21 Comments

Great analogy. However, Frank Miller came to town on a train due at high noon not a stagecoach.

What if … I’m reminded of Robert Burns’s To a Louse:

Ha! whaur ye gaun, ye crowlin ferlie?
Your impudence protects you sairly;
…

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion …

Professor Hanson,

I was pleasantly surprised to see you interviewed for the featurette, “300 Spartans: Fact or Fiction?”, on the “300″ DVD! Your commentary was insightful, as always.

Have you seen the featurette yet? If not, you should check it out and show it to your kids. I’m sure that you’ll gain a new level of hipness in their book. (I know that, as a 21-year old, I would be the first to tell all my friends if my dad appeared on the DVD of a Hollywood blockbuster!)

By the way, have you participated in any other such interviews before, perhaps for The History Channel or something?

Best wishes from a cloudy, muggy Chicago!

Kevin Merkelz
Monkey2ewok@comcast.net

Deppressing picture but spot on as always. I suspect that Petraeus will be clear in both the advances and shortcomings in what has been achieved- and a roller coaster debate will roil. At the end of the day, I believe that the American people will come down on the side of victory as long as they believe it to be possible.
Whether or not my belief is wishfull thinking remains to be seen.
My doubt is in the ability of political “leadership” in Iraq to successfuly compress decades of fixes (vs USA history) into a time frame acceptable to our “leadership.”

Hi Victor,

It would be fairer to compare Stewart and the war effort if Stewart kept changing his story about what he was asking the townspeople to do.

Surge will be done…
GW Casey, Jr, from January, when the surge was proposed: “the summer, late summer”
R Gates, from March: fall
J Petraeus, recently: winter
R Odierno, also recent: Feb 2008

I am reminded of Thomas Friedman’s chronologically scattered statements that “the next six months are critical”. A repeated effort to buy more time, without being able to show anything for the time previously bought. I measure progress in terms like “How many Iraqis wake up each morning willing to throw their lives away to strike a fly’s blow at us?” (attacks/day) and “How many Iraqis favor killing US troops?”

The last poll shows that 60% of Iraqis approve of attacks on US troops. One of the main talking-point-strategies of the war is “Fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here,” an idea sure to increase levels of violence toward American troops.

Another beaut was the “terrorist flypaper” or magnet theory. What Iraqi would favor a plan to bring all the world’s most violent killers to their country?

Once again Mr. Hanson is right on. It seems that these politicians are more interested in getting re-elected than making hard decisions about our country, that will make our country greater and safer.

Mr. Hanson,

Very useful and insightful, if moderately depressing.

I must respectfully disagree with “Dozens of Democratic Senators and Congressmen were elected in 2006 on promises to end the war immediately…” I believe that most of them were elected as a reaction to corruption (earmarks) and inaction, and are the “Blue Dog” democrats that are denying Reid his majority in practice. Joe Lieberman trounced his “end-the-war-now” Democrat opponent, and if you look at most of the other seats that switched to Democrat in ‘06, the war was not the issue.

Thanks.

Dear professor,

I have to disagree with you on this one. Everything I read in the milblogs indicates that AQ in Iraq has suffered severe setbacks. The local population might prefer to see us gone, but not at the risk of seeing a resurgent Al Qaeda. Violence across Iraq has subsided by a third over the June numbers, and American casualties are down.

I hardly need to remind you that in 1945, the last act of a desperate Japan was to launch suicide attacks against US forces. I’m predicting the same from Al Qaeda in the days leading up to the Petreus report in September. It’s a logical tactic to convince Americans that it’s time to withdraw. They know that spectacular bombings will draw news coverage. It’s their only hope.

Petreus needs to keep the pressure on our enemies. A bombing campaign prior to his report should be anticipated and met with aggressive counter-measures before such events are allowed to occur. September will be decisive and both sides know it. If the US military can prevent what should be a last ditch effort by AQI, the insurgency will likely be broken for good.

It is High Noon. Let’s hope the good guys win.

The unintended consequences of the peace dividend after the fall of the USSR: too few troops to fight this war as it must be fought. And Americans expected to look within our borders and not expect problems from the outside. So 9/11 occurs and suddenly we find we need to destroy al Qaeda, but certainly not rid the world of all of the terrorists that started their killing spree in 1972. I become more and more convince that we will not unite, if at all, to fight our enemies until such time as there is another horrific attack on our nation. But I imagine that we will have the same 33% believe that Bushitler caused it.

First off, working in the film industry, I loved the script done by Mark. Second, are the Iraq Pollsters mentioned in the prevous comment. (60%?) I have seen no mention of them working their polling stations in Iraq by the ‘Pat Dollard dotcom and Michael Yon dotcom types. In other words, was that ‘poll’ printed by the NYT or the LA-LATTE? Third I always read your excellent work in the Albuquerque Journal. Now Victor, that they even let you write anything for them, is a feat in itself, seeing as our ABQJ is a ‘Hommie Wannabe of the LA_LA Times. A recent poll says that Congress has a 3% approval rating while W himself has a 13%. History will be the Judge of W but Congress? I’m not so sure. I accordingly take all, so called, ‘Polls’ (Mr ‘George Soros’ supported, ‘IPSOS’ polls in 04) as seriously as I take the threat of the return of the ‘Cretaceous Period’ http://blogengeezer.wordpress.com/
if we do not elect all Leftists in 08.

Dr. Hanson:

I read your review of Fiasco at the Hoover Institute website. I didn’t know where to respond, so I thought it appropriate here.

The main question I have for you regarding your comments is why did you not singularly address in any form of the relationship between the manufacturing of information to justify war, why that was allowed to occur in our government, and how could our military leadership be so ill-prepared for what was to come?

I will not even begin to claim I have the knowledge, education or experience that you possess, yet back when the drum beats were sounding, I was adamantly opposed to the war after reading information available through the UN Inspectors website, Seymour Hersch, Scott Ritter, Mohammed al Baradei, and numerous other sources providing information contrary to the claims of the times. And Seymour Hersch, used unnamed military and Pentagon sources, proved to be correct in all his assertions (Something you criticize Ricks for. Something that Cheney has done repeatedly on the many Sunday morning programs he’s appeared on).

Lastly, your attempt to paint Ricks as an opportunistic journalist taking advantage at what you believe is a change in opinion, seems even more of an apology for the indiscretions of this administration. Your implication is that it is manufactured and off-base. And for the record, Plan of Attack is highly critical of the administrations rush to war. Albeit, soft-spoken. But the fact that the administration spun the book as such, indicates the hubris and blinders they possess.

Also, did you know the subtext of High Noon? It was written by Carl Foreman as a statement against the McCarthy era and its attempts to brand everyone a Communist.

Cooper portrays the only person who will stand up to the silly ideologues, in this case the powers running the town. All the town folk are too afraid to stand up to these guys for fear of losing life and lively hood.

A more accurate analogy might be someone like a Scott Ritter who was castigated as a traitor and liar, and drummed out of the media because what he was saying was not favorable to the Bush Whitehouse. The press, the town folk, buckled under to the malignant town controllers (read Whitehouse), and therefore crucified Ritter/Kane. The only difference is that now that Ritter/Kane is proven correct, the press are taking the credit for it and blaming the CIA and military intelligence who all along was raising red flags.

Here is the reference:

High Noon’s historical significance is underscored by its political subtext. A victim of the Hollywood blacklist, screenwriter Carl Foreman intended his story to parallel the situation in which he and his colleagues were forced to stand alone against the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Just as Marshal Kane finds the residents of Hadleyville unwilling to help him fight Frank Miller, Foreman felt deserted by friends who were themselves afraid of becoming targets of McCarthyism. This analogy did not sit well with some, famously inspiring right-winger John Wayne to note his dislike of the film which he and others felt “lied about what they conceived of as the frontier spirit” (Tuska 70).

The analogy is not perfect: Gen Patraeus is not waiting for the train to arrive, he’s waiting for it to leave. When hard-core Democrats finally realize that Bush is not running in the coming election and their opposition will be someone else, perhaps they will stop spending so much energy trying to damage him. If that realization dawns soon enough –i.e., if Bush becomes history soon enough — Patraeus might be permitted to stay and fight. If Bush-haters think they can damage the President by forcing America to lose this war, the pressure will be on Patraeus to leave Iraq before the job is done. Kane at least got to kill the bad guys before he redeployed. F

I particularly liked the “High Noon” analogy a few years back when Marshal Will “George Bush” Kane was trying to stand up to bad-guy Frank “Saddam Hussein” Miller and looking to find support among an indifferent (or invested) group of townsfolk at the United Nations. As we know, Marshal Bush more or less had to go it alone. Unlike the relatively simple denouement of the movie, however, the showdown in Iraq has been a very messy affair with a cast of thousands.

As you note, General David Petraeus is presently cast in the role of the town marshal, heading a dedicated deputized band of American military personnel trying to oust gangs of fanatical extremists–home-grown and imported–set on running the marshal and his deputies off. Unlike the movie, the bad guys do not make it known where and when they plan to engage the marshal and his deputies (instead of “High Noon,” a more cinema-apt name for this movie analogy might be “Anytime, Any Place”). The bad guys don’t bother to dress up for the part, hide their screen credits, and take their movie direction cues from off set, way off set, from places far away like Afghanistan and Pakistan, Syria, and who knows where else.

As things now stand, we are faced with a marshal who is doing his best to confront the bad guys, but knows that the townsfolk (UN gawkers now joined by Americans with short-term memory loss and their short-sighted legal representatives) want to have the marshal throw down his badge and ride off into the sunset as soon as possible, even if it means that the bad guys will take over the town and kill lots of folks and make trouble for years and years to come, and perhaps even start touring companies that might come to their own backyards.

I don’t think anyone knows how this version of the movie will end. If it ends too soon, however, I’d be worried that the sequels may make the original look like “Bambi.”

Dear Professor Hanson,

I am a huge fan who has read all of your columns since 9/11 and a few of your books as well. I write this as a suggestion or petition as a topic for future treatment.

There is one aspect of the political solution to the Iraq situation that I have great difficulty conceptualizing. The progress being made at the local and provincial level is common sensical given the ability to focus on pareto like concerns and solutions. I would expect sustained if not linear progress to be made on this front.

My problem is how this will come together at the National level. Democracies consisting of fragmented and numerous parties are perhaps the most challenging environments in which to attain sustained positive results. Having lived in the Philippines and viewed Italy for example, it often seems that politicians exist for comic relief. Neither of these was formed in the midst of existential struggle. While the Philippines had no democratic experience, they did have robust bureaucratic schooling and infrastructure, with adequate support from the USA.

It appears that Iraq is attempting to implement the most challenging version of a democratic system, in the midst of an existential struggle, with our government insisting on compression of achievement (starting off with advances that we took the better part of two centuries to achieve), with no living memory of a democracy, with a rudimentary at best bureaucratic framework, with historic distrust and animosity between large segments of the population, and with the developing world cancer of systemic corruption and cultural acceptance of same.

Does there exist a historical model or conceptual road map that can be used to reasonably guide us as to what we can expect to achieve and in what time frame?

While I do not believe failure to be a viable option for our Iraq situation, I am unable to conceptualize what the acceptable end game will look like, nor even guess at the time which will be required to get there.

I would really appreciate it if you could provide some insight on this.

I can’t respect the criticism of anybody who doesn’t know that Gary Cooper starred in “High Noon,” not (Jimmy) Stewart. Especially when it’s in the first paragraph of the essay.

That being said, it’s amazing how potent a political metaphor “High Noon” is. I recall Solidarity posters in Poland depicting Will Kane in silhouette, carrying a ballot instead of a pistol…

Brilliant, Victor. The shameful lack of leadership in Congress, characterized by the appalling, painful specter of such a pathetic character as Harry Reid croaking that we’ve lost the war, is nothing more than a reflection on ourselves- somehow we have lost our compass, our footing, our heart and are now cowardly peeping out of the curtains like spectators waiting to see how this drama that will determine the rise or fall of our civilization will play out, as if it were some silly TV melodrama.

Professor Hanson,
A Spartan History question here. I heard Democatic Candidate Mike Gravel assert that Spartans and Spartan society encouraged homosexuality as it provided the the incentive to “protect the man beside you” in combat. Is this correct? My understatnding is that Spartans were warriors first, all else second. Could you address this?

Thank you.

RTLM - the story is correct, with a twist. The best known instance of this was in fact the Theban army which formed an elite troop of homosexual soldiers - the Sacred Band - for precisely those reasons. Thebes eventually destroyed the Spartan Empire, primarily through annihalating the bulk of the Spartan male citizens at the Battle of Leuctra in 371BC. The Theban leader, Epaminondas, the Liberator, went on to free the Messenian slaves (helots) on whom Sparta depended and hence permanently destroyed Spartan power. More history here than could readily be summarised in a short post, though.

RTLM:
Maybe Victor Hanson will correct me, but my understanding is that the ancient world (and pre-industrial world in general) doesn’t make a distinction between “homosexual” and “heterosexual.” Instead, the distinction, sexually, was between active and passive. Thus a certain stigma or contempt attached to being penetrated, regardless of whether the person penetrated was a man or a woman. To be penetrated was deemed to be in the female role, which the Greeks held in a certain degree of contempt. But little or no stigma attached to a male who was penetrating another male, since the penetrator remained in what the ancients deemed the dominant, respectable role. There is the well known exception: under some circumstances no stigma attached to a young male, a “youth,” who in pursuit of education from an older male mentor, was passive in a sexual relationship with that mentor. If my memory of my reading about this is not faulty, it would have been considered unseemly if the youth particularly enjoyed his sexually passive role, but so long as the youth was neutral about it, it was often considered perfectly acceptable for him to be in a passive sexual relation with a teacher.

I’m not sure about the difference between Athens and Sparta with regard to the above sexual mores.

One can sometimes see a similar lack of distinction between homosexual and heterosexual in parts of the Muslim world that remain pre-industrial. As with the ancient Greeks, the stigma falls on the one who is penetrated, not on the penetrator. Thus one heard a few months ago in the media (I’m not sure in which part of the world this happened) about a Muslim gang rape of some male for some supposed offense against Islam. The 8 or 10 Muslim males who sodomized the male victim did not think of themselves, I’m fairly sure, as “homosexual” in contradistinction to “heterosexual.” The males in question are relatively unconscious with regard to those categories, which appear to be a relatively modern discovery related to the gradual, centuries-long process of liberation of women from subordinate legal and social roles.

You can blame Democrats or Republicans all you want for ending the war, but the main reason is that the Bush Administration did not quite understand their own nation’s culture. Like or not, Americans are no longer willing to get into prolonged wars in which thousands of Americans are killed, especially when the war’s premise and execution are questionably at best.

America’s cultural views of war and its effects have changed drastically since World War II and Vietnam. September 11th may have made American more open to the use of force, but it didn’t change their views on American military deaths abroad.

The desires of those in both political parties to end the war is a direct reflection of the political views of its citizens. Americans simply will not tolerate many deaths in war.