 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 25, 2006 2:56 PM
War, Punditry, and FarmingWill the Center Hold? Depression apparently abounds these days. In the latest Time, Robert Galluci, the present Dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, pleads with us to talk to North Korea (“Let’s Make a Deal…”)—as if their present plutonium stockpiles did not originate during the Big Talk of the 1990s under the Carter/Clinton shuttles, or that a regime that has recently starved to death over 1 million of its own cares much about either talking or honoring anything that might come out of such discussions. And why should Pyongyang concede anything, when its past talking, dissimulation, and nuclear enrichment earned it both a bomb and billions in food and fuel? All the communists need to do is update the discussions: instead of promising not to build a bomb, they can now promise not to test another bomb in exchange for more largess. Then after they let off accidentally, kinda of a second blast, they will promise not to launch a three-stage missile—for more cash, and on and on, all in the Rhineland/Anschluss/Sudenland/Poland manner. Short a horrific war, about the only thing that will make Kim Jong Il cease is Chinese pressure—and about the only thing that might prompt the Chinese to pressure North Korea is the specter of successful, rich, and angry democracies, such as Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan pointing their newly acquired nuclear missiles at Beijing. All things considered, the thought of such states making nukes like Toyotas is a far scary nightmare for China that North Korea’s Taepodong missile is for us. On the same pages, Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council of Foreign Relations, writes an essay “Would Defeat in Iraq Be So Bad?” in which he harkens back to Vietnam circa 1975, concluding that after we were defeated and fled ignominiously, the dominos did not fall in Southeast Asia and thus things were not all that “bad”. He is apparently forgetting the 1.5 million who were the boat people, and those sent to reeducation camps or executed, and the millions who lived since under communist totalitarianism rather than something like South Korea, and the holocaust in Cambodia that a chastised United States did not dare address, and the other late 1970s’ ripples like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Central American mess, the Iranian hostage crisis, and a nearly ruined and disheartened American military that followed from the perception of a defeated and demoralized United States. But almost none of the firebrands of 2003 speaks the truth behind the facade: They supported the war when it looked like few casualties and a quick reconstruction and thus confirmation of their own muscular humanitarianism—and then bailed along the way when they realized that wasn’t going to happen and the unpopular war might instead brand them as “war mongers”, “chicken-hawks” or just fools. Instead of that honest admission, we get instead either cardboard cut-out villains of the “my perfect three-week war, your screwed-up three-year occupation” type—a Douglas Feith, Gen. Sanchez, or Paul Bremmer—or all sorts of unappreciated and untapped brilliance: from trisecting the country to “redeploying” to Kurdistan, or Kuwait, or Okinawa? Apparently pundits think that the entire country has gone crazy and lost its memory that almost every cable news talking head, Time magazine pundit, Washington Post insider, and syndicated columnist—other than those at the Nation and the American Conservative—at the beginning supported the present war. I have no problem with the notion that the perceived pulse of the battlefield governs ongoing attitudes toward the wisdom of conducting war—only with the denial of that truth. Pericles, after all, was fined after both the plague and Spartans roaming the fields of Attica disabused once zealot supporters that “his” war was going to be short. And a motion for censure of Churchill in July 1942 was discussed when the British were depressed after the fall of France, Singapore, and Tobruk, and knowledge that neither Bomber Command nor British forces in North Africa had done much to check Hitler. In contrast, had the United States had a republic secure and up and running in Baghdad 3 months after the end of the three-week war, at a cost of say, 400, fatalities, missing Weapons of Mass Destruction and all other the other complaints would not have been real issues, as supporters would have pointed to the other 22 writs of war in the October 2002 Congressional resolutions that are as valid now as they were then. Wisdom and Idiocy in Farming I can recall, comparing great things to small, the same changing wisdom in farming: pick grapes early for a safe drying period for raisins; or pick late to ensure a sweet ripening grape for a better raisin. If September was dry and hot, then the late guys who saved their heavy sweet raisins were geniuses; but if it rained, the early pickers who at least salvaged their crops when no one else could were considered brilliant. But some September mornings it would cloud up and threaten; then the neighbors almost hourly would praise the early pickers as visionaries. But by afternoon when the clouds blew away and the sun appeared, the same critics would blast those who had their grapes prematurely on the ground as idiots who panicked and would have “wheaties” not raisins due to their sour grapes on the tray. I wrote about the daily changing wisdom in Fields Without Dreams, and how fickle human nature is, rather than looking at things in a tragic sense that there are no great choices, but often just bad and worse, and that wisdom is predicated mostly on the perception of success. In 1982 I picked early and thereby avoided a horrendous tropical storm that ruined the industry, saving thereby 200 tons of raisins that sold for over $1400 a ton; in 1983 I picked early again, the clouds blew away, and in weeks of perfect weather I produced lousy, sour, and light raisins, selling scarcely 140 tons for $400 and lost far more than I had made the year before. I was neither a genius the year before, nor a fool the next, but rather did the best I could in both years, recognizing that we are still subject to fate, despite our vaunted technology and knowledge. I am not advising helplessness, simply some recognition that the verdict is out on Iraq, and what looks bad today, might look far better very soon—and that erstwhile supporters turned vehement critics might well reinvent themselves a third time. Presidential hopefuls The Hoover Institution has been hosting Presidential hopefuls. The latest visitor was Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney who spoke to, and received questions from, the Senior Fellows yesterday. For about one hour, he heard some tough inquiries, answered without notes, kept his cool, and talked analytically rather than in platitudes. I was impressed, and came away thinking that being a conservative governor in Massachusetts must have sharpened his debating skills and given him insights about dealing with the therapeutic mindset. I don’t know what he thought of us, but most of us thought him quite impressive.
Comments (49)Petrit :Jack Marcotte :Essential VH. David Ford :One item that should also be mentioned to those who look nostalgically at the past and would compare our leaving Iraq as we did Vietnam: There were no Vietnamese flying planes into our buildings and vowing to destroy Americans wherever they went. Ryan Enniss :I just want to thank you for your website. I enjoy it alot, and look forward to reading it. Webutante :It seems to me that the US going into a country like Iraq and expecting things to be peachy within three to twelve months is as unrealistic as believing that marriage will always be a bed of roses or that the going won't get rough at times. Our cut and run culture can no longer stand the heat on any front and of course that's why the divorce rate is so high for marriage and now for this war: unrealistic expectations going in coupled with weak moral resolve and distaste for the realities of conflict. Of course the MSM is egging this all along encouraging us to get a "divorce" from Iraq, as in Viet Nam. I think it's a good time to go out and pick some raisins myself..anything to get one's mind off the cacophany of doomsdayers. Dave Begley - Omaha :VDH's insight about how today's depression about the Iraq war is entirely a function of how everyone thinks it is going is right on target. The way the point is so wonderfully made is by considering how today's opponents would be talking if everything was great in Iraq. I read VDH for his political insight, historical background and amazing skill in rheotric. And if I could vote today, Mitt Romney would be the one. I pointed out to my high school freshman Romney's amazing record of accomplishment (Staples, Salt Lake City Olympics and Gov. of MA) versus that of Sen. Obama (state senator, Harvard L. Rev. and two years in US Senate). No contest on the merits there. J.A. Lineberry :I too am disgusted with the current media pundits, and much of Congress as well. I was skeptical of the war at first, but now that we're there, it doesn't seem reasonable to debate the purposes behind the war. What I'm especially frustrated with is that Democrats, my own party (I'm beginning to reconsider my affiliation), are calling for a reduction of troop levels so that the Iraqis can take up the task of their own security. I wonder if they've considered this from the Iraqi point of view. We invade, remove their government, and then leave early saying "you guys sort it out," when we were the ones who made the mess. We should stay there as long as it takes to ensure that Iraq becomes a stable democracy, not due to the reasons for war or anything of the sort, but because the alternative may be a greater Persia. On a side note, I've been reading your book Ripples of Battle. I found myself moved by the powerful introductory story of Victor Hanson, especially after you revealed Victor Hanson's ring exhibited a Roman Legionary. Lug Nutmegger :Enjoyed your comments on Governor Mitt Romney. I have been a fan for some time now and I am actually nervous just posting on your site. Keep up the good work! Tim O'Connor :I loved the farming analogy. VDH, you are quickly becoming one of the last voices of good sense and practical reason. (I'm a loyal reader, but have never commented before now.) Tony :Victor, Victor, Victor! You are supposed to be this big student of history? When has a war ever achieved its goals? When have the indigenes ever blessed their invaders? THere is no possible happy outcome of this war, only alternative horrible outcomes, none of which would have arisen it its absence. Don't fool yourself with optimism, that this time, for once in the history of mankind, war will work! Junius :If WMD had been found in Iraq, would it have made any difference to the opposition? Would not the terrorist be fighting as hard as now? Would not the neo-Copperheads be demanding that we declare victory and withdraw? Tennwriter :The fair-weather pundits reveal themselves to be men without spine. I hesitate to use the word 'men' here because implied in it is the notion of courage in the face of difficulty. They are an opportunistic society of talkers with pretences to morality and they disgust true men. If they could convince me that the base logic of the situation has changed, I could understand, perhaps, a change in position. But when the basic logic remains the same, and you change your position, that says one of two things 1)You had not thought things out clearly before hand. Sadly, this happens frequently as humans are bad at foresight. A small apology for being stupid seems appropriate,and then one moves on. 2)You don't really have principles. You're not serious, and no one who is should pay more than the most minor attention to you. I begin to suspect most pundits fall into the second category. Why is it that the world seems filled with poseurs? Is making a serious effort to do the right thing instead of the expedient thing too much to ask of our leaders? I think not. I suspect we are beginning to see the deaththrows of the RINO's and the Moonbats. Neither are serious, and reality has a way of calling unserious people's bluffs. And RINO's frequently tend to be 'fair-weather pundits' to tie this all back together again. Yes, it looks bad, but either by victory or by defeat the 'fair-weather pundits' and the RINOs and the Moonbats are going to get slammed in the next decade just like the post-Vietnam era. HerrMorgenholz :Well put, as usual, VDH. Tony, WWII achieved its goals, the US Civil War achieved its goals (if you're a northerner like me), in its own way Korea achieved its goals, the Mexican war, 1812, the Revolution, the Cold War all achieved their goals. Failures: WWI and Vietnam. In Vietnam, the US could afford failure. In WWI, we couldn't, and reaped the result. In this War against Islamism, we likewise can not afford failure. Failure means my daughters in burkhas, my son a miscogenist, my wife a non-citizen, and my religion in ashes. It means the death of the West, no art, no music, no history to ponder. Nope. Not gonna let it happen. SWLiP :The most maddening thing about the "wisdom" of the chattering classes is that they absolve themselves of having to say how they would have dealt with the regime of Saddam Hussein. What were the options? - Continue the sanctions? Prior to 2003, the chattering classes were calling it genocide. And don't forget the fact that the oil-for-food program had been thoroughly corrupted by Saddam and his enablers in the international jet-set. - End the sanctions and abandon the effort to contain Saddam? That would have proven beyond a doubt that the most prized institution of the chattering classes, the UN, was utterly useless. If Iraq and North Korea share one lesson in common, it is that war should not be prosecuted unless it is prosecuted to the finish. Leaving mortal enemies in power to fight another day does no one any favors. Ed :Tony, Tony, Tony! Take a look at what Victor has been saying all along. It mirrors your own comments almost exactly. He has consistently said that: 1) Wars rarely achieve all their goals, and often mutate and change goals as they progress. 2) Wars are a matter of bad and worse choices, and, 3) High optimism about a war's outcome is usually foolish. He has also never said that indigenes bless their invaders, but has pointed out that Germany, Italy, Japan, the Philipines, South Korea and other countries have, in fact, changed course after military defeats and occupations, and gone on to become stable and prosperous American allies. For Iraq to "work" we have to define victory. A perfect new society in Iraq is not a realistic vision of victory - but the survival of its elected government and perhaps a slow process of positive change over many years, such as what took place in South Korea, could yet come to pass. David G :I think Victor's point is that China will pressure NK now to deter Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan from developing their own nuclear weapons. Not after those countries have their own nukes, but now, before they do. I'd say WWII and the Civil War both had good outcomes though the wars were not happy events. I think our attention spans have become so reduced that there is no possible way to make Iraq a functioning democracy without the MSM screaming that it is a failure from every mountaintop. Democracys take time. Victor, thanks for another great article from one Central Valley guy (Kingsburg) to another. And Go Vikings beat the Selma Bears! Mark Paules :The American congress might choose to cut and run in Iraq, but the commander-in-chief will surely see the effort through to the last days of his administration. By January 2009, the Iraqi people will have had five years to put their house in order. They can choose a rational course and negotiate their differences, or revert to tribalism and savagery. The former might lead to a functioning democracy, but the later will surely see Iraq consumed in a fit of self-immolation. The United States was able to impose democracy on defeated enemies, Germany and Japan, after World War Two. These two peoples recognized American magnaminity. They chose cooperation over continued resistance. It was the rational solution given the challenges of reconstruction and national redemption. We can only hope the Iraqis do the same. If they choose otherwise, civil war and worse will be their lot. But it is their choice. No one will be able to claim that they weren't given an opportunity. If they opt for tribalism, vendetta, and primitive codes of honor, the result will prove that some people are not ready for self-rule. We might hope that a man on the order of Afghanistan's Karzai will rise to the occaision in Iraq. Karzai is one part enlightened westerner, and yet a savvy in-fighter when it comes to tribal politics. We're lucky to have him on our side. Afghanistan has been pacified, more than less. We fight only remnant forces of the Taliban scattered in the distant countryside. The pitiful Taliban (and Al Queda) resistance is not much more than live-fire exercise for America's crack troops. We lose a few good men, but not much more than succumb in ordinary training. Iraq will rise or fall through her own efforts, for better or worse. Americans should recognize that there is no dishonor in a noble defeat (should it come to that). Damn the pundits! Let history decide. gs :Bush. After 9/11 I supported strong actions against our enemies. Since our enemies are Islamists, I did not understand why we invaded secular Iraq instead of Iran or even Arabia. At the time I gave the wartime commander-in-chief the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. The sight of Bush on the aircraft carrier with the 'Mission Accomplished' sign gave me a bad feeling which the course of events has confirmed. Here, it seemed, was a man celebrating after winning the second round. (The early phase of the Vietnam war went well, but, after dramatic though unsuccessful enemy resistance, domestic propaganda undermined the success of our military effort. Yet this boomer president, who should be acutely aware of that history, has repeated it.) As I follow the news from Iraq, I fear that the invasion was a gross strategic miscalculation (if it was a calculation at all). Even worse, I have lost confidence in Mr. Bush as a war leader. Some of the things that Winston Churchill got his military to undertake fell well short of expectations, but there was no question about Churchill's overarching strategic vision, nor about his ability to keep his country pointed toward victory. I have lost confidence in Mr. Bush on both counts. Romney. Reelection in liberal Massachusetts would have given him the momentum to run for president as a 'uniter, not divider'. Unfortunately--in contrast to Hillary Clinton--, Romney chose not to allow his constituents to evaluate his first-term performance. That doesn't mean I rule him out for the presidency, but it does mean I'm unenthusiastic. Brother Bark :The phrase "... is a far scary nightmare for China that North Korea’s Taepodong missile is for us." in the third paragraph is a bit confusing. Perhaps it should be this? "... is a far scar[ier] nightmare for China tha[n] North Korea’s Taepodong missile is for us." David Thomson :Only a historical illiterate would call the Iraq war a disaster. It actually has been a huge success. We have only lost the lives of roughly 3,000 soldiers. This is a ridiculously small number when you consider all that has been accomplished. Unfortunately, too many Americans don’t know squat about military history. We are ultimately doomed as a nation if such relatively small sacrifices saps our will. Osama bin Ladin would be proven correct: kill a few American soldiers---and the United States will run for the hills. The situation in Iraq has worsened because of the lack of unity within our own borders. America's enemies are emboldened to hold out just a little bit longer. lk :I do not understand what you are saying. Perhaps you should go to Iraq, then opine. Carol :You have referred to the "tragic point of view" before and I didn't know what you meant, so I'm glad you explained it a bit. Your pragmatic, grounded reflections sure is a tonic for the times. Thank you. Kathie :Thank you VDH--You are so right on. DRJ :I believe America is at a turning point just as Spain was after 3/11. I hope Americans don't give up on Iraq or the War on Terror, either now or in the future. If America won't see this through, no one will. Manual Laborer in Selma :What is the origin of the term "Moonbat?" I see it used frequently here and other blogs, especially www.littlegreenfootballs.com John Kluge :Two words describe the "metro-sexual mob" Hanson speaks of, "Andrew Sullivan". Once the war got hard and messey he bailed argueing the whole thing was messed up by Bush's incompetance. People never accept that sometimes there are only hard sollutions. In the Civil War people called Grant a butcher as if some obvious and magic stroke of genius was going to defeat the fanatical, well armed and well lead Army of Northern Virginia. The fact is that when you are confronted with a dedicated and competent enemy, there are no good sollutions other than a long hard fight. Adam Tran :"Why would China apply pressure to North Korea because three other countries have got nuclear weapons?" China does not want a resurgent nuclear Japan as a result of North Korean belligerence. The concept of a nuclear Japan was unthinkable in Japan itself a couple years ago, until the North Korean pulled this nuclear stunt, now there is open debate in Japan on just that. Japan can by some estimate build a nuclear arsenal in six months. Bejing does not want the Japanese correlating a potentially lethal threat of North Korea as a result of Chinese cynicism ,sponsorship and apathy. A nuked Japanese city via North Korea would mean Japan would hold the North Koreans and their Chinese sponsors responsible and respond in kind even with the help or at the very least blessing or a blind eye from the US. China is the North Korea lifeline with food and fuel. If china cut them off, North Korea will collapse. The Chinese despite what they say have flexible options in pressuring North Korea. Give up your nukes and slowing rejoin the the world, or face internal rebellions due to famines? China needs to decide, do they stick with a pseudo alliance with the North Korean that yielded very little positive results since its reception and will almost certainlylead to hostile Japanese rearmament and also possible South Korean reaarmament or do they cooperate with to disarm North Korea? IT is is simple as that. Kurt :Excellent points, SWLIP. I asked a liberal acquaintance the other day, given three dangerous regimes, which would you choose to remove: the one with a history of invading its neighbors that you had an unresolved conflict with where you had had troops in the area for years (Iraq); the one headed by a dangerous madman known to be developing nuclear weapons (North Korea); or the one that you had every reason to distrust, but little definite evidence with which to justify an invasion (Iran). The fact is that if we hadn't removed Saddam, then we'd have three dangerous rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction instead of just two, and the chattering classes would then be blaming Bush for not having acted when the UN Sanctions regime fell apart completely. The leadership of the Democratic party deserves nothing but contempt for its opportunistic posturing, as it does everything in its power to frustrate and undermine--rather than to advance--American interests around the world. Tom the Redhunter :When has a war ever achieved its goals? Uh, the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War II, the Gulf War.... Yes yes, all except the last turned out to be more difficult than either side imagined, and each presented new problems at the end that were unimagined at the end. But only a fool would say that "war never solves anything." Steven :Anybody who thought that we'd be out of Iraq before 2008 was an utter idiot. That class includes far damn too many people, but it especially includes every pundit who claims that overthrowing Hussein was a good idea but blames Bush for messing it up. As far as wars of invasion that achieve their goals, Tony, I've got a quite long list. In U.S. history alone, the invasion of Mexico in the Mexican-American War, the conquest of the South in the Civil War, the conquest of the Phillipines in the Phillipine-American War, the seizure of Panama from Colombia, the conquest of Japan in World War II, both the Grenada and Panama invasions, and the Gulf War. californio :I note "tells" amongst the chattering punditry. First, if the economy is going well for Bush, then expect to hear about a specific instance of pain. "That person is experiencing real suffering.." is the retort when you point out that few people are in the same circumstance as the example. And on war - on a personal, antidotal level - no war is arguably "worth it". My relatives paid a price in blood in WWII - and ask us now if it was "worth it"? No. Too bad, France. In a larger sense - yes it was worth it - but on a personal level? No, nada , no way. I am waiting for Jacksonian america to refuse the call from everyone else expecting the Jacksonians to sacrifice more and more with less and less support. Terrye :VH says what I have been thinking. I am so sick of these self serving pundits saying whatever they think works for them at the moment. I remember what Clinton said about Saddam in the 90's, and very few doubted that the world would be a better place if Saddam were out of power. Now people are trying to pretend Saddam was not so bad and that the war was a mistake because it is not over and done with yet. The truth is Saddam was not going to just go away. Sooner or later the world was gong to have to deal with him and to pretend otherwise is to ignore history. mc :I think there were a bouquet of reasons for going to war. WMDs. Oil. To infect that Godforsaken nuthouse of the Middle East with the democracy germ. This last one was quite a brilliant idea, if it had worked. Perhaps in time it will. It will be interesting to see whether these disillusioned neo-cons redeploy as old-fashioned Hobbesians. ajacksonian :Why would China change its policy at the threat of three other Nations getting nuclear devices? 1) Japan - Rape of Nanking, remembrance of. Northern war of Japan against Russia that was taking place in conquered Northern China. Japan already has first gen Aegis technology and made their own Aegis destroyer, which is giving China and North Korea worries about Japan not only defending itself, but prepared to take on anyone that comes to them. Japan already has a Earth to Orbit rocketry, add in nuclear devices and they become an instant ICBM power. China worries that Japan will rediscover its ancient militarism. 2) South Korea - Check weather patterns for nuclear fallout from North Korea. Further, add in basic rocketry capable of reaching China. Third, having met South Korean exchange students there are some great and old problems between the Chinese and Korean cultures that neither side has resolved from familial and cultural all the way on up to National. A united Korea puts democracy on China's doorstep. A nuclear united Korea means it will never go away. 3) Taiwan - China sees it as a 'break-away' province. They are unable to figure out how to get past current Taiwanese defenses without a pure slaughter of the Chinese Red Army at sea. Add in nuclear devices and China kisses Taiwan away forever. I call this the Nuclear Neighborhood option. And for all the pointing at getting Japan to become non-Imperial, that took a decade of heavy presence of US troops to ensure that the Japanese people were *serious* about it. During the Philippine-American war the actual fighting was over in about a year or so. Victory was declared. Clearing out the Moro insurgents took another *decade* of some of the nastiest, harshest fighting witnessed anywhere. The man in charge of getting that done was "Blackjack" Pershing. It wasn't until 1916 that Congress finally voted on the idea of restoring government to the Natives. Mind you 'victory' was declared in 1901. And we then had a World War to fight, an economic downturn to counter, a Second World War to fight in which Japan (remember them?) took over the Philippines and we had to go and retake it and, yes, we were *welcomed* because of the horrific way the Japanese viewed conquered peoples. After the war sovereignty was handed over in 1946. Do not talk to me about random bombings when individuals were flayed alive and their skins stuffed and left near trails with individuals nearby to whisper things to make it sound like those skins were ghosts. The US put an *end* to that and we were seen as 'civilized' and the folks in the Philippines realized just *how* civilized when Japan took over the islands. On a side note and knowing ZERO about the raisin business: I assume the idea of a 'staged' pick to get percentages of the crop regularly over a series of weeks has been looked at? That spreads gain and loss across the entire pick and would allow for not having to worry about seasonal variations as much. It is a method to *minimize* annual loss so as to remove trying to get to *maximum* income. If a farm can only survive on *maximum* income, then it will have no leeway to ride out bad times. Minimizing loss spreads out this cycle and, with a conservative view and storing any excess profits, allows for a margin of safety to even out the annual variations. I would assume that there are other risk assessment parts to this, such as labor costs and not wanting keep a smaller labor force around over the longer period of such a pick. Do note that Mondavi for *wine* has moved to some automated picking machines and, unless raisins are more fragile than wine grapes, this may help to start moving hand-pick out of the cycle and regularize cost of labor during the pick cycle. Third generation picking machines look to gain adaptive sensors to analyze fruit and leave out those that are not at best potential for set parameters, which would allow a better staged pick by upping quality factors as it goes on. Mondavi does that on the pick settings and bruise percentages so the same grapes can yield three different levels of wine from low-end consumer to high-end, high-quality limited production from the same vineyard. Add in GPS and checking sugar content and such and the entire map of how the field responds during seasonal variation will start to show up which can be addressed my many factors such as isolated irrigation or proper distribution of fertilizers and pesticides. This is transforming the grain harvest already and other crops for mass harvesting are headed in this direction. The results of this have been: higher yield, higher quality yield and higher average income per year. For the smaller farmer, Moore's Law is your friend as knowing your fields intimately will allow for production of premium goods vice the mass picked of the conglomerates. I have no idea if that fits into the raisin farming concept, but it has worked for your fussy brethren in the wine industry. USMC Ken :Sir, I wish Rice and Rumsfeld would go to Tokyo, stand with the government there, and say that the Korean problem is best solved by the regional power, Japan, with America in direct support. Subcontracting the resolution of Korea to Japan should have the effect of focusing the minds of all concerned. America has had 50 years to resolve things there, without much effect. Japan, on the other hand, has shown that they know how to deal with the Korean peninsula. It is time that they get another crack at it. Boghie :Interesting debate, but rather insignificant, eh... It does not matter if we bail on Iraq and Afghanistan. We bailed on Afghanistan in the late 80’s after helping the Afghanis overthrow a brutal tyranny. Guess what, the enemy is at war with us. Have been so for over thirty years. At least we can no longer claim surprise. We know who the enemy is. We know what drives them. We know where to find them. We either define the battlefield or have the battlefield defined to us. We are to meet Hannibal at Cannae or at Zama or both. It is our choice. Bailing from one theater of conflict means that another theater of conflict goes hot. Then these summer soldiers will be screaming for a war of annihilation. And, we will still win – but at what cost to our culture? Insufficiently Sensitive :As a fifth-generation Californian, also raised on a ranch, I am never so cheered as when VDH voices some clear analysis from the metrosexual maelstrom that California has become. Thanks for reminding us of those near-unanimous blatherings of war support and the 22 Congressional writs back in the days before the Democrats had settled on back-stabbing as a superior stragety to gain power. Their noses should be rubbed in that history on a daily basis. Sensible :Time for the knacker's yard, old man. You and your gibbering fellow-travelers stopped making sense long ago. Chuckr :HerrMorgenholz, I consider even Vietnam a victory. After all, JFK went into Vietnam to keep the dominoes from falling. And after 15 years and much blood and treasure the entire Pacific Rim still stood to go on to create strong economies and governments that resisted communist takeover. And now even China is reforming economically if not politically. And how long can the Communist party last in China once half the population gets cell phones and laptops. Globalization will trump Marx every time. And I'm sure JFK is smiling from whereever he is. J. Black :When Romney denied state security and escort to Khatami during his Harvard visit, I was impressed. I'm glad to hear Victor's assessment; we will have at least on one presidential candidate who is presidential. He will make HRC look like a teeny bopper. John McDermott :President Bush mentioned one specific reason why bilateral talks with North Korea were such a bad idea the other day during his informal chat with conservative columnists in the Oval office. He said if we go it alone, the U.S. would be totally responsible for the resulting consequences. I think he was saying it was a no- win situation, because if anything went wrong, the other concerned nations would float a disclaimer , and blame the good old U.S. again. Bob Snider Framingham, Ma. :Dear Victor: I see a comment that contains the dumbest lie of all time; "War never solved anything!" I do not have the time to list all of the critical, historical events decided not only by war but by one battle. For those of you who have not read Victor's Carnage and Culture I recommend it highly. Second, Mitt Romney is a superb administrator and a first class intellect. He may be hurt badly by the problems of the Big Dig. Morgan C :Petrit, if Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei ALREADY had nukes, then Beijing would not pressure Pyongyang. But they don't already have nukes, merely a new incentive to get them. Beijing's motivation now is to avoid the nuclearization of their neighborhood. Rob Mandel :I believe our present problems in the WoT are that the Islamc world has never faced true, utter, total, defeat. Like the Carthaginians at the end of the 1st Punic War (and perhaps the 2nd) and the Germans at the end of WW1 (re: Professor Kagan's masteriece), defeat was not catastrophic. Thus, they could regroup, rearm, and retry. In fact, it was not long before whether they were even defeated at all was the consensus. For all the losses the Arab world suffered at the hands of the Israelis, they were never defeated. Israel never occupied Damascus, Amman, or Cairo. Likewise, they have never had a Dresden or Tenochtitlan. Wars only achieve objectives when the defeated truly are defeated, and left with no other option. Just as Scipio could dictate terms, so too could Eisenhower. We have not the will currently to do such. That is our greatest failing in this current conflict. I truly doubt whether Truman or FDR would care about offending the sensibilities of our enemies, or their co-religionists. They'd have done what was necessary and sorted out the pieces post facto. Fiskleness in war is nothing new. One need only read of the general discontent for Lincoln in 1864, or even the congressional inquiries after Tarawa. Even worse, debate about the true enemy is nothing new as well, as Demosthenes (or Churchill) could well attest. I'm of course a long time fan of Professor Hanson and believe him to be a national resource. I've even used his essays in my high school history classes. Really, I have. What amazes me most about our current troubles is not what we've done, but rather what we haven't, referencing of course Carnage and Culture. This is, I believe, truly the Arab world's last best chance. For should we get half a mind to do so, we could end this whole mess in about 6 hours. But the results would be rather unattractive. ArsSineArtificio :HerrMorgenholz: Well, in WW2 we didn't really achieve the original objective - freeing Poland :-) Nevertheless, in all respects your comment is absolutely right. This war is for all the marbles. However, too many who are supposed to be on our side either don't believe the stakes, don't believe that there's a war on at all, or despise the marbles themselves. Jnorr :You bring up great points regarding the war and the fickle nature of some past pro war pundits. I have been questioning this for awhile. If you believed from the start that putting a democracy in Iraq would drain the swamp, what has changed for you? James Stephenson :The reason why the threat of Taiwan getting nukes will work is because China wants Taiwan back and will not be able to take the island once they have Nuclear weapons. John in Cincinnati :I found a lecture by Dr Hanson online, given between nine-eleven and the start of the Iraq invasion, wherein he said that the way a war is won is by completely smashing the enemy and then showing generosity afterward; that a war that doesn't let the vanquished know that they've been defeated is dangerous. Is this part of the cause of our current problems in Iraq? Also, Dr Hanson has told NPR a couple of times that he is a Democrat. I would be interested to read where he would still side with Democrats againsts parts of the Republican ideology. 3Case :I LOVE the "Metrosexual Mob" header. They are "men without spines". It fascinates (and disgusts) me that these males, who proudly profess sensitivity and support for women, will run so readily from the jihadis, who openly profess the violent subjugation of women. I remember an exercise at The Basic School. The tactics instructor turns to the class and asks "For how long is your order (to your unit for an operation of any sort) good?" There followed 5 minutes of discussion with various times put forward by the Lieutenants. The instructor then asks, "Would you like the answer?" to much nodding. "Until you cross the LoD (line of departure)...after that everything starts changing, which is why it's your job to supervise." I believe that the the current "war is like an ATM" mindset is nothing more than a 21st Century cousin of the Robert McNamara/Best and Brightest/"we can run a war from a spreadsheet" mindset that condemned so many to death and misery in Southeast Asia. Come to think if it, that crowd was probably the first group of metrosexuals in America, anyway. Comments have been archived for this page. |
Pajamas MediaEthically Speaking: Should You Vacation in Burma? Critics Miss Benefits of ‘No Child Left Behind’ The Singing Revolution Against the Evil Empire How Iran Is Killing U.S. Troops in Iraq Backlash Against Media Smears in the Heartland Golden State Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down McCain’s Vision of America in 2013 Dueling Steves: Steve Schmidt [VIDEO]
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS FeedsADVERTISEMENT
|
digg this
del.icio.us
I'm in danger of becoming a regular commenter.
... about the only thing that will make Kim Jong Il cease is Chinese pressure — and about the only thing that might prompt the Chinese to pressure North Korea is the specter of successful, rich, and angry democracies, such as Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan pointing their newly acquired nuclear missiles at Beijing.
Why would China apply pressure to North Korea because three other countries have got nuclear weapons? And why would North Korea give up those weapons when three of its regional enemies have suddenly acquired nukes of their own? And why would those three countries aim their nuclear weapons at China, a country of 1 billion people with a massive military complex and a fairly large arsenal of nuclear weapons?
Unless you know something I don't, and they've suddenly developed a desire to be reduced to smoking rubble. Your argument doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.
Oct 25, 2006 03:54 PM