 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
October 2006
Elsewhere on the WebVictor Davis Hanson’s Private Papers Victor Davis Hanson Archive on National Review OnlineTour Books
A War Like No Other How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War
by Victor Hanson
Amazon.com’s Best of 2001 Many theories have been offered regarding why Western culture has spread so successfully across the world, with arguments ranging from genetics to superior technology to the creation of enlightened economic, moral, and political systems. In Carnage and Culture, military historian Victor Hanson takes all of these factors into account in making a bold, and sure to be controversial, argument: Westerners are more effective killers.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan Hanson, for those who somehow have missed him until now, is a professor of Classics at California State and also is a part time farmer, both of which have contributed to his writing as a military historian. As a classicist, Hanson is well versed in the sources in their original Greek, and as a farmer he understands how agriculture affected the experience of the Greeks at war.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
Hanson relates the life stories of his farmer neighbors, writing that their way of life will likely soon disappear, thanks in part to a federal system of agricultural subsidies that favors large-scale, industrial farm corporations over individual “yeomen.” This is a sobering and eye-opening book. by Victor Davis Hanson On first glance, The Soul of Battle appears to be three different books: biographies of two well-known generals—Sherman and Patton—and one who is virtually unknown today, the ancient Greek leader Epaminondas. Yet Victor Davis Hanson, a classics professor and author of The Western Way of War, makes a compelling connection between these three men. They were “eccentrics, considered unbalanced or worse by their own superiors” who led democratic armies on missions of freedom.
by Robert B. Strassler (Editor), Victor Davis Hanson (Introduction)
|
October 3, 2006 5:27 PM
The War and Its CriticsPseudo-footnotes Most genres don’t require footnotes—the memoir, the essay, the journalistic dispatch. I’ve written histories that had too many footnotes—The Other Greeks had citations to ancient sources in the text, explanations with asterisks at the bottom of the page, and formal endnotes at the back of the book—and memoirs like Fields Without Dreams and Mexifornia with no citations. But when you write history, and especially history of a contentious nature about Iraq, in which so much is at stake, it is incumbent to identify primary sources. The last three books about the supposed mess in Iraq—Cobra II, Fiasco, and now State of Denial—violate every canon of intellectual courtesy. Check who said what in Cobra II and you find the following: “Interview, former senior military officer”, “Interview, former senior officer”, “Interview, former Centcom planner,” Interview, Pentagon Officials,” “Interview, U.S. State Department Official,” or “notes of a participant.” When the readers encounter the most controversial and damning of verbatim quotes in Fiasco, they are presented with “said a Bush administration official” or “recalled one officer.” Woodward is ever more derelict, in imagining not just the conversations, but even the thoughts of characters. And lest one think I am unduly critical in questioning the veracity of these unnamed sources—whose authenticity can never be checked by anyone other than the journalists who now write out popular histories—examine the recent record of journalists at the New York Times and Washington Post, and more recent stories such as the Koran flushing at Guantanamo or the photshopped pictures from Lebanon. But even more specifically, Ricks himself in the course of promoting Fiasco, repeated rumors from unidentified (“some”) sources that the Israelis deliberately exposed their civilians to rocket attacks from Lebanon to gain sympathy from the world community: “According to some U.S. military analysts … Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they’re being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.” He was immediately called to substantiate those unproven charges. After considerable damage done to the reputation of the Israeli Dense Force had been done, Ricks backed down and apologized for his unsupported allegations with a weak mea culpa about his revelations “Ugh. I wish I hadn’t.” Every source in Cobra II, Fiasco, or State of Denial, may be accurate, but we will never know that, because for a variety of reasons the authors who claim they worked from notes and recordings, chose not to identify the most inflammatory sources by name. It would be as if I wrote a history of the Peloponnesian War and, to support my most controversial points, added footnotes that stated “A manuscript in the Vatican,” or “Private letter to author from anonymous Greek shepherd attesting a stone altar in his field” Finally, note the silence from the numerous critics of the “Path to 9/11” who objected to the film’s adaptation of the 9/11 report. But that docu-drama clearly identified itself as a fictionalized rendition of a document, and made no claims as history. In contrast, this new genre of journalistic exposé purports to give us the real story of Iraq, but denies us the very tools of determining whether what we are reading is true, half-true, or simply made up. Post-Iraq Everything that needs to be said about Iraq has. Long gone is any surprise that most current critics of the war were its one-time boosters, much less that it matters much. Still, a book will be written about the public fickleness of prominent columnists, pundits, politicians, and TV talking heads and hosts, who now damn our efforts, but once were gung-ho in their support of removing Saddam—and crowed as much when the statue fell. My rule of thumb is that almost every current, know-it-all critic, whether a Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chris Matthews (“we are all neo-cons now”), Francis Fukuyama, etc., at one time or another voiced support for removing Saddam and bringing war to Iraq. One constant in their various escape hatches is that a particular lapse, a certain mistake alone explains their abandonment of earlier zeal—too few troops, disbanding the Iraqi army, not trisecting the country, the tenure of Donald Rumsfeld, etc. In contrast, the simple truth is too bitter to confess: their support follows the pulse of the battlefield. When the statue fell and approval for the war hovered near 80%, few wanted to be on the wrong side of history. But fast forward three years plus: after well over 2,000 battle deaths, and chaos in Iraq, most not only don’t wish to be associated with the stasis, but contort to assure that they never supported the war in the beginning (hard to do with footprints on the internet), or were supposedly betrayed by the incompetence of others. I admit to being somewhat jaded: 80% of most people have no ideology or widely-held views, but simply reflect perceptions of failure or success. Those who praised Lincoln to the skies when Sherman reached Savannah in December 1864, just months earlier had hated him during the awful prior summer. Those who later sang Churchill’s praises after El Alamein and Normandy Beach surely did not earlier after the string of disasters at Dunkirk, Singapore, and Tobruk. Those who wrote in praise of massive B-17 raids deep into Germany in early 1945, escorted by hundreds of lethal P-51 Mustangs, had written off daylight unescorted bombing in 1942 as an aerial holocaust. The point, again, is that in the middle of a war, savvy is apparently defined as changing positions and views to keep pace with the upside-downside battlefield, rather than looking at the long-term conduct of the war. My own views remain the same. While I didn’t support removing Saddam prior to September 11, I am glad we did afterwards. While there were plenty of errors committed—no American should ever have appeared on Iraqi television; Tommy Franks should not have abruptly abandoned the theater; instant ad-hoc solutions were preferable to long-term utopian efforts at perfection—none of these lapses were as serious as those in the past in the hedgerows, in the skies above Germany in 1942, on Iwo Jima, or during the days before the Bulge, and none cannot be corrected and learned from. Iraq is 7,000 miles away, in the heart of the ancient caliphate, surrounded by a hostile Sunni Saudi Arabia, Shiite Iran, and treacherous Jordan and Syria. The war was conducted through three national elections, and became the focus of a hostile global media — much of it predisposed to be critical of the US government and military. Nevertheless, that we now have a consensual government fighting for its life against terrorists is nothing short of remarkable. Everything and everyone now hinge on the outcome. The safety of millions of brave Iraqi reformers, the prestige of the United States and its military, the policy of fostering democratic reform in the Middle East, the end to the nexus between failed autocracies and scapegoating the West through terrorists; success of the Bush Administration; the effectiveness of the Democratic opposition; the divide between Europe and America; the attitude toward the United States of the Middle East autocracies; the reputation of the Islamic terrorists — all that will be adjudicated by the verdict in Iraq. Rarely have so many ideologies, so much politics, so many reputations been predicated on just a few thousand American combat soldiers and their Iraq allies. I also confess, at this point I have a very reductionist, very Jacksonian view now of Americans in Iraq: America went in for the right purposes, conducted itself with honor and humanity, was still good when it was not perfect; and can leave something far better than what it found—if it will make the necessary adjustments, as in all of its past wars, and persevere. 130,000 took us at our word and are in harm’s way as a result. So I don’t care much to refight the argument over who was smart and who stupid—only how best to support out troops and ensure they win at the least possible cost. A final note. At some point all these retired generals need to simply quiet down and think. In World War II, Nimitz or Eisenhower never blamed the Secretary of War or FDR for the mistakes on Iwo Jima or the Kasserine Pass. Instead, they called in their top brass, drew up a plan, followed it, and then presented a successful fait accompli to their civilian overseers. In other words, our four-stars need to summon their colonels and majors in the field, draw up a military strategy that ensures our political aims of seeing a stable consensual Iraq, and then win. Blaming Bush, or faulting Rumsfeld is a waste of time; figuring out as military officers how to achieve victory over a canny enemy is all that matters. Congressional Pederasty Pedophilia (“love of children”) is different from pederasty (“desire for boys”); each term uses the Greek prefix pais/paidion differently, since the Greek word can refer both to the generic “children” and the gender-specific “boy.” In addition, “—philia” is the more abstract “love” and covers any and all type of contacts, while the “-erast- root came to mean sexual union largely in a male context. Why the distinction? It seems that Congressman Foley in not a pedophile as accused, but rather a classical pederast—that is, he is an active male homosexual interested mostly in adolescent boys rather than men his own age. Given his proclivities, I doubt there is much controversy over what he was intending in his emails, or his aims with Congressional pages. What is strange, however, is why some of the Republicans have hesitated to damn his behavior, which reminds me of something right out of Aristophanes. Were Foley a military officer, and wrote such things to an enlisted man, he would immediately have been court-martialed. And those now sort of, kind of, almost defending him on grounds that there is no acutal, concrete, proof that he consummated his desires, had he written such graphic and sickening things to their own teen-boys, would have had him jailed—or worse. How odd, this controversy: traditional moralists like some of the Republicans are defending a predatory pederast who seems to be infatuated with teen-age Congressional pages who are entrusted as near children to his care, while Democrats, who have made it a point not to criticize one’s “life-style” choices (remember the Barney Frank case) are suddenly outraged over the overly-liberal parameters in which Foley was allowed to operate. Still Republicans need to wise up: this is a losing issue since the public doesn’t really care whether the Democrats are hypocritical, using scandal for partisan advantage, or hysterical in seeking headlines: the facts determine the case: a US Congressman wrote sexually suggestive messages designed to entice an underage subordinate employee. End of story. All this is left to doubt now, is how much the Republicans will hurt themselves if they persist in whining about partianship rather than condemning pederastic flirting. Comments (41)Ray Zacek :Jeffrey S Neher :
WillyShake :I recently saw the 2005 film "The Great Raid" which, in the DVD's "special features" clearly names its sources and, I believe, did its homework to try and get the history right. In doing so, I think the film (as I discuss HERE)offers a good antidote to the kind of willful journalistic and authorial slovenliness you discuss. I'm particularly struck by the fact that these particular 6th Army Rangers had seen little combat prior to this dazzlingly successful rescue of American POW's at Cabanatuan. I believe that their incredible story highlights the fact that war is often a matter of bad vs. worse choices, that intelligence is never complete, that awful sacrifices often have to be made, and above all that the greatest asset of the American military is how it recognizes and rewards personal initiative at every rank (not always, but more often than not). May our country never lack such men! And, too, may our democracy never lack (to borrow Patton's famous warning) ""the stomach to honor its blood-stained warriors, men who do the killing necessary to defend it." Finally, I learned from the the DVD's special features about how eager the Army was to share this success story with the media back home, and how the media in turn cooperated with the military in an effort to boost public morale at this late date in the war. It made me wonder: were there any in the media who refused to cooperate with the Army over this story? Did they complain that it was too biased? That footage of our emaciated fellow Americans was unfair because it made the Japanese look bad? That it was propaganda? That the story was unfit to run because it didn't "tell the other side". (Here one can picture NPR interviewing dismayed Philippine farmers whose "buffalo carts" were commandeered to carry POWs to freedom!) Were there nutjobs back home who saw the Movietone News coverage in theaters back home and claimed that Cabanatuan was a hoax? Or that the President and his cronies were really responsible? Were there nutty professors out there that claimed that the Japanese would have treated American POW's better if they could have, but that our Imperialist aggression (the Philippines were, after all, still a US colony at that point) in the Pacific deprived the Japanese of needed resources. How could the Japanese army be expected to care for prisoners when they were up against the much more technologically sophisticated US military? Perhaps I'm naive...but, to their honor--and our shame--I'd be willing to bet that there were few voices like that back then. Thanks for your voice of reason, Dr. Hanson, may it (in Virgil's words), "vires acquirit eundo." John Moore :Thank you, Dr. Hanson, for your razor sharp critique of the recent authors and the "winter soldier" critics, and for the great historical context. Too many today have no conception of the history of modern war, for example imagining somehow that WW-II was done perfectly and all of our actions (such as killing 600,000 civilians intentionally bombed) were of the highest moral level. Too many took home the wrong lessons from their anti-Vietnam war activities (I attended a few amyself fter returning from Vietnam), and are seeking to recapture the high from defeating the "evil" US government. One wonders... if we had a press corps (and intelligentsia) as patriotic and educated today as we did then, what would the war and the national and international political situation look like? What if, instead of arrogantly "speaking truth to power," our press sought to help America win? What if our academia were trained in logic and actual history, and used their positions of power and privilege to help the nation? What if deconstructionism, post-modernism, moral-relativism or whatever-other-ism - what if these were seen for the sad illogical efforts of the mediocraties who created them? What if Hollywood stars joined the service instead of preached to us from their lofty perches of fabulous riches and total ignorance? MJ Fleming :Barney Frank? Dear Professor, are you forgetting Gerry Studds? He actually did the deed with an under age page, then had the nerve to turn his back, literally, on Congress as it censured him. Of course he then went on to win re-election. His biographical profile from the Kosopedia is hagiorgraphic. As always, thanks for your writing. Richard Aubrey :Dr. Hanson, I appreciate your views of the summer soldiers we have to pester us. Part of the issue, I believe, is pandering to the number of folks who think if they look elsewhere, the whole thing will go away. Re. Foley: This is a complicated case which, a hundred and fifty years ago, would have been addressed by the father of the teen in question horsewhipping the predator on the Capitol steps. Not all change is progress. While it is not particularly productive to speculate about motives--the easiest thing to lie about--the republicans have and had a problem. The current defense is partisan, although, as others have pointed out, he appears to have committed no crime. Pointing that out is not necessarily defending him, especially when the discussion is about his legal rights and wrongs. The republicans were, and to a lesser extent are, in a difficult position. Just as they have been officially identified as the party of racism, they are officially the party of homophobia. Too zealous an action regarding Foley prior to the surfacing of the IMs would have been proof positive that they were gay-bashing. Afterwards, it's a bit easier, but the possibility remains that some partisan will, in the future, remind us that Foley committed no crime and seek to convince us that Foley was hounded from public life because he was gay. Theoldmole76 :You're quite wrong about absolving ABC for announcing that some of the scenes in its 9/11 show were "fictionalized." The problem is that the viewer is given no indication as to which particular scenes and conversations are factional. By failing to provide this information, ABC undercuts what "reality" there may be in any of the film. In providing a historical gloss on an event of such momentual historical significance in this history of the United States and the world, ABC has committed an unforgiveable offense for an organization that purports to be supplying its viewers with an understanding of how the world works. Viewers can make allowances for bias and spin; but there is no way to make such allowances when the material under review may or may not have any connection with whatever historians would agree we do know about what happened around 9/11. Cecil Turner :Well said. Coupla typos you might want to clean up: court-martialed and partisanship. Other than that . . . TallDave :I also found Cobra II and Fiasco disappointing. The former seems little more than a collection of recycled DNC talking points that I saw circulated during the postbellum/pre-election period, while the latter comes across as a collection of ax-grinders (or perhaps more accurate metaphor would be sharpeners of the long knives). State Of Denial appears to be a rather pathetically obvious attempt by Woodward to get back in the good graces of the lefty elite after his former books were panned as too pro-Bush. I guess he missed the cocktail parties and Hollywood stars. It's interesting to me that even after the Soviets' bloody failure in Afghanistan and the French disaster in Algeria, people persist in claiming more troops are the answer to all our ills. Step back for a moment and ask what they accommplished with their far higher relative troop numbers that we have not, then ask the reverse, then wonder why anyone bothers to make such an argument in light of the historical evidence. Norman Rogers :One aspect of all this that isn't getting the play it deserves is the hypocrisy by (who else) the Dems in claiming that the Republican leadership should have taken steps to minimize contacts between a known homosexual and under-age pages. Hey -- let's talk about the Boy Scouts! Here we have a very well run, valuable, and effective organization that gets the joke -- keep homosexual men AWAY from young boys. And the Democrats vilify the Boy Scouts of America and have been pushing local governments to cut off ties because, "the BSA descriminates against homosexuals". Monty :Dr. Hanson, I've found that good military histories of conflicts often don't appear until many years after the conflict in question has ended. For example, we're still learning new things about World War II. Some of the best histories -- like "An Army At Dawn" and "Armageddon" -- have only appeared in the last few years. And I think we're still waiting for a really good Vietnam War history; Karnow's book, while valuable, is still colored by his antiwar views and profession as a journalist rather than military historian. There have been some good books written about Iraq and Afghanistan -- Bing West in particular has written valuable works in "The March Up" and "No True Glory". But I would caution anyone wanting a good *history* to wait a while -- it'll probably be a decade or more before historians have enough intellectual distance (and inside knowledge) to start writing good histories. All we're likely to get until then are tactical battle narratives (which aren't bad; don't get me wrong) and thinly-veiled political polemics. Jeff H :As always, VDH is masterful with words and thoughts, with both subjects, HOWEVER, please, use your very criticism and give us specifics of any Republican excusing Foley. They should be pointed out by name and exposed. I ask this because I have heard none, just the typical 'some' that the unreliable news media use to mean 'I'. Brien O'Toole :Once begun, America had a moral obligation and a strategic imperative to win the Iraq war with the least cost to ordinary Iraqis. The failure of this administration is not that it blundered after the fall of Baghdad but that it refused to change its obviously misconceived approach to establishing the security and stability needed for lasting victory. Everything you rightly list as being at stake -- our loyalty to Iraqi reformers, American prestige, etc. plus the safety of yet more thousands of ordinary Iraqis at risk in an all out civil war should have compelled an adequate troop deployment. That is what a serious administration would have done. It is what a serious opposition would have insisted upon. Until you get success in war, you need the prospect of success to sustain the political will to persevere. Darrell :Lest we toss aside the constitution, as of right now, former Rep. Foley has been tried and convicted of exactly nothing. The emails were indicative of nothing more than a "potential" problem. In addition, the origin and authenticity of the more graphic IM texts has yet to be shown and such things are too easily fabricated and/or embellished. Based on the fact that Foley was known to be gay, perhaps the overly-friendly emails to male pages were a basis some concern. The fact is that the Republican leadership did talk to Foley when they became aware of the emails and asked him to cease such contact with the male pages. Remember, the alleged emails are from 3 years ago and it is possible that Foley did indeed stop all such contact with the pages after being admonished by the House leadership. I am a conservative and a father of 10 children and I certainly don't condone exploitation of 16-17 year-old minors by any adults. However, I also don't condone resorting to media-driven kangaroo courts that trample on the rights of individuals. If Foley is indeed guilty of illegal behavior, he will be dealt with by the legal system. He has already been punished for the probable unethical behavior by resigning his seat and being bashed daily in the press. I don't think that any more piling-on is either useful or appropriate. Ted :"One aspect of all this that isn't getting the play it deserves is the hypocrisy by (who else) the Dems in claiming that the Republican leadership should have taken steps to minimize contacts between a known homosexual and under-age pages. Hey -- let's talk about the Boy Scouts!" Hey -- let's talk about the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia! salvage :You've been nothing but wrong about this war, who cares what you have to say? ajacksonian :Thank you, Mr. Hanson. I have vituperated on this topic muchly and thought somewhat about it and there is a large military component to the War on Terror, and Iraq, in and of itself, has large parts for the military to play. Properly fighting the entire al Qaeda defined end-game to terrorism requires a non-Nation State resolve and looking to how the US has gone against other such things from its early days when its military was not mighty, not omnipresent and not capable of very much. And as the Republic is founded to circumscribe the military from those realms, the ultimate responsibility falls upon the Citizenry. We have forgotten that because the 20th century has so biased us that we no longer recognize how to approach and *deal* with sub-National conflicts. Iraq can be lost by running and not putting in for a long fight and *only* won at the ballot box and the Iraqi people understanding that this is their fight, too. That is necessary, but, as we have seen via previous Administrations, not sufficient to making terrorism a losing proposition. Until we unlearn dependence upon the National Government and understand that this fight is a Citizens fight to take up justly and with Warrant, the overall War on Terror can only be lost. We can fight to win in Iraq and still lose the entire War on Terror. And the War on Terror cannot be won until we take up our responsibilities as Citizens to fight those things that our Government is not designed to fight. That is Our agreement as a People and we forget *that* at our collective peril. MadGreek :Typical Americans (I call them Amerikaner) do not look at the long term. The japanese afterW2 rebuilt their country by systematically building their country and making it into the #2 economy in the world. Tell me which American industry has a 5year plan? 10year? 20year? the word zero comes to mind. Politically Amerikaner also do not think beyond the next election. Wheras Iraq and Saddam was looking at the next 10 years with an understanding of increased WMD capacity. Iran and the Mullahs are looking ahead in the next 20to 50 years to increase their capability. They want to re-emerge in dominance back to 1492 when they still had a spanish foothold. 1492 has a special meaning for them. China has rebuilt their dominance in the world. And is looking at a long term view. The Amerikaner are just interested in their next meal/biz deal/political campaign. What is interesting from a historical point of view... is that the society that is here in USA has created a world dominance because of its freedom to profit=politics-society. Rome fell due to internal issues among others... It is the internal issues that will drop USA from its dominance. Hacklehead :last three books about the supposed mess in Iraq—Cobra II, Fiasco, and now State of Denial—violate every canon of intellectual courtesy.
Doug Santo :The War and its Critics That was an excellent summary of the Iraq conflict, an excellent analysis of the posturing and phony political nonsense that comes from many war critics, and a spot-on message about how to proceed to victory. Mr. Hanson you have an important voice. Please keep up your good work. Doug Santo meade :Disgusting as it is, pederasty can be transgressive or lawful. Sexual harassment is never lawful. The Foley case, like the Clinton/Lewinsky affair, should be about sexual harassment -- an unequal power relationship in the workplace, a power/authority figure making sexual advances toward a subordinate. Period. MadGreek :Typical Americans (I call them Amerikaner) do not look at the long term. The japanese afterW2 rebuilt their country by systematically building their country and making it into the #2 economy in the world. Tell me which American industry has a 5year plan? 10year? 20year? the word zero comes to mind. Politically Amerikaner also do not think beyond the next election. Wheras Iraq and Saddam was looking at the next 10 years with an understanding of increased WMD capacity. Iran and the Mullahs are looking ahead in the next 20to 50 years to increase their capability. They want to re-emerge in dominance back to 1492 when they still had a spanish foothold. 1492 has a special meaning for them. China has rebuilt their dominance in the world. And is looking at a long term view. The Amerikaner are just interested in their next meal/biz deal/political campaign. What is interesting from a historical point of view... is that the society that is here in USA has created a world dominance because of its freedom to profit=politics-society. Rome fell due to internal issues among others... It is the internal issues that will drop USA from its dominance. George :Bob Woodward's reporting has been way off the mark before. Perhaps that is a factor in his decision not to attribute his sources but it is all the more reason why he needs to. drlloyd11 :One possible diffirence, the post war rebuilding in Germany and Japan was based on "The New Deal", and the current effort in Iraq is more akin to "Reganomics" (for lack of a better term). Dan Hamilton :Ted "Hey -- let's talk about the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia!" I am sorry Ted but it can't be pedophilia if the age of consent in DC is 16. It wouldn't even be illegal. Something the media is also not talking about. If he had been a Democrat and the Repubilicans had brought the Dems and the Media would be screeming blood murder that the Repubs were gay bashing. You know it is true. Paul Filler :Dr. Hanson patrick neid :i'll have to do some more research. i don't know any repubs that are even remotely rationalizing foley's behavior. what i had heard is outrage that the infamous IM's have been held, for sometime, for their political clout rather than released in the best interest of the teenage pages..... always right :Appreciate your keen dissection on the first two topics (Pseudo-footnotes and Post-Iraq) both as a historian and a military analyst for past wars/conflicts. However, with regards to Foley and GOP’s response (or non-response), you only voice your opinion as any other political pundit. mdub :If war is "the extension of politics by other means" then I would argue that we have won the war. Our aim was to remove Saddam and the Baathists from power and prevent them from ever using WMDs against us or giving them to terrorists. In this we have succeeded - beyond the fears of every arm-chair general ( remember when the Battle for Baghdad was going to be the next "Stalingrad"). CBDenver :A question to consider regarding the mainstream media -- do they act as they do because the believe they are "citizens of the world" rather than citizens of one specific country? Many who comment here contrast WWII with now. Is the difference that the media then considered themselves Americans whereas now many do not? If you were to entertain the notion that you were a "citizen of the world" for a moment, would you not feel the need to "show all sides" including those of the enemies of the US since the whole world is your constituency? I do not adhere to the view that anyone can really be a citizen of the world at large -- that, to me, is just a fantasy. But to understand (and combat) the behavior of many of the elite in the media, academia, politics, and business, I think we need to recognize that they really don't think of themselves as Americans. Jenn M. :If the Soviets taught us nothing else, multiyear "plans" are meaningless. A "5-10-20 Year Plan" is nothing more than a guess at what future conditions will be. Typical Americans (I call them "Typical Americans") know that it's important to remain open to change. Long term goals are fine, but the ability to adapt, to change in response to a new threat is critical. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad :Victor, great note on the critics, and on the need for success. However, I think you are very wrong about the military's ability to give: "a successful fait accompli to their civilian overseers". Perhaps this was Rummy's intent with Gen. Gardner, to pull a McNamara, er, McCarthur and write up an Iraq Constitution and start getting local Iraqis elected. But with Bremer, instead, the idea was to have the Iraqis do it themselves. Today there is no military goal available to achieve for American forces. The key today: Only Iraqis can win in Iraq, US forces can only support. mdub is right, the "war" has been won, what we need now is winning the nation-building peace. The Vietnam problem is one of time. Had we merely stayed in Vietnam for 17 more years after 1972, or 25 after '64 Tonkin, or 33 after '56 non-election of Ho Chi Minh, had we merely stayed until the Berlin Wall came down, we would have won the peace. The slow, nation-building peace. And S. Vietnam would be more like Taiwan or S. Korea (though it appears that Vietnam itself is now trying to follow the Chinese/ Singapore econ models). Perhaps the Reps who are running will remind folks that we lost Vietnam in the 1974 election where lots of Dems were elected, who cut funding in '75 to our corrupt, incompetent, and cowardly S. Viet allies. I actually think our corrupt but brave and fairly competent Iraqi allies are 2/3s better. Too bad no PorkBusters database was used on reconstruction contracts for Iraq -- it's really too bad that there was so much "aid" instead of locally controlled municipal bonds (which would be repaid). History will show that Aid Teaches Corruption -- but that's another long post. (Please accept my "Victor" with respect as well as familiarity; your writing remains great.) John Dunshee :Dr Hanson; as always an excellent column. You are an oasis of reason in an increasingly deranged world. On the subject of the "not enough troops" argument. I have asked people making that argument which units they would have deployed in addition to the ones that were. They seem to always respond by comparing the number of people in the entire U.S. military vs the number deployed. That doesn't work because it wouldn't have made a bit of difference if a carrier battle group was deployed since Iraq is not an ocean. Nor would it have made sense to deploy another Air Wing. Where was it to fly from? The question is, which Army or Marine ground units should have been deployed and which units kept in reserve to relieve them and fulfill the rest of our worldwide obligations? Things always seem to degenerate into name calling at that point. The other thing that everybody seems to miss is logistical problem. During the 1991 Gulf War we had ports in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States available for use. In Iraq we were supplying an elephant through the keyhole of the Kuwaiti ports. This is also an unstated factor in Afghanistan. Last time I checked, Afghanistan was still a landlocked country. This means that supplies must be airlifted or trucked overland from ports in other countries. The U.S Military is a high maintenance outfit and deploying additional troops without the means to supply them could lead to problems. I’m not clear exactly what our supply chain looks like in Afghanistan but it is always a huge factor. Scott Malensek :Excellent piece. Right after I read it this morning I happened to read this one: Outsourcing Combat Reporting to the Enemy The two fit perfectly Well Done! Roy :Dr. Hanson, I know this sounds presumptious, but when you write: It would be as if I wrote a history of the Peloponnesian War and, to support my most controversial points, added footnotes that stated “A manuscript in the Vatican,” or “Private letter to author from anonymous Greek shepherd attesting a stone altar in his field” Isn't that to some degree what you are doing in your own scholarly work? After all Thucydides often seems to work this way himself. Yes you cite him as a source, or any other classical historian, but how are they better than Woodward? Who if our own age was not so well documented might in some future be regarded as the principal source. (God Forbid!) William R. Casey :Regarding Iraq, war plans change, as Eisenhower said,"after the first shot is fired". What most people don't realize is that there are two wars being fought in Iraq. One is against Islamic ideologues who cannot accept a democratic regeime in the heart of the Middle East, and one between Islamic factions that began the day after Mohammad died in 632 AD. gringoman :Dr Hanson, Your interesting deconstruction of the semantic roots of pedophile and pederast cuts right to the Foley chase in a way that most of the media either can't or won't but should. This gratifies by, in effect, highlighting a point of current gringo post on why the Republicans are caving kentuckyliz :Apart from the Congressman/page issue*, I really don't have an issue with the Foley thing. It's not pedophilia, because that refers to pre-pubescent children. It's ephebophilia (post-pubescent). Our entire culture is ephebophilic--witness pop tarts and Abercrombie and Fitch. There are straight men who have salacious chats and try to groom "barely legal teens" and they are called cherrypickers. Gay men who do so are going after the "chickens." The age of consent in DC (and most states) is 16. You get your driver's license, you get your license to love. These two things seem to go together rather appropriately. I am surprised how Victorian the D's are being... denying the budding sexuality of teenagers. What next, draping the pianos to conceal the ankles? Where are the gay advocates speaking up for these young men's rights to explore their homosexual side? Reading the IM's...these young men participated and reciprocated. * and I am waiting for a full accounting of the details of what kind of chats happened when, with whom, at what age, and if they were even still a page. The most salacious IMs were with a *former* page who was 18 years old. Improbulus Maximus :I love the pathetic attempt by salvage to get some traffic to his site. I clicked the link and wasn't disappointed in finding lots of shallow, vacuous posts with no comments. His best refutation of something with which he disagreed was simply "whatever". Such genius is wasted on mere mortals. Richard "Ricardo" Munro :Dr. Hanson: Splendid commentary.
You wrote "But when you write history, and especially history of a contentious nature about Iraq, in which so much is at stake, it is incumbent to identify primary sources." You are correct, of course, true history has solid evidence based on documented sources. Ocassionally one make reference to oral history or popular traditions to add color but they must be documented as such. The historian is responsible for facts so the reader has to know where those facts came from. One must always be able to consider the source. It is in the interest of all Americans to increase their knowledge of the war in Iraq and the so-called War on Terror. Knowledge is always better than ignorance. It is a vice of historians to overvalue government archives over personal interviews and oral traditions. The victor writes the final history and every historian must consider, especially today, how photographs and documents can be destroy or forged. So delving into other sources is interesting but their veracity cannot be weighed if we do not know its origin. So perhaps there is some good to be mined from these books though I would not buy them and I only know them from book reviews. I remember things that happened -or probably happened -100 years ago in Scotland and at 2nd Ypres and I have not doubt that there is a measure of truth to these memories because I or my father knew the parties involved. But one documents and identifies one's sources nonetheless. Bernal Diaz' History of the Conquest of Mexico was written many years after Cortes' Commentaries but somehow it seems more truthful. One wonders if Diaz based his history on any notebooks or letters he had at the time or only his memory. If Historians use make-a-believe facts, that is imaginary facts then the author is writing propaganda and political commentary NOT HISTORY. Of course, imaginary facts DO exercise a real power over the thoughts of people. The aim of using imaginary facts, of course, is to assert the authority of one political party or faction over another. Many ficticious events have established themselves as unquestioned belief. A historian has to deal with this. A reasonable person will seek out truth and accept the fact that some of the facts that support opinions may be less sturdy than others. But nonetheless an impartial history does full justice to friend and foe. Thus the reader can form his own independent opinion. I try to remain open-minded about the Iraq War and yes I am willing to concede that it may have been premature to go into Iraq before we finished the job in Afghanistan. But then does anyone every finish with Afghanistan? The Greeks did not. The British did not. The Russians did not. Nonetheless, I still remained convinced that going on the offensive in the heartland of the enemy enables us to contain terrorism. And of course by having a presence in Iraq we can protect scarce resources of pro-Western Arabic speakers who are in relative abundance there be they secularists or Christian. The Iraqi Christians I know are very pro-Western. Divide et impera. We cannot forsee the stages of the war in which the West is engaged. I do sense this however, that this is a war for enslavement of the mind of man (humanity) or enlightenment and freedom. I strongely feel the way to win this war is to pull the economic plug on the Jihadists. If we can move to the post petroleum age then they will be emasculated and return to the sands from whence they came. Israel and the West must surivive this time this trying Age of Petroleum. If I have one severe criticism of Mr. Bush is that we have not gone all out to reduce our dependence of foreign oil. We have the technology and resources to shift to ethanol (like Brazil) or liquifaciton of coal (like South Africa). To me the sure way of weakening the enemy is to deny him money and next cut off his food and supplies. And kill the bad guys. Splendid commentary again, as usual. As a teacher I cannot help to make some commentary on the Congressional Pederasty. I think it clear that Foley was an aging self-indulgent Catamite without any sense of decorum besides being a total hypocrite. If Foley were a teacher or school principal he would be fired. I am glad he resigned. By pushing for his resignation the Republican leadership did the right thing. Can you imagine the press if they had forced him to resign years ago becaus of the open secret of his homosexuality. I am sure he made a lot a people uneasy but as long as he bahaved himself within reason they welcomed the 'diversity' he provided. The truth is if he were a Democrat he probably would still be in office. Look at Mr. Franks for example. But then again, here we have a double standard. MALE perpetrators seem to be more likely to be prosecuted than FEMALE perpetrators. But life isn't fair. We still assume that if the male is the initiator he must be the aggressor and if the female is the initiator there must be mutual consent though of course, legally there cannot be consent in such matters under the age of 18 unless joined in marriage with the previous consent of parents or legal guardians. In sexual life there are all sorts of perversions and aberrations. Foley's crime was that he was doing harm to youth and minors. As a teacher I feel it is my solemn oath TO DO NO HARM to my charges and set a good example. If a teacher really loves and respects his students he or she would only want what is GOOD FOR THEM in the long run. A teacher must maintain a profound respect for the worth and dignity of others. I myself have never understood the desire of men to want to have sexual relations with other men or little boys. Donjuanism I can understand because I understand the physical attraction of a man for a woman of a certain age. Sexual satisfaction seems to be a basic human need though some are more easily satisfied than others. The closest I come to understanding homosexuality or pederasty is that it must be a form of masturbation.
It is no wonder, therefore, if sex is merely for personal pleasure, that people will seek relief in an endless variety of ways. I can even understand how a man could be attracted to a minor girl 15-17 years of age because physically many girls are women by that age. It is possible I suppose for a man a la "The Crying Game" to fall in love with an attractive young boy who was extremely feminine but I can't imagine it. Butch dumpy women do not interest me so why would a silly little boy or a dog or sheep interst me? But then I am a reasonably happily married man.
One of the purposes of group discipline IS TO HELP PEOPLE PASS THROUGH the eary days of youth without TOO MUCH CRAZINESS. College have given up on this notion almost entirely and high schools are heading towards that path too.
Mike H. :Thank you Improbulus Maximus@10:15, your synopsis was all that was necessary. Comments have been archived for this page. |
Pajamas MediaAn American Senator in Paris Warning: Opposing Putin Hazardous to Your Health Anti-Patriot Act Poster Boy Kidnaps Own Kids AP’s New ‘Accountability Journalism’ Is a Sham Obama Wows Germans — But Will It Play in Streator, IL? Homeland Security Meets The Sopranos Obama Does Offer Hope — to America’s Foes Yahoo-Icahn-Microsoft Aftermath: Who Really Won?
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS FeedsADVERTISEMENT
|
digg this
del.icio.us
Thank you again, Dr. Hanson, for lucid writing.
Regarding the folie a Foley, what I find ironic is that the age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16; thus if he had consummated a relationship with a 16 or 17 year presumably compliant page, no crime would have been committed; however using the internet to solicit such a liaison is a crime, I believe, under laws which Foley helped to pass.
Funny old world.
Oct 3, 2006 06:05 PM