New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | November 1, 2004

No election-day good wishes for the President's summer soldiers.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← If Zarqawi Could Vote | Main | Reason's Complete Election Coverage →

See all 27 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|11.1.04 @ 4:02PM|#

My understanding of World War II is heavily influenced by both Stud Terkel's "The Good War" and Paul Fussell's "Wartime," and I regard Tim's article as one of the most incisive articles I've read in Reason in the the last four years.

And I'm a war supporter, no less.

|11.1.04 @ 4:25PM|#

Tim,

If anybody deserved impeachment, it was Winston Churchill, whose imperial obsession with the Mediterranean "underbelly" led to disasters in both world wars.

While you know that I have argued many times that the Mediteranean campaign in WWII - especially Italy - was a foolish waste that prolonged the war, I have to disagree with you regarding Churchill's efforts in the Mediterranean in WWI (by which I assume you mean Gallipoli). Churchill has gotten a raw deal over the years regarding that issue, and modern scholarship has largely stripped any guilt that was attributed to him. Indeed, it was attributed to him because he became the fall guy for the new administration of Lloyd George, and not because Churchill did anything to deserve such infamy (in WWI).

I suggest A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin for an explication of these matters.

|11.1.04 @ 4:28PM|#

Incisive, yes I couldnt agree more, hilly. I've spent the last 21/2 years trying to wrap my head around the shifting principles between the anti and pro war crowds. Tim just summed the inconsistencies quite well. Im amazed at Hitchens last minute endorsement of Kerry. Though Tim doesnt represent Hitchens' motive for flipping well in this article, nonetheless it was extremely weak kneed. Something about Democrats needing to take responsiblilty for the war. Hmm Hitch, now your willing to gamble American lives and money on the irresponsible governing party?

|11.1.04 @ 4:29PM|#

Tim,

I thought that it was a pretty good article otherwise.

|11.1.04 @ 4:33PM|#

Great article. I especially liked this:

"So if the liberal hawks honestly thought the war could be conducted without brutality, they were merely na�ve. If, however, they are not so much disappointed in the war as tired of Bush, they are something worse."

Exactly. The most disappointing thing about the past 2 years has been the ridiculous retreats of these pseudo-hawks and there completely uncredible reasons for doing so.

|11.1.04 @ 4:38PM|#

Reg, If John Kerry starts an initiative to raise CAFE standards, and it ends up with EPA personnel making torture porn of Hummer owners, 300+ tones of plastic explosives being used to blow up Sierra Club offices, and gas mileage actually falling, I'd consider that a pretty good reason to stop supporting him. Even if he really, really, in his heart of hearts, wanted to increase gas mileage.

JB, Reason should ask people questions about "A Peace to End All Peace" before allowing them to comment on Middle Eastern issues.

|11.1.04 @ 4:57PM|#

Andrew Sullivan only switched teams when his people were dissed by Bush.

|11.1.04 @ 5:02PM|#

Be nice to see the Libertarian hawks make their mea culpas as well for this disaster.

The Liberal Hawks are coming out for Kerry in part because Kerry is pro-war -- its possible he'll manage the war better -- its hard to imagine worse...

|11.1.04 @ 5:04PM|#

Here we are 18 months after the invasion. We've given up the WMD reason, the Al Quaeda reason and the Democracy reason for it. Our purpose now seems to be something akin to a crusade (ouch! that word that can't be spoken) to destroy our Islamo-fascist-radical enemies who hate our freedoms. This implies many things but at the very least, we ain't stopping with Iraq.

Plenty of rats of both liberal and conservative persuasions would tell you they didn't sign on for that trip and are looking for another skipper. They found their ride captained by the equivalent of Joseph Hazelwood (of Exon Valdez fame) and when given a chance for a change, took it. I think that's rational.

|11.1.04 @ 5:16PM|#

'fussy complaints about the Iraq war's failure' are you shittin' me!
This 'carefully calibrated war' is the biggest fucked up mess of my lifetime (which includes 2 tours incountry). I might have been considered a 'liberal hawk' by the (chickenhawk)author before I got to OIF, but I wonder if he would retain his resolve after he hosed the remains of his best friend out of his SUV, then had a wonderful maggot infested dinner compliments of Halliburton and KBR.

|11.1.04 @ 5:22PM|#

There really should be a link to this comments section from the article. If you start out there it's kind of a pain to click on the homepage, then Hit & Run, then scroll down to find this. If there is a link and I missed it, never mind.

That having been said, I have no comments.

|11.1.04 @ 6:05PM|#

Said it before and will say it again: To call this a clusterf**k at this point is grossly premature. We are not doing bad at this stage by any number of metrics. Our overall casualties are low by any historical standard. Our kill ratios are very high by historical standards. The area in which insurgency is contained as a percent of total area invaded is very low.

I don't know how well things are going, to be honest, because success so much depends on the extent to which the locals will take ownership of their security and self determination over time. That is hard to measure, but that doesn't mean that this is the 'biggest f*cked up mess', either.

notherbob2|11.1.04 @ 6:14PM|#

Kurt, your comment should be enshrined in the Reason Hall Of Fame. It is incisive, on point, genuine, believeable, totally unbiased, truthful, brief, unassuming, non self-congratulatory, non self-promoting; in short it is unlike any other comment that will be made today on Reason.

Tim Cavanaugh|11.1.04 @ 6:29PM|#

|11.1.04 @ 7:17PM|#

Tim,

You are dead on correct. I was one who initially opposed the Iraq invasion, but came to support it on the basis of the "forward strategy of freedom." But unlike those who have now abandoned President Bush, I am still behind him. I agree that mistakes have been made, but then mistakes are always made. I also agree with you that some barbarity was inevitable in War.

Bottom line: If the War is worth it, it is also worth any cost you must pay to win it - mistakes be damned. If the costs are now too high for you to justify supporting the War, then the War should never have been embarked upon in the first place.

War means killing your enemy and his supporters repeatedly and often until such time as he and they are either all dead, or until they unconditionally capitulate. If one is unable to make this kind of commitment up front, they have no business supporting war at all. And the decision to make that commitment should not be taken lightly, nor easily abandoned when the going gets rough.

|11.1.04 @ 7:43PM|#

Hitchens has said that still intends to vote for Bush. I guess the Slate editors took his snarky comment at face value. (Bill Maher said something similar: that he wanted Bush re-elected because that would force him to clean up his own mess. But no one seriously thinks Maher is voting for Bush.)

Tim Cavanaugh|11.1.04 @ 7:57PM|#

I have emended the article to account for the correction in Hitchens' Slate piece; you'll note, however, that he did not change his choice to Bush but to No Choice.

Kevin Carson|11.1.04 @ 8:02PM|#

I wouldn't be surprised at a broader migration of neocons from Bush to Kerry, either.

A major segment of neoconservatives (those who call themselves "national greatness" or "big government conservatives") have roots in Cold War liberalism. And despite their pseudo-populist pretensions of sympathies for "flyover country," many of them have had a hard time suppressing their distaste for the other major player in the Bush foreign policy coalition: dispensationalist nutballs. Don't forget that the PNAC had no trouble working with the Clinton administration (especially Madeline "Indispensible Nation" Albright) when it was the only game in town.

|11.1.04 @ 8:05PM|#

Surely at least part of the reason for the rejection of Bush by the liberal hawks is that the forward strategy has been politically damaged by the apparent fiasco in Iraq. The forward strategy is all but dead politically, and many hawks see Kerry as a chance to keep it on life support. I think they are wrong about that (I'm a libertarian hawk), but it is not logical to accuse them of disloyalty since it has been apparent that their loyalty is to a policy, not a person.

If Bush is defeated then it is unlikely that the forward strategy will be adopted again by any Republican for many years. Bush would be a shoo-in if he had simply stayed out of Iraq. The Democrats will either have to adopt the forward strategy as their own, or abandon it as well. The forward strategy, in any case, is now seen as extremely politically risky by both parties.

So, you ought to be happy, Mr. Cavanaugh. From your point of view, the forward strategy has been stalled, if not stopped, and the rush to the exits by the liberal hawks has probably accelerated that trend, even if that was not their intention....

Karl Gallagher|11.1.04 @ 9:29PM|#

Good article. I'm a libertarian hawk, expected the war to be ugly and messy, and still think the long-range goal justifies it. My response to all the comments about "mismanaging" the war has been an incredulous "have you ever read a @#$%ing history book?" So I'm sticking with Bush and the "forward strategy."

|11.1.04 @ 9:37PM|#

I think a lot of the "liberal hawk" buyers' remorse has less to do with the casualties suffered, or even the level of insurgent violence, as it does with the belief that the Bush Administration botched the "hearts and minds" campaign in Iraq, thereby making the possibility of a liberal democracy less likely. That's certainly the case with Zakaria and Friedman, at least.

The idea that it was inevitable that the majority of Sunni Arabs wouldn't give up their political hegemony without a serious fight doesn't seem to register with many of them. Nor does the idea that an occupying Army from a place as culturally alien, and with as mixed a historical baggage, as the US was bound to spawn resentment over time even among Shi'a Arabs. Zakaria, in fact, has resorted to making accusations of racism to those who suggest that cultural factors have made a messy situation inevitable.

I watched Three Kings last night for the first time in four years. I should've done it earlier. Sure, it sympathizes with the plight of the Shi'as and pulls few punches on the brutality of Saddam's regime. But the sight of Clooney, Wahlberg, Ice Cube, and Spike Jonze marauding through the Iraqi desert and bewildering the locals in every way imaginable does a better job of splashing cold water on the "war and occupation for Arab democracy" argument than a half-dozen Michael Moore documentaries.

|11.1.04 @ 9:48PM|#

Tim, thanks for a very fine article.

|11.1.04 @ 10:04PM|#

Tim,
Superb article...I think its the best thing I've read here in many months.

|11.1.04 @ 11:49PM|#

Hitchens did not endorse Kerry (as anyone who read what he had written rather than just the Kerry label could have seen). The Slate posted a correction to this on Monday. Oops.

"Correction, Nov. 1, 2004: Due to an editing error, Christopher Hitchens' entry in the "Slate Votes" survey was mistakenly classified as an endorsement of John Kerry. As Hitchens explains below, he did not intend his contribution as a statement of support for either candidate. Slate apologizes to Hitchens for this error. Click here to read the corrected survey."

http://slate.com/id/2108966/

Tim Cavanaugh|11.2.04 @ 3:58AM|#

Hitchens did not endorse Kerry (as anyone who read what he had written rather than just the Kerry label could have seen). The Slate posted a correction to this on Monday. Oops.

Girls say Oops, men say oop. And as noted above, I changed the wording to reflect Hitch's flipflop, which came about after I wrote the article (though remains so pusillanimous in this affair that I only felt the need to change it slightly). My quotations from his own writings on this topic speak for themselves, and demonstrate why he's included in this pantheon.

|11.2.04 @ 8:35AM|#

Good and often wise article, yes, but Mr. Cavanaugh makes the same mistake that so many of my friends do when they want to insult me: equating the war I supported with the president. This war is bigger than Bush, and separate from him. To criticize a war supporter for endorsing a pro-war Democrat, whether it is Kerry, Edwards, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or hundred others, is not to identify hypocrisy but consistency. When I signed on to this war I had no intention of ever voting for Bush, because I saw it as an inevitable consequence of, among many factors, the Clinton-signed policy of Iraqi regime change. For a long list of reasons I wish to evict Bush so we can fight the war better. So, go war, and go Kerry.

|11.2.04 @ 8:40AM|#

Tim,

My post was more directed to what appeared as a bit of confusion in the comments rather than towards your post. I thought a reiteration of the Slate mistake was worthwhile. As for the oops, I was unaware of the gender specificty, but it was actually directed towards the Slate screw up, rather than towards you. Given the mix of gender at the Slate, i still feel it's appropriate (and despite being male, I find oop to be a bit odd and "Gasoline Alley"-ish, I may just be a bit effete in this area).

As for your post itself, I agree with several of above posters who found it excellent. It had a certain honesty and relative uniqueness of perspective. Thanks.

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Reason.com