16 Comments

Bill has a ‘Messiah’ complex. So what does that make Hillary?

Re: “What is left unsaid that much of our success may have been simply impossible in 2003.”

Maybe. But what if we had had a 250k soldier footprint? What if we had instituted martial law and taken the shackles off our troops and let them more freely kill bad guys? Finally, what if we had restricted media access?

Dr Hanson,
We in Las Vegas face much the same water problems as California. Water levels in Lake Mead are at historic lows, and we are in the throes of a years long drought.
Saudi Arabia can provide fresh water for 80% of the population of 29 million using desalination plants, with more new projects under way.
It seems to me that rather than spending trillions to stop global warming, with the likelihood of failing completely, we should be looking for ways to live in a changing world.
A crash program of desalination plants on both coasts and the Gulf of Mexico would go a long ways toward alleviating water shortages nationwide… Not to mention using some of that extra sea water Al Gore tells us is going to swallow our coastal cities and drown us all..

Maybe I missed it, but no mention of your winning of a 2007 National Humanities Medal. Too modest. That must have been fun and exciting at the White House.

jdg,

The key change in Iraq has been the change in attitudes and capabilities among the Iraqi people. That takes time.

The Surge wouldn’t work if most Sunni still wanted to oppose democracy. Only after experiencing the pain of war and the predation of Al-Queda did they turn.

In retrospect, I think that training Shia into an effective military force will prove the crucial factor in winning. Effective Shia convinces the Sunni they should not seek civil war and it gives the Shia a sense of security so they can let bygones be bygones.

I’m really glad John McCain is saying “I told you so” about a ’surge’ and better counterinsurgency.

But Harry Potter had to kill Voldemort himself — without Dumbledore or anybody else (altho with lots of help on other).

Only Iraqis can win in Iraq, and our job was to find out, as soon as possible, which Iraqi leaders we should be supporting. The Anbar Awakening started before, and without needing, the ’surge’.

Petraeus deserves credit, but Rumsfeld wasn’t all wrong to try to keep US soldiers safe while the normal Iraqis faced their freedom, AND their responsibility, AND the fact that America wasn’t going to save them from AQ murderous terrorist thugs.

That Arab killers were killing Iraqi Arabs is … mostly an Arab problem. And Iraqis should be told it is their responsibility that Arab Iraq is more of a mess than Kurdish Iraq — both under the same Liberation.

The Armed Forces could not sustain a greater footprint, unless you wanted to remove EUCOM and half of PACOM’s reserve forces. EUCOM has about 115,000 and PACOM 300,000 with 100,000 forward deployed… you want a bigger footprint like Shinseki wanted, then you have *no* EUCOM and a thin PACOM. And when it comes time to rotate troops home? Then what? I am sorry, but those that want the huge footprint are not pointing where to get it in a timely fashion nor the effectiveness of it after sitting so long in the desert that they would be rotating out by AUG 2003. You do not talk *tactics* you speak *logistics* and being able to support such a force which would, even with a smooth running operation, slick as anything weeding out of the old Iraqi Army and then training up a *new* Iraqi Army (you want to leave Ba’athist thugs in charge of the Army there?) then you will need to describe the force that will *do that thing*. The force size was not so much determined by the Administration in 2003, but by Congress and the Administration in the mid-1990’s - this force size is the ‘peace dividend’ writ large. We did not want to pay for a large military throughout the 1990’s and, instead, got the ‘fight two regional wars simultaneously’ armed forces that left out the proviso - everything else would be abandoned to fight such a scenario.

We continue to not understand the utility of the armed forces in America and *why* they are necessary as an organization. As a profession, disdain is cast upon the military by other professions and we get the sight of extreme simplification to the point of absurdity about what is and is not possible with a given force structure and size. Getting boots on the ground is one thing, keeping them supplied continuously is quite another and the US was not and *is not* prepared for a force that size without massive overhaul of the force infrastructure and war fighting policy. As it is small, long-term force deployments is what you can do with this structure, and we can either suck that up and pay for it and thank our troops deeply for being the best on the planet when we are so meager with them… or we can recognize our failure as a Nation to address our needs in wartime properly and start addressing them without rose colored glasses, best hopes, and ‘I’m sure the diplomats can take care of it’ attitude. The diplomats have infamously *not* solved the USSR, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the entire embroglio with the Palestinians. Not to speak of Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Columbia, North Korea and Pakistan. If you don’t like wars then prepare to fight them and fully - it is the surest way known to give heft to a soft spoken diplomat ever invented. Plus when the diplomats *fail*, which they do more regularly than we like to admit, you are *prepared* to do something about it.

In the US we pay billions to big AgriBusiness to wastefully use up fresh water reserves, grow uneconomical crops via subsidies and they, in turn, pull in illegals to pick the stuff. Maybe we can let a bit of the old ‘unseen hand of the marketplace’ work its magic and *stop subsidizing agriculture* and force it to actually meet market needs. The billions, now heading to tens of billions, spent per year on subsidizing Big AgriBusiness would help to make up those military shortfalls and necessary changes, encourage proper land and water use, and stop paying for hand harvesting and look towards modern methods of semi-automated to fully automated harvesting. That *is* the future and California has its first demo RoboFarm concept going. Little human input, the work done by machine. Within a decade we can expect general pickers/sprayers/harvesters to go out into fields and water where needed, when needed and use precise per area or per plant application of these things. Agriculture will shift away from humans and to machines… even in California if the soil hasn’t eroded away or the aquifers run dry. That is going to be a hard race, but it will be won by the same organizations that are getting UGVs into the armed forces. Self-drive vehicles are not just for the military, and the agricultural spread of them will be the next gen of agriculture. If you thought combines shifted the labor force there, wait for robotics.

It is time to stop living in the 1980’s and 1990’s and start dealing with the problems of *now* and tomorrow. We haven’t been able to do that so far and we have paid that price in Iraq and Afghanistan… and continue to pay it every day we subsidize the old way of life that is going away. Lets lower the cost and invest in tomorrow… because arguing about yesterday will get us steamrollered by it.

Autumn in California, what a sad report. I’m a native Californian, third generation, who felt he had little choice but to leave fifteen years ago for the reasons you cite. Having lived in Hawaii for these last fifteen years I would have to dispute the statement that California is the most beautiful of the fifty states. Hawaii, alas, is not that far behind California. It is also being run into the ground by corrupt Democrats who refuse to deal with a declining quality of life.

Tom Grey wrote, “ Harry Potter had to kill Voldemort himself.”

Harry Potter didn’t kill Voldemort. Rowling had Harry win by surrendering. “Just lie back and enjoy it.”

Twice.

I think Dr. Hanson that in California the easiest course will prevail: become Tijuana. It will serve the interests of the Democratic Party, that of rich people in coastal (Malibu, Santa Monica, San Francisco) enclaves, coupled with ethnic-racial politics (La Raza, La Reconquista, etc.).

The result of course will be no middle class Americans in the state and the very rich, very poor as in Latin America which most Democrats admire.

On foreign policy, I think you are wrong. You underestimate the power and control the anti-War/anti-military/anti-American lobbies such as Moveon, Kos, etc. have over the Democratic Party. When the War in Iraq looks to be turning up, Harry Reid is forcing a withdrawal. Cutting off funds. Reid, Murtha, Pelosi, etc. are dependent on the “hate-America” crowd that roots for failure above all else. They can only offer a good dose of “failure is morally good for you” to Americans, and various groveling tours of the world to “apologize” for the “Bushitler Regime” and pledges to subordinate America’s national security to the dictates of the UN, EU, etc.

Given the electoral base of Dems: upper class rich people with more solidarity with others of their kind abroad, in Davos or London or other chic places, various Marxist radicals (Moveon, ANSWER, Kos) allied with explicitly anti-White movements (La Raza, etc. advise whites to “return to Europe”) this dynamic, i.e. the imperative to create defeat in Iraq, simply cannot be thrown aside. Hillary has chosen to support cut-off funding for the troops in the field unless Bush withdraws troops in a few months.

I will submit that events will drive things in a Jacksonian direction where Dems face electoral disaster.

Israel is unlike to strike with timid Olmert running things. Rather it’s likely a coup or something else that pushes Musharraf from power and brings open Islamists-Taliban-AQ people to power could cause us to lose Afghanistan. Look at a map. If nuclear armed Pakistan moves against us and Russia forces close-down of air-bridges to Afghanistan, US forces face something like the British retreats in the 1840’s and 1870’s.

Would GWB use nuclear weapons to “save” an encircled US forces remnants isolated in Kabul? Strike Pakistan’s nukes? What if Iran announces nuclear weapons and demands US surrender “or else” in the region? Already Dems are saying “hands off Iran” and advocating Iranian nuclear weapons (witness the NYT editor’s declaration he won’t pay taxes to support “a criminal attack on Iran.”)

It would be ironic I suppose if Afghanistan were “lost” and Iraq won simply by geography — we can supply Iraq forces through Kuwait and the sea, and can’t in Afghanistan. Unless of course we simply drove through Iran to “relieve” our own China Gordon forces holed up in a last stand.

Essential vdh.

For those who think that the change in US military strategy (not just “the surge”) was not a critical factor in the current turn around—think of this. How would you react as an Iraqi knowing that the US troops go home at night to their “safe” compounds while you are now open for retaliation when the sun goes down if you have helped them.

Only an idiot would not recognize the importance of Gen. P’s change in dealing with the situation on the ground.

US troops don’t go home at night. They stay in the fight 24/7 in the neighborhoods and they don’t quite at 5:00 for the green zone for showers, chow and kicking back. They are closing with and staying with, and killing the enemy.

The old (close with and kill the enemy) is now new. The Iraqis now know who is winning and are joining up because then can do so and be protected. They also want to win but they also want to live. The US is now giving them the option to live in addition to winning democracy.

That we have a group of people who would give this winning away by putting a deadline on our withdrawal, accommodating our enemy the terrorists, shows that America is not just for Americans but for Idiots also.

They are for the most part called Democrats.

RE: Israel attacking Iran.

History repeats itself repeatedly.

When Israel wanted to attack Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, we balked then, too. The only reason Israel was able to do it was due to the fortuitous sale of new F-16’s that were supposed to be sold to Iran. But the hostage crisis precluded that, so Reagan agreed to the sale to Israel, not knowing that Israel had solid intel on the reactor that made the strike imperative.

This time, however, Israel would need to attack a much more distant target that knows it will be attacked and has therefore diversified its nuke facilities and gone underground.

At least we’ve done something right: sold Israel the B61-11 deep penetrator munition. Maybe in the future, we’ll just rent Israel’s military since they seem to be able to complete a mission.

Lack of sensible water policy, energy policy, fiscal policy, border protection, immigration policy, entitlement reform, crticising Iraq for not overcoming huge historical issues while being unable to generate budgets——it is amazing that we remain the greatest country on the planet with such bizzarely incompetent political “leadership”

I think it’s worth remembering — with all this post-”surge” good news — that even if we win in Iraq, we lose. America and Britain have basically replaced one virulently anti-Western, anti-American, anti-British, anti-freedom, pro-jihadi dictatorship with a slightly different virulently anti-Western, anti-American, anti-British, anti-freedom, pro-jihadi dictatorship with another. The improvement is mild at best, and only at the cost of great blood, treasure, and focus.

What you say about the Iraqi Catharsis is interesting.

I would add that Iraq has great potential to be a multi-product arab economy. It also can be restored as a society that promotes education. Both of these changes can have a positive effect on the region and neither would have come to pass under the UN-managed “diplomatic approach” to the Sadaam problem. -Most of the world overlooks the deadly impact of badly managed sanctions.

“that even if we win in Iraq, we lose. America and Britain have basically replaced one virulently anti-Western, anti-American, anti-British, anti-freedom, pro-jihadi dictatorship with a slightly different virulently anti-Western, anti-American, anti-British, anti-freedom, pro-jihadi dictatorship with another.” - Kyrel Z

According to who, the left and its jaded, politically-motivated view? What a farce of a statement! Iraq has a Constitution, it had successful elections, is certainly not a dictatorship, and Iraq has long been more pro-western than those around it. Where else but in Baghdad did you find Sunnis living with Shia living with Christians? You must write for the LA Times…