280 freeway. And this radical change in landscape within hours is matched by equally radical cultural transmogrification as well.
Up in the Sierra at this time of year, there are a number of rugged, 1940s types who plow snow, supply propane, or work for the power company who are as eccentric as admirable in their contrariness and independence.
The world should visit the Valley below to see how various races and religions live in relative harmony without killing each other. Millions of Mexicans, whites, blacks, Punjabis, Southeast Asians, Armenians, and Filipinos intermarry, integrate, and assimilate. Tuesday in Fresno County in the space of 30 minutes I drove by a Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox Church, mosque, Sikh temple, and synagogue—and about thirty Protestant congregations from Unitarian to Church of the Holy Redeemer. Anywhere else in the world—the Parisian suburbs, Darfur, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Congo, etc., such races and religions would be letting off bombs, assassinating or rioting.
And yet, and yet somehow the United States is pilloried for its “anti-Muslim” stance. When one reads that the Chinese government does not even allow the electric amplification of mosque prayers, that Moscow flattened Grozny to global silence, that the Arabs grow quiet when a Hama is leveled or the Kurds gassed, or that Africa is a story of serial genocide, and instead we are still talking of Guantanamo, then reason fails and we enter the dark world of primordial emotions, as hearts and minds are governed by envy, honor, jealousy, and a sense of inferiority.
But moving on: the most notable cultural achievement of the Valley is a shared allegiance to hard work, family tradition, and the sense of the land that combines to destroy pretension and self-importance. Valley people cannot stand affectation; and are great haters of all pretense.
Finally, under three hours away, then comes the sociology of the Bay Area . . .
But while it would be easy to caricature the pampered, selfish nature of many of these overachievers in Silicon Valley, and the manifestations of their newfound wealth—lavish homes, BMWs, electronic gadgetry—there is also an undeniable talent and egalitarian competitiveness, a meritocracy at work that creates new things of value to the world and, especially, to the United States. And all that energy and brilliance are sometimes apparent on the street of a Palo Alto or Menlo Park—something to grant and appreciate, albeit in small doses of a day or so. It is a world away from the Sierra or Selma, but in a strange way a logical part of this most unusual state.
Well, that was a long excursus about the eerie geographical and cultural miscellany of a great state—beautiful and majestic even at its supposed eleventh hour.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power
Mexifornia : A State of a Becoming
Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq
The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (Paperback)
Wars of the Ancient Greeks (Smithsonian History of Warfare) (Paperback)
Who Killed Homer: The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom
Fields Without Dreams : Defending the Agrarian Ideal (Paperback)
The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny
The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (Paperback)
20 Comments
Jeremy:Thanks for your continued great analysis. I am glad there are people out there like you who still give us hope that this country is not going to end up like the Roman Empire.
I also loved your reflections about California. Having grown up there, I still long for the beauty of the Bay Area and San Diego, but for all that remains untocuched, the State has been destroyed by illegal aliens and am glad I left. Now I just visit.
Dec 7, 2006 - 4:53 pm Jeremy:Thanks for your continued great analysis. I am glad there are people out there like you who still give us hope that this country is not going to end up like the Roman Empire.
I also loved your reflections about California. Having grown up there, I still long for the beauty of the Bay Area and San Diego, but for all that remains untocuched, the State has been destroyed by illegal aliens and am glad I left. Now I just visit.
Dec 7, 2006 - 4:55 pm Michael:You write so well Mr. Hanson, it is quite a pleasure.
On the topic of troop increases however I must respectfuly disagree. Perhaps you might have read ” The Sling and the Stone” by Thomas X Hammes USMC? The point of an insurgency has nothing to do with soldiers. I say that as an old soldier!
Regards.
Dec 7, 2006 - 5:58 pm P. Ami:As a Californian I can be awed by my new home in Oregon, even if admitting my origins to my new neighbors often draws exasperation. This whole Pacific coast of ours could be a vibrant nation all to itself. As you have pointed out, California is filled with people of the earth cleaving to the rugged mountains and sheer coasts as well as with the urban centered folk in their apartments and mansions. Even as they live much closer together, these urbanites are far less aware of a kinship to their neighbors then those in Chevy trucks that honk hello at the Ford making a way up or down the mountain passes. That said, it makes sense that to those in urban centers it is much easier to relate to the realist strategy of expecting your enemy to assist you in extricating from a situation that can only turn worse for them then it could for you, while demanding of your allies a greater sacrifice then you expect of yourself or your enemies.
If we had to abandon Iraq the worst that can happen for us would be bad. No question. Our protected status as oil consumer would be devastated. Since we have the biggest economy in the world we seem to have most to lose but in reality the whole world would suffer a relatively equal loss of comfort. Meanwhile, if we succeed we can remake the Middle East in our image. To this day the Middle East is a crossing point for trade and human transportation between Africa, Europe and Asia. Controlling the Middle East means we solidify our position as world leader and remind countries such as Russia and China that the American can reach their belly from any number of directions (from the Pacific Rim, Afghanistan and the ME) while they have only the most dramatic avenues for reaching us all the way in N. America. We have much to gain from these wars while the whole world loses if our efforts collapse.
The problem with our current attitude is that we project an image of weakness and two facedness. How can we reward Iraq and Syria while insulting our long time friends such as Jordan, Israel, Egypt and Turkey? Betrayal is the wrong way to consolidate power and it appears our leaders are, at least, flirting with the idea of not only betraying our allies but also our soldiers. Our grunts should have the rights Greek soldiers enjoyed in ancient days where they could audit their generals. Beyond that the soldiers should be allowed to critique our political leaders and dress them down in a manner that affects American voting patterns. These politicians that so often use slogans when going to war simply learn new slogans in the effort to bring soldiers back. Meanwhile, none of these slogans bring soldiers back from the dead. We expect human mistakes, surprises, and bad luck to play a part in war but we should never go to war at the urging of people with moral ambiguity. This Iraq Report (which I think is a paleo-con effort to teach the neo-cons a lesson for pushing them to the fringe) reveals the soullessness of those who would concede to its urgings toward disloyalty.
We city dwellers have a habit of passing the same faces day in and out without bothering to say hello. A neighbor can go on a rampage and not one of us would know him well enough to have seen it coming. We dress similarly enough and compete for similar things but it is an anonymous competition and there is nothing personal to it. Our politics seem to work with the similar heartlessness. We give lip service to our soldiers and work with allies only for convenience. 30 years ago we betrayed the Vietnamese, fifteen years ago we betrayed the Kurds (we are often reminded that Baker masterminded that betrayal as well) and today their leader felt compelled to remind us that our position in Iraq has much more at stake then win or lose. In Iraq we are grappling with our own inner Realpolitiks and must come to terms with our national character. Do we want to be known as people who won because we stood for nothing? I know we would win a much more fulfilling victory if we stand by our allies and showed the world that if you stand with us you will win and benefit for your loyalty. If we continue in the way the report suggests then we deserve no loyalty.
Dec 8, 2006 - 1:55 am TopCat:The U.S. has been fighting a PC war! We let them know weeks in advance before we attack! We let Iraqi politicians call for a cease fire during a battle, letting our enemy to escape! God forbid we hit a mosque even though they use them to fire from, store weapons in them! Take the gloves off! Get it over with!
Dec 8, 2006 - 3:03 am 2020:America’s leaders hallucinated wmd in Iraq where no wmd were but completely ignored Iran’s ambitions. To make things worse, OIF made sharia, after godless decades, the constitutional rule of law in Iraq again. And under the rule of green zone democracy, Iraq got army and police forces dominated by shiites now, in other words: America created new likely Iranian proxy troops in Iraq and made itself dependent of the peaceful ambitions of the mullahs in Tehran.
The U.S.A. have completely run out of options in the entire greater middle east now, nobody talks of victory in Iraq anymore but how to limit further damages. Before this background, I wouldn’t even think about strengthening those shiite proxy troops unless you really want to fight Iran’s wars. One word from Tehran and the shiites in Iraq will turn the weapons you gave them against you.
Knowing that time is on their side Iran little by little earns the windfall profits from OIF. Iran’s influence along the Fertile Crescent (google that!) has increased dramatically. All of a sudden the US-Army in Iraq has also become a buffer against Iran’s sunni rivals rejecting a shiite crescent. From both (fundamentalist) sunni and shiite point of view, Operation Iraqi Freedom could be the overture of the revival of a much larger historic conflict. Only who controls the Fertile Crescent can rule the world. This is one of the oldest laws of war of mankind - from the place where mankind’s civilization was born. Already Alexander the Great knew it.
Under almost every circumstances the shiite power and influence should be reduced. Should Iraq be divided, should Tehran expand territory to south Iraq, this could be the casus belli of a real big war in the middle east.
It is the strengthening of Iran that makes the OIF disaster complete and I’ afraid that will become even clearer in the near future.
Dec 8, 2006 - 4:02 am ajacksonian:What is forgotten is that when you bring up the salience of The Balkans, is that this is the prime area in which the West abdicated all responsibilities and did *nothing* to rebuild it or, indeed, build it for the first time. The only thing that truly stopped the descent into ethnic and religious factionalism are the more coherent Nation States surrounding that region. When looking at the complexities of prinicpalities, ethnicities and admixtures of religion there one is given the awful premonition of the state of the Middle East… save that finding coherent Nations that act *as* Nations would not stop a Balkans equivalent fracturing from Sinai to India, the Empty Quarter to Russia.
The central regimes of Iraq under Saddam and Iran under the mullahs weakened National bonds to the point that only ethnicity keeps any coherence at all. And as seen in The Balkans, ethnicity similarly breaks down into factions. When a minor off-shoot of one ethnicity wishes to join another ethnicity more aligned to it for political and economic reasons are we talking of the Middle East… or the assassination of Count Ferdinand?
Those wishing a way out of this must offer something that Peoples can find in common to work together on, not endlessly bicker over with guns drawn. The Left not only offers *nothing* but is seen with the same vitriol in many parts of the Middle East as the rest of the West is seen. By exploiting the Left for factional reasons the decay into factionalism is increased and no commonality put forth as a working objective then ensures that there is no ability for the Peoples to come to terms with each other. To have ‘Reconciliation Councils’ the People must first demonstrate that they support having the Nation that will help to reconcile them. That commonness… to agree to disagree and reconcile differences *after* those that are attacking are identified and put to rest… that is something that needs to be done and worked on. During 7 years of Revolution and 5 years under the Articles the US was seen as incapable of doing this and sliding into petty factionalism that would dissolve the States and dissolve the Nation.
4 years of fighting and scant 6 months of Government is scant reason to decry ‘defeat’. Compared to what the US went through, Iraq is coming to drive its differences to the fore, recognize them and now having to handle them in record, almost blinding time. If you compare this to WWII, then may we please dedicate 50% of the US economy to this endeavour as we did with that war? Go on a true wartime footing and pour out the vast wealth of the US industrial capacity into things necessary to get this fight finished? Because, in the time given with the paltry resources that the Union has made availble and the parsimony of those resources and the squabbling over the few lives and incredible sub-percent figures of GDP on this fight and rebuilding… it does sound like sour grapes.
The last wine made from similar grapes is The Balkans.
And that cask is still full and giving forth plenty from sour grapes of decades past and the lack of resources given *then*, to arrive at a place still known as ‘The Balkans’.
Give the World’s finest military 50% of US industrial capacity and Iraq will be transformed in record time. Complaining of the shoestring trickle sent on this mission is more like Scrooge complaining at the cost of the duck bought to show his holiday spirit. How dare any complaints be heard when so little has been given… to do so very much FOR so very many… by the very few that have done the work set to them that they volunteered to do for the Union.
Never have so few done so much for so many at so little cost to so much vitriolic and corrosive complaint.
Dec 8, 2006 - 5:44 am Dave Begley - Omaha:One of the reasons VDH is such an excellent writer is that he puts current events into historical perspective. Abu Ghraib was NOT equivalent to the surprise at the Bulge in WW 2.
Too bad the ISG didn’t have any one with similar sense writing the report.
Dec 8, 2006 - 6:53 am Jack Brennan:Roosevelt’s “DAY Of INFAMY”
December 7, 2006
Please remember that FDR knew about the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor two to four days before it occurred!!!!
To get into the War, he let the attack proceed without ever warning the Military and Naval Commanders at Pearl Harbor! It is a fact of History.
Why did FDR do this? This Official Act of complicity in the sinking of our Pacific Fleet and Murder of at least 2,500 Naval and Army personnel accomplished two things.
First, (and of lesser importance to Roosevelt/Hopkins), the attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the War against the Axis Powers, to save Britain and Western Europe.
Second, of Primary Importance, was to bring Japan into War with the United States. Why? The answer is that Stalin needed Japan at War with the United States, so that, Stalin would not have to keep half his forces in the Far East to protect Communist Russia from a second front with Japan, Hitler’s Ally.
Hitler and Stalin had been Partners in attacking Poland in early September 1939, and therefore starting WWII. In late spring of 1941, Hitler attacked Stalin and invaded Russia. If Stalin could not move his Eastern Armies to the Western Front, Hitler would conquer Communist Russia.
At Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt accomodated Stalin!
At Yalta, Roosevelt accomodated Stalin - FDR ceded China, N.Korea, all of Eastern Europe to Communist Russia.
Roosevelt rewarded Stalin for doing nothing to aid our War Effort against Japan.
We didn’t win WWII; Stalin won WWII with Roosevelt’s collusion and aid.
We are still fighting the War that started for us at Pearl Harbor.
Communist/Terrorist Russia, China, N. Korea and Cuba are some the Legacy of WWII that Roosevelt/Hopkins left us.
Roosevelt called December 7, 1941 a Day of Infamy.
It is a Day of Infamy!
HIS!!!!!
Dec 8, 2006 - 7:07 am RAZ:Good article as always. I have been giving some thought to what I would do if I were in charge and it seems to me that our major mistake in Iraq is in not making Syria and Iran pay a price for their interference. Syria is easy to intimidate…as your article indicates. We have the right to exercise “hot pursuit” and we should do so; we should also bomb any insurgent camps we find in their borders; and we have the opportunity to engage with Syrian Kurds to bring additional pressure on the regime. The Syrians will not (I believe) directly confront our military, although it might be a good thing if they did. I do not understand why we apparently are not doing this right now! As for Iran, I think the Saudis are the key to really putting the pressure on that regime. Iran is more dependent on oil than we are, and we could (on a sub rosa basis) subsidize the Saudis in order to encourage them to drive down the price of oil by increasing production; that would suck money out of Iran’s nuclear program and reduce Iran’s ability to foment trouble…something in the House of Saud’s interest as well as in ours. I would also use any additional US troops deployed to Iraq to close the border with Iran, and advise the Iranians (again, without a lot of publicity) that any Iranian arms (especially IEDs) found in Iraq will be considered a hostile act justifying our bombing of Iranian facilities. If we can (at least in part) neutralize the Syrian/Iranian ability to cause mischief, our ability to eliminate the Iraqi insurgents and militias would be seriously enhanced! Does this strategy work, do you think?
Dec 8, 2006 - 10:04 am Jason:The war against terror (of which Iraq is but one campaign) will only be won if we muster the political will to win. The American people and by extension their elected representatives will have to set the conditions for victory. What are the conditions? In my opinion they are:
Dec 8, 2006 - 10:24 am Andrew:1. calling for a new vote in congress on the war on terror that frames Iraq and Afghanistan as campaigns in the wider conflict.
2. Focusing America’s technological, industrial and financial might against the enemy.
3. Accepting the casualties and level of violence that the military will produce (friendly and enemy) in order to regain the strategic and operational initiative.
4. Set up a censorship department as in WWII to bring the press and their less than honorable intentions in line to help the national effort.
I doubt any of these will come to pass. We will continue to execute this war on the cheap and in half steps which will ultimately lead to failure. America has fought and defeated insurgencies- think the Indian wars, Philippines insurrection etc. We know historically how to win but the execution requires brutal and bloody methods.
Dear Mr. Hanson,
Would you at some point elaborate a little on Woodrow Wilson and his shenanigans/efforts to win WWI by controlling the US mail and the courts via censorship to dissuade any criticism of his war time policies and his use of the Four minutemen to brainwash the public into an unfettered patriotism to accomplish the same. (As I have read in Barry’s The Great Epidemic - Wilson’s Katrina was the influenza outbreak which he NEVER addressed publically or privately.) So why is it that Democrat president’s get away with violating the law to win wars and call forth an all out effort to do so but Republicans get skewered? I think it paints a very telling picture.
Dec 8, 2006 - 10:38 am J. Peden:“Finally, why are there not terrorists attacks originating from Syria on the Golan Heights? That is, why don’t the Syrians send in various teams to broach the borders and ascend into Israel, or at least shell or send missiles against Israeli positions? Why not at least one Kassem or Katyusha targeting an Israeli outpost or winery in the Golan? The answer probably is deterrence; that is, Syria knows that a single Israel plane might in response take out the power grid of Damascus for a year or so.” VDH
Talks certainly have not worked, have they?
And that concept of deterrence, along with the deterring Israeli move into Lebanon, makes the overall Israeli strategy sound much like the Bush Doctrine as so far applied - sans democracy-building and the much larger scale of “occupation”.
Is the Bush Doctrine working? Yes.
Is the Bush Doctrine “successful” in a broadly historical, finalistic sense? No.
Can the Bush Doctrine be modified to work better? Yes.
Can we abandon the Bush Doctrine? No.
Dec 8, 2006 - 10:49 am Anonymous:We need momentum in Iraq and we need to demonstrate strength. Its time to take out al-Sadr and go after the militias.
Dec 8, 2006 - 12:51 pm Improbulus Maximus:The gutless weakness our “leaders” displayed by refusing to stick it out for the win in Korea is coming home in spades to us now, as we have not successfully concluded a war with a definitive victory since then. Despite what cowardly politicians and idiot liberals may think, a truce, armistice, cease-fire, or stalemate isn’t the same thing as victory, and make for damn poor subsitutes.
Dec 8, 2006 - 3:42 pm Scott Dillard:As a people, we deserve the suffering we are going to have to bear, because we’ve had it too easy for too long, and have become weak and effeminate as a society. Our politically correct idealism is leading us down the path of defeat, and when the smoke clears, this nation probably won’t exist in its current form, if at all.
VDH: I grew up in the Vally; born in Fresno and raised in Merced. My two best friends as a child were Armenian and Japanese. I clearly remember kids in my elementary class who were (ethnic) Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Armenian, Basque, Mexican, Portugese and, like me, Oakie.
I am proud of that. America worked then, it worked in the 19th century with massive immigration, it worked in the early 20th century with massive immigration, and it works now, if given a chance.
But the melting pot needs to be reheated. It’s the only hope we have of maintaining what we had when you and I were young.
Dec 9, 2006 - 11:24 am Joe Smith:What a chicken hawk.
Dec 9, 2006 - 2:42 pm Jeffrey Neher:Dr. Hanson, spot on once again. I was viewing with much amusement and at the same time, pain, the Russert show a week or so ago. The two guests were Lieberman and Hagel. After hearing both speak, it was difficult to figure who was the repub and who was the dem(yes I’m aware Mssr. Lieberman is now an Indy). Hagel made me absolutely ill, almost to the regurgitation point. He actually stated that it was in Iran’s best interest to have a stable Iraq. Stable? In one sense of the word perhaps, but not in the way that is best for the Iraqi people. After all, isn’t that the whole point of this exercise? Lieberman on the other hand pointed out rightly so that Iran is largely responsible for the current violence in Iraq, not to mention the month-long “proxy” war they fought with Israel some months ago. How anyone, who wishes to be taken seriously, can suggest that Iran’s interest is the same as ours, or the Iraqi people for that matter, is beyond my comprehension. Islamic revolutions do not happen in strong democracies, nor do they happen in a violence-free vacuum. Chaos is rule number one for jihad, chaos created by terror and sprinkled with failed governments incapable of handling security issues for that nation. This is precisely what happened in Afghanistan and what is at stake in Iraq. To believe that Iran wishes for a democratic, stable govt. in Iraq is to be inhabiting another galaxy.
We now come to Syria. Syria is merely a puppet of Iran, but not a total stooge in this tragic comedy. They have mainly been left to fund Hamas and Hezbollah. In so doing, they have created as much chaos as possible in Lebanon. They out-right occupied Lebanon for the greater part of two decades. They oocupy Lebanon by proxy now, with Hezbollah running the terror-show. Has Syria had as one of it’s national interests a stable, democratic Lebanon? We won’t even get into the Palestinian camps or so-called territories. The obvious answer is not no, it’s hell no. Again, the interests of Syria are served by creating chaos through terror and assassination.
A larger look at the world shows us the jihad-model, the Islamic revolutions. The Sudan, then and now. A puppet govt. afraid and intimidated by muslim militias looks the other way and cooperates in many other ways to eliminate Christians and any other Sudanese who refuse the peace of Islam. One of their African neighbors, Somalia, is fighting the same battle, only at this moment it’s official govt. is trying to stave off the muslim militias. Ethiopia feels so threatend that it’s sending military help to aid the fragile Somali govt. Nigeria? In the midst of fighting muslim militias. Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, the Phillipines, Chechnya, almost anywhere you turn there is a radical muslim movement afoot. Of course Europe is in the middle of this same madness, just not as violent as of yet. The world response? A global orgasm at the ISG release. To put it bluntly, an orgasm based on surrender. Europe’s best defense? Talks with Iran and pay-offs to it’s local Arab citizenry with laws that resemble Sharia Law. This is eerily similar to the 1930’s of course but also as far back as the Barbary Coast Piracy battles. Europe it appears never learns it’s lessons of the past and can’t wait to repeat their failure. And now we come to America, the last beacon of hope. We have a president who sees the future and sees the threat. The public? To concerned with who to vote off American Idol and when the next X-box is due out. Our other elected leaders? They can’t wait to be first to the microphone to say “see, I told you so”. Never mind their previous public proclamations to the contrary. Our poor military? As usual they do the spectacular, the efficient, and the compassionate, all for the ungrateful, incompetent, and indifferent. How have some Americans chose to fight Islamo-fascism? Bringing law-suits against the govt. to bestow the Jihad bill of rights upon enemy-combatants. Others have brought suits against the Sec-Def for torture against enemy-combts. Others still have taken to court the right of the govt. to monitor foreign calls with possible terror implications. The NTSA states we will not profile terrorists instead we will profile everyone using the friendly skies. Why? We may offend the terrorists. Of course our leaders also refuse to enforce our borders. Why? Again, not to offend and some other flimsy excuses. Some rationalize their reluctance to face our enemy as, we are responsible for creating terrorists merely by our presence in Iraq. These people claim if we were to leave so to would the terrorists. Yes, like the communists left Vietnam and the jihadists left Lebanon. With this logic it makes me wonder why ole honest Abe didn’t leave the south….hell, slavery would have left. Did Abe create more slave owners? Damn, how many Nazi’s must we have created? With this kind of logic seemingly taking hold mixed with a happy, fat, and distracted public, it’s amazing we’ve held on this long. It’s always said the first casualty of war is truth. I’m beginning to believe it’s logic……..
Dec 9, 2006 - 10:21 pm Michael Devereaux:I just don’t get it.
We’re told that Iraq is merely one front in the War On Terror. The implication is that we invaded Iraq NOT just to topple Saddam Hussein, but to advance our fight against “those who want to destroy us”. Never daring to mention the phrase “militant Islamists” nor “Islamofascism”.
Yet here we are. Four years after throwing down the Saddam Hussein government, Moqtada al Sadr daily rants about American infidels and on how we must be destroyed, and he does so with impunity. His forces attack our soldiers. Isn’t he PRECISELY the real enemy?
Why isn’t an aggressive military campaign against Moqtada al Sadr a front in the global war on terror? In this war on terror - by its terms themselves - isn’t Moqtada al Sadr at least as much an enemy as Hussein was?
(And by the way - you do not declare a war against tactics. We’re fighting something, but it ain’t terror. No one, it seems, dares to identify what we are really fighting.)
We’re supporting an Iraqi government whose most powerful bloc wants to destroy us. We’re allowing Iran and Syria to freely import tons of weapons into Iraq to destablize our efforts and defeat us, and we do nothing. Has ANYONE seen any stories of how we are interdicting those efforts? I haven’t it.
None of this makes sense. I don’t know what we’re doing.
Dec 10, 2006 - 6:41 am Mr Myke:Dr. Hanson,
Your time is too valuable to use in considering the mistakes we have made in Iraq, is that right?
Searching for lesson’s learned is just a “parlor game,” because we “only” lose 50 soldiers a month?
Apparently if it’s not on the scale of events with WWII and the Greatest Generation, then you are just too busy.
Would you tell the mother of today’s dead soldier that reviewing policy to find any strategic mistake related to her boy’s death is just a parlor game? A game you just “haven’t engaged much” in?
After all, you could tell her, only Democrats fail to understand that it’s just 50 day, and YOU are a Republican. That’ll make her understand.
Ivory tower, indeed.
Dec 11, 2006 - 9:43 am