Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Callotomized Pundit
Victor Davis Hanson is confounding: He's a writer who knows an awful lot about military history and apparently nothing about why people don't want to send more troops into Iraq. He didn't used to remind me of the Stanislaw Lem character whose left brain and right brain weren't communicating, but now he does. Witness this graf in his latest grunt about "the present anti-war movement (if it is that)," probably the stupidest thing you'll hear anyone say about Iraq this year. I realize it is January 4.
We have gone from Hezbollah and Dr. Zawahiri referencing Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky to excurses on impeachment from deep thinkers like Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann to Halliburton plots to "no blood for oil" to "the world's greatest terrorist" to novels and movies dreaming of assassinating the President to George Soros's Nazi allusions and now to the ultimate trivialization of the anti-war crowd-that the war is a monumental uncool drag, a has-been distraction from more important things like fighting with Rosie or bucking up a naughty beauty queen or staged "you're fired" poses.
Goo goo ga joob!
If you crack out your Captain Midnight ring and massage this prose, it sounds like Hanson is saying "the people who criticize the progress of the war are deranged hippies." Well, fantastic. This may be true on Earth-2, where the Coalition of the Willing won the war by dumping crudely translated Bill Kristol pamphlets that convinced the Iraqis of the West's essential correctness. On this Earth, however, the war was poorly planned and executed and experts ranging from Jim Baker to John Murtha are arguing, convincingly, that an increased American presence won't solve the problem and all that's left to try is extracting American troops. The neoconservative response to that is... well, it's Hanson's drivel. Truly pathetic.
Jesse Walker|1.4.07 @ 9:48AM|#
To be fair, has anything this gasbag has ever written about the politics of the Iraq war been any better? I'm told that Hanson's scholarship is impressive, but as a pundit he makes Anna Quindlen look sharp.
|1.4.07 @ 9:51AM|#
"On this Earth, however, the war was poorly planned and executed
and experts ranging from Jim Baker to John Murtha are arguing,
convincingly, that an increased American presence won't solve the
problem"
I actually agree with you about that. I am not convinced more
troops is the answer to anything and I am not sure what the hell
VDH is getting at with his statement. But John Murtha is a has been
retired reserve Colonel who is not an expert on anything beyond
taking bribes and shaking down government contractors for
protection money. You might want to ammend that statement.
:-|1.4.07 @ 9:57AM|#
Maybe it's simply a comment on our shallowness. Where are the street marches? Where are the antiwar protests? Most of the protesting I'm seeing originates from the warmth and safety of a computer and an internet connection. Unless you count re-electing most of the Republicans who ran in last year's election as a protest. Pretty wimpy. Say what you will about the baby boomers -- at least they knew how to throw a decent antiwar riot.
|1.4.07 @ 9:57AM|#
Jesse,
VDH is a brilliant clasicist. He was really the first guy to think
about what an ancient war really would have looked like rather than
just taking the sources at face value. He thought about and
investigated questions like, how do you burn a wheat field, is it
really that easy to kill an olive grove, how do you actually feel
and cloth an army in the field in 300 BC. His answers were anything
but intuitive and changed the way scholars look at ancient wars.
Also whatever you think about Iraq, he has been dead on about
Afghanistan. He was one of the few people who said we didn't need
100,000 plus people to take out the Taliban.
|1.4.07 @ 9:57AM|#
The dirty hippies were right.
Dennis Kucinich - the Department of Peace guy - was better able to
analyze the security situation and advise a course of action to
protect us than all of the Military-Historical Geniuses as National
Review.
Ha ha. Dennis Kucinich. The crystal guy.
Ha ha.
David Weigel|1.4.07 @ 10:04AM|#
Anyone that has to use John Murtha to make a point isn't
worth listening to.
Sorry, but Murtha's forgotten more about the modern military than
Hanson will ever know. The folks who say we should ignore Murtha
sound an awful lot to me like people who say Milton Friedman wasn't
worth listening to on economics because "the market" was his
solution for everything and he met with Pinochet once.
|1.4.07 @ 10:04AM|#
O really Joe,
Those same people also claimed that the U.S. would never make it
Baghdad and would take 10,000+ casualties doing so and Saddam would
use nerve gas, that it was in a quagmire because it halted for
three days in the Karbala gap and that the Taliban would never be
overthrown without 100s of thousands of troops and thousands of
casualties. But in your world being liberal means never having to
admit to a mistake.
|1.4.07 @ 10:07AM|#
"Sorry, but Murtha's forgotten more about the modern military
than Hanson will ever know."
Oh REally? Why don't you provide some links. How many books has
Murtha written? How many position papers has he ever written. How
many think tanks are lining up to hire Murtha as a scholar. Are the
folks over at the Army War college or CGSG offer Murtha a job after
he leaves Congress. What has Murtha ever done or thought about the
modern military than say things that you agree with? God God Dave
that doesn't even pass the laugh test. Please say you are
kidding.
David Weigel|1.4.07 @ 10:14AM|#
How many think tanks are lining up to hire Murtha as a
scholar.
Um, you really want that to be the criterion? "Think tank"
has become a byword for "place where people who are wrong about
Iraq work."
Jennifer|1.4.07 @ 10:14AM|#
Do these people actually believe that you can alter reality if
only you use the right words? Just say the right things and
transform our Iraqi adventure into a raging success. And eating
cyanide is also good for you, if you first listen to me point out
that it's derived from nourishing and healthful almonds.
Eat up, Hanson. Yum yum yum.
|1.4.07 @ 10:18AM|#
John,
Even if Dennis Kucinich had claimed each and every one of those
things, which he didn't, his record would still be vastly superior
to that of anyone who has appeared in National Review in the past
ten years.
10,000 casualities? We've already surpassed 10,000 dead, wounded,
and captured, over a year ago. Never take Baghdad? Tell me, which
side's fighers can walk down the street without coming under fire?
And which side has to camp our behind multiple layers of security,
just to avoid being slaughtered in the night, in Baghdad? Quagmire?
Anyone want to say we're not in a quagmire?
BTW, we'll know how accurate Hansen's predictions about how to
defeat the Taliban were, when somebody finally manages to defeat
the Taliban. We already know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a
lack of American troops allowed hundres of Al Qaeda and Taliban,
including OBL, to escape from Tora Bora.
So basically, nothing the National Review crowd predicted about
these wars has come to passs; on the other hand, some of the
dissenters got the timeline wrong in their predictions of failure.
So that's pretty much equivalent.
|1.4.07 @ 10:18AM|#
I'll agree with John in saying that VDH is a great classicist. Of course, we aren't besieging Lagash here so what he has to say isn't entirely relevant.
Jesse Walker|1.4.07 @ 10:19AM|#
VDH is a brilliant clasicist.
Like I said, I've heard that his historical scholarship is
excellent. And I don't doubt it.
Paul Krugman is a fine scholar too, but that doesn't make his
punditry any better.
David Weigel|1.4.07 @ 10:21AM|#
Those same people also claimed that the U.S. would never
make it Baghdad and would take 10,000+ casualties doing so and
Saddam would use nerve gas, that it was in a quagmire because it
halted for three days in the Karbala gap and that the Taliban would
never be overthrown without 100s of thousands of troops and
thousands of casualties.
So, it's not better to underestimate success and be proven wrong
than to overestimate it and be proven wrong? Scenario A:
"Wow, I thought Product Launch X would only bring in $10,000.
Instead, it's brought in $1 million! We're rich!"
Scenario B:
"Wow, I thouht Product Launch X would only bring in $10,000.
Instead, it's failed utterly and I'm dying of starvation!"
Yeah, those Scenario A dudes are morons.
|1.4.07 @ 10:21AM|#
"Um, you really want that to be the criterion? "Think tank" has
become a byword for "place where people who are wrong about Iraq
work."
What about my other questions Dave? Give me one shred of evidence
that they guy knows anything other than the fact that he says
things you believe in? The crazy lady at the laundry mat probably
says a lot of things you agree with to, but that doesn't make her
an expert.
Joe,
Great way of dodging my point. My point was that the same people
you laud as sages were dead wrong in their predictions to.
Shockingly, wars are very unpredictable and no one got it
right.
|1.4.07 @ 10:24AM|#
Listen, I hope I'm not alone in saying that I don't want Reason
(or comments sections) to slip into the mean spirited stuff we see
over on Daily Kos and Huffington. We can all trounce VDH's points
without getting personal.
VDH may not be someone I agree with, but he's not pathetic, I don't
think. He has a point of view that is not in line with mine, or
apparently with David's points of view.
To take that excerpt as a sign that VDH is stupid, well, that's
just a mistake. He's obviously flustered that a lot of Americans
seem more preoccupied with pop culture than foreign affairs.
I don't think he's completely off the mark on some of the Iraq
points. This has not been a catastrophic war for us. It may be
wrong headed, it may be a mistake, it may be expensive, but it is
not catastrophic. The huge volume of antipathy we might feel toward
the war doesn't make the war into an actual calamity. As a former
Iraq-War hawk, I'm pretty familiar with the kind of vitriol this
issue can attract. Although my opinions have changed as new
information about the war has come out, I'm not ready to join the
everyone-who-disagrees-is-stupid camp,
VDH is clearly not going to agree with the opinion that we should
get out of Iraq (and I think frankly that there is a debate to be
had, one that should focus on what will happen to Iraqis if we
leave or stay, not on how we feel about it). I find his name
calling disturbing and would like to see him refrain from it. But I
also think we serve ourselves better by not jumping into the same
gutter
|1.4.07 @ 10:27AM|#
John, you're equivalating here - Shockingly, wars are very
unpredictable and no one got it right.
The dirty hippies have a higher War Predictability Truthiness
Quotient (WPTQ) than the Neo Cons.
Clusterfuck vs Champagne Party. Which best represents the
truth?
|1.4.07 @ 10:28AM|#
"My point was that the same people you laud as sages were dead
wrong in their predictions to."
Any your point has been proven wrong. The predictions of failure
have been borne out - only the timing of the failure has been
inaccurate.
Warren|1.4.07 @ 10:29AM|#
The neo-cons have been "truly pathetic" from the get go. Now that they are out of fashion is a good thing. But it only goes so far as an encouraging development. There's no reason to believe the next regime won't be equally stupid, and enjoy initial widespread support.
Victory is ours|1.4.07 @ 10:32AM|#
Pure water is healthy and good for you. Pure oxygen is healthy
and good for you. Hydrogen peroxide is merely pure water with pure
oxygen added to every molecule. Therefore, drinking hydrogen
peroxide is healthy and good for you.
Of course, Joe would probably disagree with me. So would Michael
Moore. And Osama bin Laden, too. Need I say more?
|1.4.07 @ 10:35AM|#
Damon, I appreciate the calm voice of reason. but something you
said, I think, illustrates a major frustration of the anti-war
crowd.
This has not been a catastrophic war for us. It may be wrong
headed, it may be a mistake, it may be expensive, but it is not
catastrophic.
for us
How about for the uncountable-- because the Pentagon doesnt do body
counts-- Iraqis? Those deaths are on us. That should go into any
definition of catastrophe. But for myopic Americans who only
quantify the success of the war based on its effect on U.S.
national interest, the point is lost.
|1.4.07 @ 10:35AM|#
Damon,
I seriously doubt Weigal could get better than a C in one of VDH's
classes. The problem with nearly all of Reason's coverage of the
war is that in Reason's eyes everyone who agrees with them is a
sage and everyone with a different point of view is an idiot. It is
one thing to have a point of view and even be right. It is quite
another to be completely unable to understand or even try to
understand the opposing view point and to just engage in personal
invective. You would expect invective from the posters on here but
you should expect better from the Reason staff. Unfortunately, that
is not what happens. In Reason world, VDH is pathetic and ignorant
and Murtha is sage of modern military knowledge. That statement
alone says all you need to know.
Joe,
Every prediction they made about the war was wrong. No one
anticipated the insurgency. Just because things didn't work out,
doesn't mean the nah sayers were any more right than the
supporters.
Some James|1.4.07 @ 10:35AM|#
damon,
You're being balanced and well-reasoned. What is wrong with you?
Kidding. But I do think you give VDH too much credit, he's not
being as generous with people he disagrees with as you suggest we
be to him.
Plenty of "liberals" were wrong about what precisely would go wrong
in Iraq, but as people have noted, they were more right than the
hawks who predicted parades and flowers and a blossoming new
mini-America in the fertile crescent within six months while we
went "on to Syria/Iran/wherever". A lot of went wrong has been
entirely predictable, but was just ignored by people who decided
that the most optimistic outcomes were somehow the most likely.
|1.4.07 @ 10:46AM|#
Matt,
I agree with your point. We do have to consider Iraqis. But it
isn't an Our-Damage vs. Zero-Damage set, right?
This gets difficult because we have to compare losses we inflict
with losses under Hussein. We also have to compare the moral weight
(although in the end a death is a death) between unintended
casualties and those inflicted on purpose (bystander vs. target
casualties).
We can't know the ultimate truth for some time. Blood may be worth
it if in the end we can somehow reach stability. If not, then the
blood was never worth it. If so, then the current hand wringing is
wrong headed. I don't have a crystal ball, but I think that
lamenting what we have done (outside of moral speculation) is not
the best way to form policy. Neither side is doing this: Stating
what we absolutely want, and then absolutely doing what we need to
achieve it.
We want out of Iraq? Ok, fine, but what do we want Iraq to look
like when we leave? If a real, hot, civil war happens, that's still
our responsibility, either because we sparked it or because we
failed to prevent it. Which scenario will spill more blood? I don't
know. Which do we want to live with? I don't know either.
But I don't think we should approach the questions with emotion,
but rather with cool headed and perhaps even cold rationality.
Weigh our utility for various outcomes, and move forward. I am more
than willing to say that our withdrawal may be the right thing to
do, but for whom is it the right thing? And are we willing to deal
with the costs?
David made an excellent post some weeks ago about the
wrongheadedness of chasing a loss with more losses. Can you really
honor american dead by sending more to die, etc, was his point. By
the same token, can we really wash our hands of Iraqi blood by
cooly withdrawing and allowing the sands to swallow even more of
it? (And will that even happen? who knows).
I just think this debate needs to be divorced from anger, that's
all. The winner should be determined by reason, not by vitriol.
That's what we're all about here, right?
Some James|1.4.07 @ 10:48AM|#
A lot of people predicted the insurgency, civil war, that it
would increase incidents of terrorism as well as terrorists. Even
without the benefit of hindsight it wouldn't take much to see
this.
One thing that wasn't thought of much:
Many (myself included) figured that the Shia would welcome/help us,
and most problems would be with the Sunni. This was true early on
and the south is still calmer (since they've been permitted to go
Taliban-lite down there), but I think the scale of the death squads
and the fact that we're the only protectors of the Sunni wasn't
foreseen by many.
|1.4.07 @ 10:49AM|#
No one anticipated the insurgency.
Really? Then every single person we're discussing is an idiot. Let
me make a blanket prediction now, then. Anytime any country,
anywhere, anytime, invades another country, there is a solid 95%
chance there will be an insurgency against the invader. Now you can
never say "nobody anticipated it" again.
Seriously, any reasonable invasion plan, anywhere, ever, should
include a contingency plan on how to deal with an insurgency if one
develops. The point here isn't whether anybody "knew" an insurgency
would take place. The problem is that apparently nobody in a
position of power even prepared for the possibility. Which shows a
pretty outrageous lack of foresight.
Josh|1.4.07 @ 10:49AM|#
I guess I should point out in response to John's defense of VDH over Afghanistan that we actually SHOULD have had 100,000 troops there. Our pared down force, even when expanded to a limited-engagement NATO force, has been ineffective in stemming the Taliban insurgency and drug trade in the south, which has contributed the a further weakening of Kabul.
|1.4.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Maybe it's simply a comment on our shallowness. Where are
the street marches? Where are the antiwar protests?
I think this is what Hanson was getting at. While his cheerleading
for continuing on in Iraq isn't convincing, the more interesting
point is about the lack of an organized, sustained and collective
public voice focused on bringing the troops home and not being
distracted by domestic politics and pageantry.
|1.4.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Damon,
Maybe it is the fact that there are no good option in Iraq. Perhaps
the it is just a long hard fight against a very determined enemy.
What drives me most crazy about arm chair quarterbacks like Andrew
Sullivan is that they sit around and act like if only they had been
king everything would have been perfect. The first clue to whether
someone is serious in their thinking about Iraq or just a shill is
whether they think there are or ever were any easy sollutions. If
they think that, they don't get it at all. But, we live in a
society where only easy sollutions are acceptable, so I guess it is
not surprising.
|1.4.07 @ 10:55AM|#
How about for the uncountable-- because the Pentagon doesnt
do body counts-- Iraqis? Those deaths are on us. That should go
into any definition of catastrophe. But for myopic Americans who
only quantify the success of the war based on its effect on U.S.
national interest, the point is lost.
Good point, but I think it should also be balanced against the
number of Iraqis who didn't end up in mass graves
on a whim of Saddam Hussein in the time since we pushed him out of
power.
|1.4.07 @ 10:56AM|#
"...the lack of an organized, sustained and collective public
voice focused on bringing the troops home..."
Did you miss the November elections?
In 2003, National Review was dismissing arguments against the war
because there WERE large, organized protests. Full of hippies. With
puppets. Very silly, just shows a lack of seriousness.
Now, they have the nerve to criticize people who oppose the war
because they AREN'T taking to the streets, in large protests, with
puppets?
Here's a thought - the incapacity of war supporters to honestly
contend with arguments against the war has nothing whatsoever to do
with the tactics of their opponents.
|1.4.07 @ 11:03AM|#
"Here's a thought - the incapacity of war supporters to honestly
contend with arguments against the war has nothing whatsoever to do
with the tactics of their opponents."
Here is another though, the incapacity of the wars critics to
honestly contend with the reality of the situation and the full
consequences of a U.S. pullout has nothing whatsoever to do with
the tactics of their opponents. Perhaps we don't have an organized
anti-war movement because unlike Vietnam, most people realize it is
not so easy to just walk away from Iraq.
|1.4.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Damon, I have run through the moral steeplechase you've outlined
many times. But there's a weird assumption at work. Somehow, on
some level Americans think it their responsibility if Saddam
continued torturing his countrymen, an equivalence between deaths
'we allowed Saddam' to continue to perpetrate and deaths we
actually perpetrated. This thinking begets the 'we have to do
something' attitude. Call it American Exceptionalist Guilt, or
something.
Im guilty of this thinking sometimes, but why dont the Saudi's feel
they must do something? Why not the Brits, or the French? Lifes a
bitch, and some people have it better than others. It has always
been and will always be.
Down with American Guilt!
|1.4.07 @ 11:04AM|#
"The first clue to whether someone is serious in their thinking
about Iraq or just a shill is whether they think there are or ever
were any easy sollutions."
Based on this logic, we can dismiss the entirety of the
neoconservatives.
The act of our toppling Hussein was supposed to be all that was
necessary to turn Iraq, and eventually the region, into a sea of
liberal, democratic American client states. The Iraqis were going
to behave exactly like the Eastern Europeans in 1991-1993, and
organically and spontaneously come together to establish this new
order. The passage of the constitution and Purple Finger Day were
proof that they were right.
And anyone who doubted this was a racist, who doesn't think Arabs
deserve to live in a liberal democratic state. At least, that's
what John spent two years telling me.
|1.4.07 @ 11:05AM|#
"Perhaps we don't have an organized anti-war movement because
unlike Vietnam, most people realize it is not so easy to just walk
away from Iraq."
In the latest poll, 61% of Americans say they want us to do exactly
that. So maybe there's something else going on.
|1.4.07 @ 11:08AM|#
John,
What's your hard on for VDH? I'm sure he's a brilliant classicist.
How does that make him an expert on modern warfare?
|1.4.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Did you miss the November elections?
Is that when the anti-war party vowed to end the war
raise the minimum wage?
|1.4.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Damon,
The postulated additional deaths from continuing Saddam rule do
indeed have to be considered in any moral calculus about the
war.
I would just caution you about the tactic, so beloved by some, of
taking an average of those killed throughout the entirety of
Saddam's rule, as he had been rendered incapable of carrying out
anything remotely comparable to an Anfal campaign, an invasion of
high neighbors, or an anti-insurgencies effort against the Shia and
Kurds, 1992-style, at the outbreak of the war.
"Between 1939 and 1959, the German government killed an average of
600,000 people in concentration camps per annum" is a true
statement, but also a deeply dishonest one.
|1.4.07 @ 11:11AM|#
scape,
Yes or No, did the Democrats win the November elections because of
popular opposition to the war?
|1.4.07 @ 11:18AM|#
"John,
What's your hard on for VDH? I'm sure he's a brilliant classicist.
How does that make him an expert on modern warfare?"
I don't necessarily think that it does. I also don't think that he
is right about everything. My point was that whatever VDH is, I
dont' think you can point to Murtha as a good alternative. My point
was more about Murtha than VDH. Weigal still hasn't given one shred
of evidence that Murtha knows anything other than the fact that he
agrees with him. Like I said, the crazy lady at the laudry mat
probably agrees with Weigal to, but that doesn't make her an
expert.
Yes Joe,
The people who thought we could go to Baghdad and that would be it
are and were wrong. But that fact doesn't make the people who think
we can now just pull out without grave consiquences any more
right.
Franklin Harris|1.4.07 @ 11:18AM|#
This may be true on Earth-2, where the Coalition of the
Willing won the war by dumping crudely translated Bill Kristol
pamphlets that convinced the Iraqis of the West's essential
correctness.
That wouldn't happen on Earth-2. Bill Kristol only wins on Earth-3.
damon|1.4.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Joe:
Point taken.
Everyone:
Here's a snappy suggestion: Why don't we all stop paraphrasing what
our opponents are saying in a way that suits our argument?
Honestly, it gets us nowhere and is incredibly sophomoric. "Ooooh,
the NEOCONS said we'd march in and everyone would throw us
lollypops and chocolates and dance on silver clouds. How wrong they
were!" "Ooooh, the LIBERALS thought we would step off of our plains
and immediately be turned into hamburger by seas of landmines. How
wrong they were!"
Strawman, anyone? I don't think the arguments are this simple on
either side. These are mere charicatures of viewpoints designed to
give us an easy rhetorical target.
Again, think of the children.
|1.4.07 @ 11:22AM|#
The anti-war hippies were just as wrong as the neocons - they didn't predict a clusterfuck. They predicted nuclear armegeddon in the Middle East. Who was closest? Guess: A Democratic Iraq? Don't Hold Your Breath
|1.4.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Andy,
A War Like No Other is really a lousy book. I am not sure what his
point was other than that the war really sucked and killed a lot of
people. Warfare and Agriculture is a much better example of his
writing.
|1.4.07 @ 11:25AM|#
"Weigal still hasn't given one shred of evidence that Murtha
knows anything other than the fact that he agrees with him."
OK, Murtha said a year ago that there was a civil war breaking out.
He was much-derided in National Review for doing so. He was right,
they were wrong.
John,
I haven't heard a single person - literally, not one - say that we
can pull out of Iraq without grave consequences. Everyone I've seen
arguing for withdrawal have admitted that there would be
consequences, but that the consequences of staying would be worse.
That, btw, is what is known as a "quagmire." If I go there will be
trouble, but if I stay it will be double.
Jim Henley|1.4.07 @ 11:26AM|#
To take that excerpt as a sign that VDH is stupid, well,
that's just a mistake. He's obviously flustered that a lot of
Americans seem more preoccupied with pop culture than foreign
affairs.
The national dialogue would improve immensely if VDH took
more interest in pop culture than foreign affairs. His comparison,
in one of his books, of the vaunting engaged in by Trojan War
leaders in Homer to the braggadoccio of gangsta rap was inspired.
His bloviations on anything at all related to current foreign and
military policy, not.
No one anticipated the insurgency.
Bull fucking shit is what I have to say to that.
|1.4.07 @ 11:26AM|#
I think it should also be balanced against the number of
Iraqis who didn't end up in mass graves on a whim of Saddam Hussein
in the time since we pushed him out of power.
Unless he was on his way to immediately execute hundreds of
thousands of people as we invaded, this is specious.
|1.4.07 @ 11:27AM|#
"The first clue to whether someone is serious in their thinking
about Iraq or just a shill is whether they think there are or ever
were any easy sollutions."
You know, that whole NOT INVADING thing we were doing a few years
ago just seems easier and easier in hindsight...
Victory is still ours, you ass|1.4.07 @ 11:32AM|#
H2O + O2 = H2O3 not H2O2
Only for people bogged down in reality-based thinking. That's loser
talk.
Jennifer|1.4.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Why don't we all stop paraphrasing what our opponents are
saying in a way that suits our argument? Honestly, it gets us
nowhere and is incredibly sophomoric. "Ooooh, the NEOCONS said we'd
march in and everyone would throw us lollypops and chocolates and
dance on silver clouds. How wrong they were!"
They actually said we'd be greeted as liberators, and the Iraqis
would throw flowers at us. No exaggeration there. It was going to
be a six-month cakewalk, remember?
|1.4.07 @ 11:35AM|#
"You know, that whole NOT INVADING thing we were doing a few
years ago just seems easier and easier in hindsight"
That would have been perfect. Saddam was never a threat to anyone.
The U.N. sanctions were going just great. The oil for food program
was doing a swell job at providing for the Iraqi people. Those
options were not so great either. IF we hadn't invaded, the
sanctions would have ended. Saddam would still be in power and
basically back into the world community. Maybe that is better than
what we have, we will never know, but what is done is done. The
question is where do you go from here? I don't think pulling out
and leaving chaos is an option. They only option is to keep
fighting until the other side quits.
Jim Henley|1.4.07 @ 11:40AM|#
The question is where do you go from here?
No, the question is, who do we trust to answer the question, where
do you go from here?
|1.4.07 @ 11:40AM|#
I wish President Bush had been right and I had been wrong.
I would like to see a stable, democratic, pluralistic Iraq.
The extreme predictions of castastrophic casualties - made by very
few - during the invasion were mostly based on the assumption that
Saddam Hussein, if desperate, would use the weapons of mass
destruction that President Bush assured us Hussein possessed. [My
own take on the possibility that Saddam Hussein would use weapons
of mass destruction was that it would only cause the US to fight
harder and not have any substantial effect on the duration of the
"classical" combat phase.]
However, the internal tensions in the country were well known
before the invasion. Many commentators foresaw the probability of a
civil war. People with an eye to history warned of the problems of
an occupation and resistance to an occupying force.
Four years on, there is no evidence that Iraq is settling
down:
1) The casualty rate among coalition troops shows no sign of going
down.
2) Attacks on the civilian population by the militias of all sides
appear to be rising.
3) The wild mourning in Tikrit at Saddam Hussein's funeral
indicates that a substantial number of Sunnis are not reconciled to
the new regime.
4) The Iraqi police and military appear to be thoroughly
infiltrated by militants.
5) Al-Sadr's militia seems to be growing. Al-Sadr has given no
evidence of commitment to the Iraqi regime; we do not know what his
long term plans are.
6) The borders are still porous and jihadist fanatics are
infiltrating at will.
IMHO, a "surge" of 25,000 to 30,000 troops will have no effect.
500,000 to 1,000,000 troops MIGHT achieve a full lockdown and
suppression of the jihadists and the various militias, if the
troops were used with sufficient ruthlessness. However, this would
negate any pretense of a democratic Iraqi regime being in control
of their country.
Unless the US takes the million troop option, chaos seems
inevitable in Iraq whether the US pulls out now or later.
The execution of Saddam Hussein gives the US the opportunity to
declare victory and get out. President Bush should take it.
Some James|1.4.07 @ 11:44AM|#
John,
Leading to the ridiculously obvious question:
"And if they don't?"
and to address your overall point: Who is more easily deterable,
the head of a state surrounded by the US and other enemies, or
patchworks of tiny groups who think they hold the only true path to
salvation?
And would the US be in a better position trapped in a country
fighting some array of these smaller groups, or free from that and
able to take on or threaten Saddam if he actually tried anything,
or Iran, or North Korea, hm?
This is, of course, ignoring your claims about sanctions, oil for
food (only an idiot would act shocked that this was corrupt, we
were bribing Saddam to not start shit, big deal), etc
|1.4.07 @ 11:45AM|#
There's no need to see plans
Through to fruition
Especially if
You've guessed the conclusion
...
I'm delighted to have found
If it's too heavy, you can...
Just put it down
The bravest decision you ever make
Is admitting that
You've made a mistake
...
It's not a lack of determination
It's more heroic resignation
Some of us want to go back to our families
Stand down with Enrico Gatti
Some of us want to go back to our families
Stand down with Enrico Gatti
I've no right to advise, advice for the wise
There's no shame in giving up
|1.4.07 @ 11:51AM|#
"Maybe that is better than what we have, we will never know, but
what is done is done."
I'll contend that without the invasion the situation in Iraq today
would be essentially the same as it was back in 2002, crappy but
much better than the current mess. My only point was that once upon
a time some of us had a simple solution, and we were right. Maybe
the simple solution of running away is the best one now (and thats
a real maybe, since these days I tend to respond to the whole Iraq
question with the simple solution of applying vodka to my brain
cells)
Ron Hardin|1.4.07 @ 11:53AM|#
The first clue I had that National Review was worth reading was
an obit written by Buckley about Hubert Humphrey. It had nice
things to say.
Alas, a lot of other people write for National Review and I dropped
it.
Maybe I'm a minority demographic, though. The Kos style may rule in
the end.
|1.4.07 @ 11:53AM|#
And don't hide behind "we will never know". of course we will never know, but we can make good guesses. Your statement is true, and yet still bullshit.
|1.4.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Back on topic "uncool drag"? "bucking up a beauty queen"? He sounds like he wrote this while drunk and living in 1955.
|1.4.07 @ 11:58AM|#
I'll contend that without the invasion the situation in Iraq
today would be essentially the same as it was back in 2002, crappy
but much better than the current mess. My only point was that once
upon a time some of us had a simple solution, and we were right.
Maybe the simple solution of running away is the best one now (and
thats a real maybe, since these days I tend to respond to the whole
Iraq question with the simple solution of applying vodka to my
brain cells)"
I don't think you can say that. The secterian violence in Iraq was
going to happen eventually. Saddam was going to die or finally be
killed his enemies at some point. Once that happened, no way do his
sons take over, they were universally loathed. The best that could
have happened long term had Saddam remained in power would have
been he stayed a neutered leader on a tender box until he died
allowing the Iraqis to get down to the serious business of killing
each other, only without any influence from the outside, sans Iran
and Syria. Considering the condition Saddam put the country in it
is hard to see a good peaceful end for Iraq under any scenerio.
|1.4.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Considering the condition Saddam put the country in it is
hard to see a good peaceful end for Iraq under any
scenerio.
Yes.
:-|1.4.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Yes or No, did the Democrats win the November elections
because of popular opposition to the war?
They didn't win the elections. They won enough seats to gain a
majority. Almost 90% of Republican seats in the House were retained
by Republicans. The Senate is virtually evenly split. If the
election were really about Iraq, why such a high percentage? By the
logic expressed by pundits and parrots alike, if the Republicans
had held on to their majorities, would this have been cited as a
ringing endorsement of the war? I think not.
Curious Moose|1.4.07 @ 12:08PM|#
Is that the first time Ron Hardin didn't say something misogynistic in a post?
|1.4.07 @ 12:09PM|#
colon
Given the near impossibility of defeating an incumbent
representative in our current ultra-gerrymandered condition
retaining "almost 90%" of your house seats is a massive loss.
John
I think the Baathists could have kept a lid on things with or
without Sadaam, and I don't think he was going anywhere for awhile.
But even if you are right it would be a sectarian war without
thousands of american troops stuck in the middle.
|1.4.07 @ 12:15PM|#
"John
I think the Baathists could have kept a lid on things with or
without Sadaam, and I don't think he was going anywhere for awhile.
But even if you are right it would be a sectarian war without
thousands of american troops stuck in the middle."
I don't think so. The Shias were eventually going to rise up. They
are 70+ percent of the population. That is one thing people don't
get; as bad as a Suni insurgency is a Shia one would have been 100
times worse. That is why the whole "we should have kept the army
together" argument is bullshit. The Army was Suni and keeping it in
place would have given us a Shia rebellion. Yes, the U.S. troops
would not be in the middle, but I am not sure that is a good thing.
Iraq is not a safe peaceful place, but it is not Somalia or Rwanda
right now either. The insurgents can kill random people but that
can't control territory and large sections of the country outside
Baghdad are stable. Things are not good, but don't confuse that for
thinking they couldn't be much worse. A real open civil war killing
millions and creating an area twice the size of Texas without any
effective state in the middle of the middle east is a pretty
horrible scenario.
Warren|1.4.07 @ 12:19PM|#
John,
There are fucked up places all over the globe, and there will be
other fucked up places next year. The point is, that we aren't
responsible for them.
No fucking way should have American blood and treasure been pissed
away on Iraq. Something everyone should have understood in 2002
given the transparency of the pretext presented at the time.
|1.4.07 @ 12:25PM|#
"There are fucked up places all over the globe, and there will
be other fucked up places next year. The point is, that we aren't
responsible for them."
I wish you were right. Unfortuneately, we depend on the middle east
for our oil supplies and one of those fucked up places, Taliban
Afghanistan, helped give us 9-11. The days where the U.S. could say
screw the world and stay home are over if they ever existed in the
first place. Doesn't mean that we have an obligation to make the
world into one great big American town, but we can't say screw
everthing either.
|1.4.07 @ 12:28PM|#
"Unfortuneately, we depend on the middle east for our oil
supplies and one of those fucked up places, Taliban Afghanistan,
helped give us 9-11."
One of these things is not like the other.
|1.4.07 @ 12:38PM|#
so, now the argument is not that Sadaam was so powerful and
dangerous that he presented a clear and present danger to the US,
its that his regime was so weak thatit was going to fall at any
time and our invasion garunteed we would be around to
babysit.
Your "open civil war killing millions" scenario is an absolute
worste case and not very plausible. Without our presence the Shia
would probably have taken power rather easily in a post Baathist
Iraq. It would have been ugly and there would no doubt have been
numerous reprisal killings against the Sunni, and other problems
besides (such as a Kurdish secession), and we would end up with
another nasty middle-eastern dictatorship. That might have happened
had we stayed out. Our invasion garunteed it happening, as soon as
we leave, which we are going to have to do sooner or later. This is
worth the cost to us in money, in lives, and in the degredation of
our military capabilities world-wide? How long before it not worth
it anymore, John? Is this occupation sustainable indefinatly? Are
you still holding out hope for a stable and democratic Iraq?
uncle sam|1.4.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Of course the initial conquest of Iraq was a cake walk for the
best equipped, trained, and arm military in the history of the
world.
In fact, the ease of it and the failure of Saddam to employ any WMD
against U.S. troops revealed the lies for justifying the
invasion.
what we have now, however, is a much different matter. Occupation
of an area and engaging in conflict with what essentially is a
guerilla resistance. The only way to "win" in such a case is to
slaughter lots of people.
What a win that would be for the country that pretends to be taking
the moral high ground.
|1.4.07 @ 12:46PM|#
joe,
Our misadventures in Iraq certainly helped the Democrats in
November but that is only one of several reasons behind the result.
Since the balance of power in Congress could change with one seat,
Hanson doesn't see the overwhelming anti-war message that he's
looking for.
Warren|1.4.07 @ 12:50PM|#
John,
Oil is sold on the open market. Our getting involved in the
Mid-East only threatens our supply.
As for Afghanistan, while I was against going to war (because now
THAT is now our responsibility) at least there we had legitimate
justification. I'm not saying "screw everything". I'm saying that
we should only get involved where we have legitimate self-interest
and only when our involvement serves those interest. Iraq failed
(grossly so) both tests.
|1.4.07 @ 12:55PM|#
"so, now the argument is not that Sadaam was so powerful and
dangerous that he presented a clear and present danger to the US,
its that his regime was so weak thatit was going to fall at any
time and our invasion garunteed we would be around to
babysit."
The most shocking thing about seeing Iraq was how broken down and
fucked up it was. The U.S. was dead wrong to think that Saddam was
going to invade another country anytime soon. Build some WMDs and
give them to God knows who, yes. But be anything like he was in
1990, no way. As far as what would have happened when Saddam left,
if you are right and the Shias would have taken over, what would
have prevented that from being an Iranian backed strongman who
would have given Iran effective control over itsown and Iraq's oil,
Shia control over the two largest most powerful countries in the
area, just in time for Iran to get the bomb? That is a worse
scenerio than a civil war.
|1.4.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Warren
I hear from so few people who opposed the war in Afganistan, and
those I've spoken to are staunch pacifist Quakers. Why did you
oppose it, given that you agree it was justified?
|1.4.07 @ 12:56PM|#
"John? Is this occupation sustainable indefinatly? Are you still
holding out hope for a stable and democratic Iraq"
When someone shows me that the consiquences of leaving are not
worse than the cost of staying. Right now, the cost of staying is
less than the consiquences.
|1.4.07 @ 12:58PM|#
John, the ongoing occupation of Iraq has made it much easier for Iran to get the bomb, since they face no credible threat of retaliation.
|1.4.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Warren,
Thank you for being honest enough to admit you opposed the war in
Afghanistan. A lot of people opposed it only to back track after
when their worst fears were not realized.
|1.4.07 @ 12:59PM|#
"When someone shows me that the consiquences of leaving are not
worse than the cost of staying. Right now, the cost of staying is
less than the consiquences."
But aren't the consequences of staying only justified if it means
we can make the situation any better when we do eventually
leave?
|1.4.07 @ 12:59PM|#
"John, the ongoing occupation of Iraq has made it much easier
for Iran to get the bomb, since they face no credible threat of
retaliation."
They don't face the threat of invasion, but they certainly face the
threat of retaliation. The Navy and the Airforce are virtually
unengaged in Iraq. The U.S. could bomb Iran into a field of glass
if it chose to. The problem is that there is no international
support to do anything about Iran getting the bomb. That would be
true regardless of the situation in Iraq.
|1.4.07 @ 1:02PM|#
"But aren't the consequences of staying only justified if it
means we can make the situation any better when we do eventually
leave?"
True, but who is to say we can't? At some point the Iraqis are
going to get tired of killing each other. No war lasts forever.
Isn't it possible to just slug it out and keep a lid on things
until the Iraqis come to a settlement or the place is just
partitioned like the Bosnia so they can't kill each other anymore.
Granted, not good sollutions but better than the alternatives.
|1.4.07 @ 1:03PM|#
If we can't change the eventual outcome then the continued occupation is good money after bad. If you do think we can still improve things I want to know how (and so would the president). You may be right, but you need to explain to me just what we are doing to help at this point, aside from simply making it harder for people to kill each other in the short term.
uncle sam|1.4.07 @ 1:04PM|#
I'm saying that we should only get involved where we have
legitimate self-interest
Who gets to define "legitimate self-interest"?
If we stand to lose access to a million dollars of resource in
another country, what level of involvment would that justify?
Just how big is that door and how easy it is to open?
|1.4.07 @ 1:05PM|#
But they really really really want to kill each other. How long till they get sick of it, ten years? Five? Are the Israelis and Palestinians sick of it yet?
|1.4.07 @ 1:15PM|#
The reason there haven't been very many massive street protests against the war is being missed by many. There is NO DRAFT. Although labeled anti-war rallies in the 60s, they were by and large anti-draft rallies. The signs in 69 and 70 didn't say "Bring our Boys Home". They said "Stop the War". Very few of the protesters cared about the troops in Vietnam, and that was wrong. I'm glad we don't do that anymore. But "Supporting the Troops" is not the same as "Supporting the War". Even the troops are beginning to see that, if some news reports are to be believed.
Some James|1.4.07 @ 1:23PM|#
True, USN and USAF aren't engaged in Iraq and would have no problem striking Iran. However, there are a few problems with this. Iran's nuclear labs are underground and we don't know where, for one (and I'm sure the leadership can hide where we can't get two). The Iranian public would rally around their leadership (as it stands they're one of the few pro-West populaces in the region). And most important, the Army and Marines are still in Iraq, which means they're prime targets for a HIGHLY stepped up terror campaign OVERTLY coordinated by Iran. And what could the US do from there? Invade Iran and leave Iraq? Make the rubble bounce with airstrikes?
|1.4.07 @ 1:24PM|#
I wish you were right. Unfortuneately, we depend on the
middle east for our oil supplies and one of those fucked up places,
Taliban Afghanistan, helped give us 9-11.
Uh, John, actually we don't get all that much oil from the Mid East
in these here United States. Europe and Japan are much more
dependent on that supply.
If we really wanted to deal with the source of 9-11 we'd have
kicked some ass in Saudi Arabia, a place equally deserving of
regime-change as anywhere else in the world. Instead, we've done
everything possible to ignore that the majority of the 9-11 pricks
came from SA and we're running all over the world in the name of
9-11.
|1.4.07 @ 1:28PM|#
John writes: "True, but who is to say we can't? At some point
the Iraqis are going to get tired of killing each other. No war
lasts forever."
So what's the point sitting in between them for the next ten,
fifteen years, getting a thousand Americans killed every
year?
If we're just going to let them burn themselves out, we can do that
even more effectively from over here.
|1.4.07 @ 1:39PM|#
"what would have prevented that from being an Iranian backed
strongman who would have given Iran effective control over itsown
and Iraq's oil, Shia control over the two largest most powerful
countries in the area, just in time for Iran to get the
bomb?"
That's different from what's happening now, how, exactly?
|1.4.07 @ 2:00PM|#
John, since it's evident that we don't need Iraq for oil and
since we've determined that the country isn't (and never was) a
threat to the U.S., what business does the U.S. government have
there? Since the vast majority of Iraqi's want the U.S. to leave,
what is the point of their democracy if we continue to ignore their
wishes?
What evidence is there to indicate that the Iraqi's who have taken
arms against our occupation will ever give up fighting us?
|1.4.07 @ 2:12PM|#
And why should we worry about an Iran-controlled Iraq not
selling us oil?
Iran-controlled-Iran sells us oil.
|1.4.07 @ 2:31PM|#
John:
When someone shows me that the consiquences of leaving are not
worse than the cost of staying. Right now, the cost of staying is
less than the consiquences.
I think it's even simpler than that. The people of the United
States are unwilling to commit the necessary manpower (draft) or
funds (increased taxes) to acheive something resembling victory.
Therefore, we are halfassing this fight, and getting our solider
killed for no reason. Pull out.
|1.4.07 @ 2:38PM|#
C-O-N-S-E-Q-U-E-N-C-E-S!
There's no "i"!
Johhn, you reely nead to lurn hao too spel.
VM|1.4.07 @ 3:26PM|#
"...well, it's Hanson's drivel"
like zis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmY__FS7BBk
|1.4.07 @ 3:26PM|#
If we take Dave's original post at face value, then there's simply no reason to maintain this running debate about Iraq. Odds are the whole war's gonna be ret-conned out of existence in a few years, so can we all stop fighting with each other and turn our attention to the REAL menace: Bizarro Obama!
|1.4.07 @ 4:11PM|#
VDH is looking pretty shrill here.
As opposed to the calm, nuanced way he usually writes?
|1.4.07 @ 5:28PM|#
"The people of the United States are unwilling to commit the
necessary manpower (draft) or funds (increased taxes) to acheive
something resembling victory. Therefore, we are halfassing this
fight, and getting our solider killed for no reason."
I'm still waiting for the younger war supporters to enlist in
droves so I can retire.
|1.4.07 @ 6:06PM|#
[VDH] was one of the few people who said we didn't need
100,000 plus people to take out the Taliban.
I guess Josh already responded to this, but let me reiterate that
VDH was actually very wrong about Afghanistan. We did need a much
larger force if we wanted to stabilize the country. As it stands,
Karzai has never been anything more than president of Kabul.
So, VDH, may be a great classicist. I don't know, and don't care.
But as a commentator, he sucks some major ass.
|1.4.07 @ 6:14PM|#
More to the point, John, the reasons why our "worst fears" about
Afghanistan have not been realized are because:
1. We don't hear much about the catastrophe that is Afghanistan
because we're preoccupied with the catastrophe that is Iraq.
2. What we do hear about Afghanistan is better than what we hear
about Iraq, and so Afghanistan looks a good bit better by
comparison.
3. Our footprint in Afghanistan is a good deal smaller, and so
there are fewer targets to kill.
4. We have not engaged in the massive kind of stabilization that we
are at least putatively committed to in Iraq, and so the
opportunity for Taliban to kill Americans is a great deal
less.
However, more than five years after our invasion of Afghanistan,
the Taliban is still a major factor, there are regular suicide
bombings, Karzai controls Kabul and that's about it... all of it
prompting Anthony Cordesman to write just three weeks ago about the
"dire" situation in Afghanistan and how absent "bold" action or
some such, we will lose that war too.
Nick Danger|1.5.07 @ 5:10PM|#
"Good point, but I think it should also be balanced against the
number of Iraqis who didn't end up in mass graves on a whim of
Saddam Hussein in the time since we pushed him out of power."
Given his actions over the years immediately preceding the
invasion, a good guess is that it would have taken Hussein about
100 years to generate the number of Iraqi deaths the war has.
|1.5.07 @ 8:32PM|#
John,
You have nothing to offer and you are being unreasonable. When
don't you take a day or two to reason a little more before you
speak again?
|1.6.07 @ 11:02PM|#
Every prediction they made about the war was wrong. No one
anticipated the insurgency. Just because things didn't work out,
doesn't mean the nah sayers were any more right than the
supporters.
You sir, are a liar or a fool or both.
Start with
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2208
|1.7.07 @ 7:19AM|#
Here's Atrios well before the war Sept 20 2002:
------
Despite the rather cynical and mocking tone I've taken with respect
to the whole Iraq thing lately, the truth is that all along I've
had a rather Marshallian view of the issue (Josh, not Alfred).
Though I wasn't convinced by the Washington Monthly article he
wrote, I suppose that I, like him, was quite open to being
convinced. I have been open to all of the possible justifcations
for invading Iraq - humanitarian, national security, realpolitik,
defense of Israel, etc... But, for me, all of them have fallen
completely flat. Josh lays out one reason why:
--
But let me discuss with you for a moment what I find the most
difficult about this debate. The more ardent supporters of regime
change lie a lot. I really don't know how else to put it. I'm not
talking about disagreements over interpretation. I mean people
saying things they either know to be false or have no reason to
believe are true. Perhaps the word 'lie' is a very slight
exaggeration. Perhaps it's better to say they have a marked
propensity to assert as fact points for which there is virtually or
absolutely no evidence. How's that?
---
From the desperate attempts to link 9/11 to Saddam, to the repeated
claims that he's a "bad man who gassed his own people" (with our
support and our gas, essentially), to the misrepresentations of
analyses of his potential for nuclear capability, to the knowingly
false claim he "threw out the inspectors" (a failing process,
admittedly), etc... etc... Not one element of this debate from the
Hawks has been, by any stretch, honest.
I could have even lived with that, perhaps. But what I can't live
with is that combined with the *zero* effort (And I Mean *ZERO*) to
present (or formulate?) any conception for what Step 2 would be. No
description of what an occupying force would be like - size and
length. No description of plans for transition to a new government.
Nothing.
The only guide we have are the collected writings of his advisors.
And those are scary.
-------
And here is Juan Cole in 2003 (during the "last throes" days)
http://web.archive.org/web/20031214140735/www.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/cole.html
|1.9.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Following on Atrios and Juan Cole: It's the dishonesty, and the
major, major incompetence which underscores this entire failed war
from my anti-war perspective. Nancy Youssef from McClatchy reported
on Washington Journal the other day--from her post in Baghdad--that
one of the very real problems with the "democratic government" that
the Bush administration set up in Iraq is that representation is by
SECT. Now, considering that Iraq has now devolved into civil war
between warring religious factions--Shia and Sunni--and there is
ample historical precedent for seeing that there would be sectarian
problems in Iraq--can anyone PLEASE enlighten us as to how on God's
green earth, the Bush administration would think that
representation along sectarian lines would NOT be a problem?!
Read Vali Nasr's "The Shia Revival" and you'll see why Bush should
be impeached just for STUPIDITY.
Victor Davis Hanson is a sad old gasbag and, of course, he couldn't
be bothered to waste his hot air asking the question about
sectarian representation. He's too busy lying to readers who waste
their time on his blowhard "War of Endurance." We've all endured
VDH long enough.
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