digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

In War: Resolution by Victor Davis Hanson

victorhanson.com — Somehow we forget that going into the heart of the ancient caliphate, taking out a dictator in three weeks, and then staying on to foster a constitutional republic amid a sea of enemies like Iran and Syria and duplicitous friends like Jordan and Saudi Arabia — and losing less than 4,000 Americans in the five-year enterprise — was beyond ....

show profanity settings
expand all
  • gbudavid, on 12/29/2007, -8/+27Right On the Mark. I could have talked all day and not got close
    • blapierre, on 12/30/2007, -5/+1Why are people supporting presidential candidates that gave Bush the power to do this?
  • LoneStarLizard, on 12/29/2007, -10/+26VDH nails it again.
  • Navigator7, on 12/29/2007, -12/+21Dang it, IMJGalt! I wanted to be the first to insult the 'enemy within'.
    Victor Hanson points out in the first paragraph the treasonous leadership of algore, Reid, Gen Odem, Sen Hagel, and Carter (And left out many many others nearly entirely of the liberal persuasion) but he fails to make the link in American lives, prolonging the war and that their ideology performs a service to the enemy.
    Liberalism...indeed...is the catalyst for the war in the first place.

    • felman87, on 12/30/2007, -7/+3Anti-War = treason
      Ignoring and destroying the constitution = OK
      • sekhui, on 12/30/2007, -6/+1don't underestimate the ability of the average american redneck to base their whole "values" system on massive webs of cognitive dissonance.
  • dandan111, on 12/29/2007, -11/+19Hanson is a brilliant essayist with the advantage of a classical historian's background, and he is usually right on the money, as in this case. Looking at the Iraq-Iran-US situatiuon from a long-term historical perspective puts a different slant on it, one which most Democrats are reluctant to even consider, making them the far-left party of appeasement and ignorance. Kudos to VDH.
  • Iconoclast25, on 12/29/2007, -11/+10While I agree with his overall premise, I have to take issue with some of his allegations, i.e.:

    "American intelligence officers missed the almost self-evident Pearl Harbor attack, as an entire Japanese carrier group steamed unnoticed to within a few hundred miles of Hawaii. After fighting for four long years we were completely surprised by the Soviets' efforts to absorb Eastern Europe."

    In the first instance, Emperor Franklin the 1st *chose* to allow the Jap attack to proceed unimpeded so as (1) to have the excuse to bring the US into the war and (2) to conceal the fact the US had broken their codes. It was *no* 'accident' our carriers were elsewhere when Pearl was attacked.

    In the second instance, the egotistical socialist assured both his own staff and Churchill that he could "handle Stalin." Forty years of misery and death can be laid at that maggot's feet because Stalin played him for the fool he was.

    Of course fdr was in fact the second socialist idiot in the Oval Office, but that's another topic.
    • felchdonkey, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Your first point about Pearl Harbor is straight out of Illuminati-fearing conspiracy nut territory. I'd say the fact that you use name calling as one of your debate points kind of says it all, really.

      As to the Soviets' conquest of Eastern Europe, that could arguably be laid at the feet of Generals Eisenhower and Bradley, who chose to let Stalin have Berlin, a decision which reverberated all the way to the end of the Cold War.

      When you let personal ideology get in the way of objectivity, it's hard to have an intelligent discussion.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 12/29/2007, -16/+12Nice hagiography of one of the biggest war crimes in recent memories. A war based on lies, pushed by the oil kleptocracy, war profiteers, and zionist expansionists, it has bankrupted the USA and ruined our national reputation. By any metric, it is a disaster and its perpetrators should hang.
    • lladi84, on 01/07/2008, -7/+9Zero points for you. Way to add nothing to this discussion.

      You have not addressed anything in this article. Your rhetoric is recycled and cliche. Seems like you did not even bother to read the article.
  • Taquoshi, on 12/30/2007, -10/+10Personally, I am not competitive by nature. However, I believe that when our nation is involved in a war, we need to fight to win. Forget this half hearted stuff. I am disgusted by those who whine, moan and complain about the Iraq war. Where were you all when we were involved in Bosnia?

    We had a perfect chance with Desert Storm I to put paid to the problem, but for some reason, we did not. There have been other missed opportunities, probably brought on by pressure from the pacifists. My humble suggestion to all those who object to the Iraqi war is to relocate to Greenland. There, you can be as peaceful and non violent as you want, you can elect Cindy Sheehan as your President, have John Lennon's song "Give Peace a Chance" as your national anthem and most importantly, you will not be bringing harm to those who are on the front lines. In the meantime, let our troops get on with the job they were charged with doing because it is their lives that are in danger, not yours....
    • Iconoclast25, on 12/30/2007, -4/+6Nicely said, milady.
    • felman87, on 12/30/2007, -6/+3Then why do the troops give the most money to Ron Paul, someone who is against the war?
      • Taquoshi, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5I suspect the troops support Ron Paul for a variety of reasons, just like his myriad other supporters. Ask any five Ron Paul supporters why they support him and you will have some of the reasons why our enlisted personnel support him.

        If Ron Paul is a libertarian in Republican clothing, as he says he is, and he adheres to the Libertarian philosophy, it would mean that he maintains that the U.S. as a country should not be involved in foreign affairs in the manner that we are. It isn't quite isolationism, but I really am not very good at explaining it. Michael Cloud or Dr. Mary Ruwart could explain it much more concisely than I. Dr. Ruwart says in her book "Libertarian Short Answers to Tough Questions" - "Most people think defense requires a nuclear arsenal and a military presence throughout the world. Switzerland provides us with a modern-day model of the difference between providing a defense and provoking the need for one." (pg. 49) That statement also fits nicely with the second premise of Libertarianism, which is roughly paraphrased, libertarians do not throw the first punch, but we defend ourselves when attacked.

        If Ron Paul is working within this framework and I've no reason to believe that he is not, he is being perfectly consistent with his political philosophy of smaller government and non-aggression. Since the United States was not attacked by Iraq, the consistent Libertarian viewpoint is that we have no business being the world's policeman. While I agree with the Libertarian viewpoint regarding whether or not we should be involved in Iraq, the point is that we are. And since we are, we need to finish what we started. Bringing the war to a successful closure doesn't include marching in front of government buildings or visiting foreign countries hostile to the U.S. to prove how much one dislikes one's native land.

  • Kythas, on 12/30/2007, -9/+11It's strongly believed in military circles that the anti-war movement in America actually prolongs the war and ultimately costs American lives. Vietnam could have been over years earlier, ended in an American victory, and cost thousands less American lives (and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives) if the anti-war movement didn't cause the political problems it did and hamstring the military. We could have been in Hanoi by '68 or '69 easily if our boys had been allowed to fight to win the war.

    Ho Chi Minh said in his memoirs that his hopes for victory rested squarely on the American anti-war movement. He knew he could not defeat the US on the battlefield - he counted on the anti-war movement to win the war for him politically - and it did.

    Leonid Brezhnev stated that the American press was his main weapon against America.

    Osama bin Laden also uses the American press - masterfully, I might add - to press his war against us. He calls for the US to accept Sharia Law and embrace Islam and the Prophet Mohammed and, if we do so, he will end his war against us.

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I, for one, will never surrender or submit - or, as it's said in Arabic: "Lan astaslem"
    • purpmint008, on 12/30/2007, -6/+5How about not getting into these messes in the first place?
    • felman87, on 12/30/2007, -3/+3See, it's this kind of "Oh, it'll be easy" ***** that makes us so delusional about the conflict in the first place. How many administration officials told us that Iraq would be easy, should take more than $1 billion, "last throws" maybe the public would've been a little less hysterical
  • NightOwl4, on 12/30/2007, -11/+1AMERICA!!! ***** YEA GOING TO SAVE THE MOTHER ***** DAY YEEAAA!
  • Rabbittt, on 12/30/2007, -9/+7Yeah, blame "anal retentiveness" instead of the fact that Iraq is an unjust and illegitimate war.. Nice pro-empire propaganda, though, well thought out and well written..
  • nblsavage, on 12/30/2007, -9/+6So instead of blaming the intelligence failures, pigheadedness, greed, and general stupidity that got us in to this war, the author lays the blame about the current situation on those who oppose the war. What a complete load.
  • felchdonkey, on 12/30/2007, -5/+4Insanely long-winded, but I struggled through it.
    The author makes some basic assumptions that I disagree with. He assumes that we have any purpose invading countries like Vietnam and Iraq in the first place. We're not meant to be the world's policeman - and I don't see why so many young Americans have to die for other nations' causes.

    He also assumes that the initial, conventional attack on Iraq somehow was an "amazing" military victory. Anyone who's studied strategy will recognize what Iraq did there. They didn't have the forces or power to beat us on the field, so they retreated, drawing us into the insurgent version of a pincer trap.
    Their army wasn't defeated, it just melted into the population. If this were a war game, and I had to play the Iraqi side, I'd do the same thing. It's the only winning move. What's shocking is that our military - the best military in the world, by a long shot - failed to account for this. I have to assume that the military leaders were more than able to see this coming, and it was the civilian leadership that let us down.

    • lladi84, on 01/07/2008, -2/+2I agree completely with your second point.

      However, I don't think Hanson really addresses whether we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Rather, he seems to focus more on our actions "in war," pointing out that our military and strategic blunders are no different then in previous wars.

      Criticism of Iraq seems to focus on two issues: 1. We should not have invaded Iraq in the first place; 2. Our conduct "in war" has been plagued with errors and miscalculations. All too often, those that oppose the war at all costs mix these issues together, using them wherever convenient.

      In this essay, Hanson addresses the later of these two issues, and points out regardless of the first issue, our conduct "in war" is no different then in the past. He suggests out that our unrealistic expectations of success are as result of modern media and a change away from a rural, agricultural society.
      • felchdonkey, on 12/30/2007, -2/+3I agree that our conduct "in war" is no different than in the past, and I also agree with your point about unrealistic expectations.

        It's too bad that most of the discussion around this will be of the "liberals are traitors" and "conservatives are insane" variety.
        (For the record, I don't think either of those things are true)
      • felchdonkey, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Whoever is running around digging down comments like laszloladi's or mine, quit being an *****. We're having an intelligent argument, and he's making good points. Just because you disagree is no reason to digg someone down - if you have something to say, come out and say it.
  • ironhide, on 12/30/2007, -5/+4Wow, another neo-con circle jerk. Whoopee!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.