Good and bad wars?
The death toll of allied and American soldiers in Afghanistan these last few months is nearing those of coalition losses in Iraq, and may well rise at a greater rate. For now, this has not affected too much the argument of the Left that Afghanistan is the “good” war, and Iraq the “bad”.
In the former we went after the base where the 9/11 attacks were planned, involved a coalition of NATO allies, and saw the emergence of some sort of consensual government follow the wreckage of the Taliban fairly quickly—and at only about 60 American combat death per year in the first three-years of postbellum occupation.
In contrast, our coalition of the willing in Iraq was supposedly a sham; the Europeans were furious as was the UN; and the country at home was torn apart as a once 70+% approval rate nose-dived, as combat fatalities now approach 2200. All that made the Democrats sort of support Afghanistan and oppose Iraq.
But if we put aside for the moment the reasons to have gone into each country, the two now look remarkably the same. Both have fragile democratic governments. Radical Islamists—using similar tactics of suicide bombing and improvised explosive devices—are pouring in from sanctuaries across the border, whether Pakistan or Syria and Iran. Bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri themselves have boasted that Iraq, at the heart of the ancient caliphate, is now the frontline theater for the jihadists.
So far the international approval of Afghanistan and its smaller costs have ensured support from the Left. But note, as casualties begin to mount, and the nature of the counter-insurgency fighting increasingly begins to resemble Iraq—as it must in this particular front of a global war—and as the magic multilateral solution proves a mirage, the NATO coalition being no more effective than the coalition of the willing in Iraq, expect to see the Democratic leadership begin to bail on Afghanistan as well.
First, as true of Iraq, will come the recriminations how Bush ruined their perfect war with his botched peace. Then, there will be the whine that we have too few troops—always presented in hindsight as a missed opportunity, never as a call to drastically commit more resources. Then will come stories of principled European soldiers—remember the British officers of Basra who swore off Ray-Bans and Kevlar helmets to foot patrol in berets among the Mahdi army—who are aghast at our brutal tactics. So just as we went into Afghanistan about 17 months before Iraq, expect in about 17 more months, the Democrats and the media will do to that war what they have done to Iraq: ensure the violence dominates the narrative and pushes down support for continuance to below 40%.
Books
I am currently reviews a wide variety of books on recent developments in the war by Max Boot, Fred Kagan, Robert Kagan, Michael Lind, Mark Steyn, and Thomas Ricks, and should have them wrapped up within 2 weeks. Just a passing note of general observance: why is it that those who support the current policy of democratization in Iraq seem dispassionate, and consider counter-arguments, while those who write off Iraq are furious, angry, and in near apoplexy discount any who disagree?
Why the Democratic Hysteria?
In that regard, the wild Right of the 1950s, whether characterized by Joe McCarthy, the John Birch Society, or, worse, the Ku Klux Klan, has been entirely isolated from the mainstream conservative party. But is the same true of the Democrats, when Cindy Sheehan (Bush is the “world’s greatest terrorist”), Michael Moore (the terrorists in Iraq are “Minutemen), and Al Sharpton (still no apologies for his race-baiting violence of the 1990s) are welcomed into the fold, whose spokesmen compare Abu Ghraib to Saddam’s gulag (Sen. Kennedy), Guantanamo to Hitler and Pol Pot (Sen. Durbin), and think things were better under Saddam (Sen. Rockefeller), while Sen. Kerry and former Vice President Gore have either characterized our own troops as terrorists or “indiscriminately” rounding up poor Arab Americans at home?
Why this exaggeration and shrillness? It is frustration from having lost the Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme Court and the majority of the state legislatures and governorships. Frustrations follow from learning that a cobbled together coalition of gay marriage advocates, radical feminists, abortion on demand supporters, the old race industry emblemized by Jesse Jackson, as well as the radical pacifism of the leftwing blogs—all that only garners 45% of the popular vote—unless there is a Republican scandal, a losing war, a recession, or a Democrat running for President with enough of a southern accent to fool voters that he is a true conservative.
So I think this anger arises over acceptance that the country does not wish what Democrats have to offer, and thus drives them to scream and scare the country into thinking we are in a 1930s Depression, Vietnam redux, a Watergate of illegal wiring tapping—almost anything to get back over that 50% hump—without having to reform and adopt more moderate policies—and to do to Michael Moore & Co. what the Republicans once did to the Birch die-hards and Neo-Confederates.
I agree with Hanson’s Assessment here, but I am still–despite my steadfast support for both wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq–not convinced that democracy can truly exist in the Middle East as it does so in the West. Do not get me wrong, I do think that a liberal, tolerant, and free Middle East will make us, Americans, safer. It is just that I believe that the democratization of the Middle East is a mere chimera as long as Sharia Law trumps all else. In short, can Muslims in the Middle East, radical and moderate, render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s, as we in the West do?
My prayers have been answered… VDH has taken up blogging. If his writing on this site is half the quality of his columns, will are all in for a treat.
I believe that it is a good thing that Mr. Hanson has finally decided to join the blogosphere.
It bears no introduction that I admire Mr. Hanson’s work. Mr. Hanson is my favorite living American Historian (Stephen Ambrose being my all-time favorite) not only because Hanson admires the U.S.–unlike charlatans like Howard Zinn–, but because Hanson is frank about war itself and about war’s timelessness. As Mr. Hanson has stated, War will not be completely gotten rid off until one of two things happen: 1) Man’s nature changes or 2) History ends. Unfortunately, neither looks as if it will happen soon, if at all.
And all this comes from a Democrat.
Correct Mr. Hanson?
I am delighted that you have started blogging; welcome to the blogosphere.
I think your take on the Dems’ reaction to losing power is right on target but would add an additional factor that makes it even more difficult for them to moderate thier views.
Part of their view of themselves is that they are far smarter, more caring, and more moral than the typical (stupid) American voter who is so easily manipulated by the Republicans. For them to admit error, in any of their positions, then becomes an admission that they are perhaps not so wise; the damage to their self esteem would cause humiliation and rage, which can only be directed outward at the cause of their humiliation (Bush et al) or held inward resulting in despair. Their choices are limited and for too many the option of doubling down their bets must seem more appealing; thus they slowly move further and further into the far left wonderland.
*curious* By the way, how do Ray-Bans and Kevlar equate with brutality?
I want to answer your question about why there is hysteria on the left. It is largely because of the reprehensible tactics used by the right to defend their indefensible positions. For example:
“But if we put aside for the moment the reasons to have gone into each country, the two now look remarkably the same.”
While the statement is technically correct based on certain limited criteria – death toll, control of territory (or lacktherof), tactics used by the enemy forces (though that is a recent development) and the probability of the U.S. snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (there are probably others), the two situations, when taken as a whole, are vastly different. Just ask the military commanders.
But the worst part of your statement is that it essentially says, “If you remove from debate 75% of the reason people are upset about the War in Iraq (that is – that we were misled about WMD which was, in fact, the “single issue” at the time) then we have nothing to complain about.”
It’s what you put aside that drives us crazy. You might as well put aside for the moment U.S. Millitary deaths, Iraqi civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, failure to provide security, failure to guard cultural and historical centers, Abu Ghraib and other human rights abuses, the waste and war profiterring, and the financial cost of the war (which we are not yet feeling because it has essentially been put on our National Credit Card for our children and grandchildren to pay off somewhere on down the road).
Yes, if you put all of these things aside for the moment, then you and I could sit down and have a nice chat about how great things are going in Iraq.
The problem is these are not things that should be put aside.
Thanks for your cheap caricature of a Left that doesn’t exist. This country can never have too many bogeymen to be afraid of. You, sir, are a true patriot.
VDH blogs! I have admired your work for a long time sir, as well as my father, to whom I recently introduced one of your books. He is now an unqualified VDH junkie.
We appreciate the precision, the objectivity, and most of all, the historical context which you bring to this debate, and really any debate on which you comment. This context is sadly missing in much of today’s dialogue, where it seems that many would repeat the ignored mistakes of history.
Another thing – you have kindled in me a newfound appreciation of ancient Greece. Through the gift of the printed word, we can avail ourselves of so much classical knowledge, so much philosophy, so much… context. I have much reading to do.
I can see that you are a hard-working man, sir. Please keep it up because your work is valuable. Ayn Rand once said that the decline of reason and the failure of the post-modern culture belongs to the intellectuals; your efforts, among others, have given me hope that the blame is not shared by all of them.
So am I hearing that you’re finally going to enlist or what?
But if we put aside for the moment the reasons to have gone into each country, the two now look remarkably the same.
Right. One was a haven for terrorists. One became a haven for terrorists after we overthrew the strongman running the place. Remarkably the same.
Michael Moore believes that Bush started the Iraq War to control the flow of oil. The John Birch Society alleged that President Dwight Eisenhower was a communist. Remarkably the same.
Cindy Sheehan is a private citizen whose statements sometimes veer into anti-Zionism. Joseph McCarthy lead a Senate inquisition with subpoena powers, and alleged that General George Marshall was a communist. Remarkably the same.
Al Sharpton made incendiary remarks that led to riots resulting in the deaths of seven people (the Freddy’s Fashion Mart fire). The Ku Klux Klan waged a decades-long campaign of terrorism, killing hundreds of blacks and white liberals. Remarkably the same.
Over the years the name of the Democratic Party as been changed… “DUMB”ocrat Party, composed of a lot of “LIP”erals.
Books. Peace in the Middle East will come about when a wide assortment of books other than Mein Kampf and the Koran are published and available for all Mid Easterners to read.
If Liberal/Democrats are unable to pick up the sword, one would assume they would at least offer to fight for freedom with their love of books.
A pleasure to find you blogging, sir.
I have my own theory about those who are attracted to the Democratic party in recent decades, based on social observation.
Personality tests purport to measure the degree by which an individual perceives and reacts to information, whether the response is emotion or reason-driven. In simplest terms, whether a person is right or left-brained.
Democrats, with their fallacious appeals to emotion, are, ironically enough…right brained!
My husband and father are both die-hard VDH fans and have been chattering about this blog like 13-year-old schoolgirls awaiting the release of the new John Mayer CD (teen idol, in case you don’t know him!). A half-hearted welcome to the blogosphere from the wife and daughter of two of your biggest fans in D.C. and South Carolina!
I echo the comments made before: welcome to the daily grind, VDH. you have many many fans out in blogdom.
Elena…the thing about the ray bans and whatnot was a complaint that our GI’s were all wearing them all the time and they look kinda Terminator-ish to a 7-year old Iraqi girl who might otherwise want…and need…some help from our soldiers.
now, we all know that a 23-year old dude in Ray Bans or Oakleys is more likely to join you for a beer at the game or toss the frisbee around the dog park than he would be to cut off your head and parade it through the street, but it costs nothing to make sure the locals grokked that. so thats why i think the higher echelon m.f’ers made that call.
i could be wrong but…
Firstly, welcom aboard the blogosphere, sir. I am reading A War Like No Other right now and am enjoying the read as much as The Soul of BattleThe Soul of Battle</i?, which was inspiring. The difficulties of fighting a war in these days are truly daunting. Democracy has its strengths but the promotion of mediocre-but-politic generals haa got to be its most dangerous weakness.
About the Democrats, who can figure it. As I said on a post in my blog, the left today still hates fascism and it still hates theocracy but if you mix em together they find they’re the best thing since peanut butter cups! It is perplexing. Am I wrong or have the Democrats never supported a Republican president in a time of war? I wonder if you have any ideas on that.
Thanks again for joining the ‘sphere! Best of luck to you!
Principles based on emotion breed emotion when those principles are seen to be losing. As gas prices go down and President Bush’s popularity goes up, watch the Kos and Moveon types go even more ballistic (if that’s possible). And as they get more hysterical, the public will react negatively, not trusting a party with such influential wackos to provide security for our children or nation. It’s the sort of positive feedback cycle that brings a smile to any conservative.
I should probably submit this to ask a reader on your other website, but do contemporary historians think highly of Will and Ariel Durant? What do you think of their work?
Ray-Bans make the wearer look impersonal, robotlike, even with a big smile, giving the impression of potential brutality on a moment’s notice. Kevlar, with attached head-piece for night-vision goggles, completes the image. Nevertheless you wouldn’t catch me in a beret in a combat zone. And Ray-Bans spare your eyes and make the scrutiny needed to stay alive less obvious.
Ray-Bans make the wearer look impersonal, robotlike, even with a big smile, giving the impression of potential brutality on a moment’s notice. Kevlar, with attached head-piece for night-vision goggles, completes the image. Nevertheless you wouldn’t catch me in a beret in a combat zone. And Ray-Bans spare your eyes and make the scrutiny needed to stay alive less obvious.
Elena,
Ray-bans (and othe sunglasses) are considered impersonal and intimidating. (Saddam’s thugs made a point of wearing them.), while body armor implies an expectation of combat and violence. The British prefer a “softly, softly” approach, though I have to question how effective that was in Ulster. (And, certainly, that was not the approach they used in Malaya.)
VDH said ” Frustrations follow from learning that a cobbled together coalition of gay marriage advocates, radical feminists, abortion on demand supporters, the old race industry emblemized by Jesse Jackson, as well as the radical pacifism of the leftwing blogs—all that only garners 45% of the popular vote.”
To this list I would add one more member- (not so) Big Labor. Most notable among them are (1) teachers unions who consistently stymie efforts at school-choice and performance-based accountability and (2) commerical workers unions who have been encouraged of late by Democratic presidential hopefuls to step up their attacks on Wal-Mart, arguably the most successful and well-run public company in American history.
Eric said “But the worst part of your statement is that it essentially says, “If you remove from debate 75% of the reason people are upset about the War in Iraq (that is – that we were misled about WMD which was, in fact, the “single issue” at the time) then we have nothing to complain about.”
Eric, your assertion that WMD was the single issue is demonstrably false.
There were exactly 23 justifications provided in the October 2002 resoltuon for going to war with Iraq. Only 10 of those 23 even mention WMD. Of those 10, many concern facts that no one disputes, e.g. that Iraq thwarted inspectors work leading to their depature from Iraw in 1998 and that Iraq had previously demonstrated its willingness to use WMD against its own citizens and others.
If you reached the conclusion that WMD was the single issue at the time, it only indicates that you were either not paying close attention four years ago, you were but didn’t understand what you heard, or you were misled by the mainstream media who failed utterly in their responsibility to inform the public about the totality of the case being made against Iraq.
Here’s a link for those of you who’d like to read the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” for yourselves (dated October 2, 2002)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
thoughtfully,
starling
And yet I have worn Ray-Bans for many years, rather liberal Democrat that I am, back to my days in the Navy.
Go figure.
All kidding aside, it is a treat to be a colleague of Dr. Hanson’s, though we may not always agree.
“I should probably submit this to ask a reader”
That was supposed to be “reader response” not ask a reader.
Anyhoo, I thought the Ray-ban thing was about arab culture and the need for eye contact.
Starling:
Are you kidding? The link you provided does not detract from my point. Yes, there are other references made in the joint resoilution including a reference to 9/11 – but almost all of them refer to WMD or the UN resolutions related to WMD. How can you read that and say it was only one of 23 reasons? What other reasons are given?
Also, Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair that “for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
Then there was Condi Rice talking about mushroom clouds.
Colin Powell addressing the U.N.Security Council about mobile weapons labs and such.
And in November, 2005, King George, himself:
“While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war.
These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: ‘When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.’ That’s why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”
While most of what he said there was false (there definitely was pressure, and evidence supporting the administration’s desire to go to war was cherry picked to that end) even he is saying that the reason we went to war was for WMD.
Eric, no one likes an OBTUSE leftwinger. Get over your Bush Lied, People Died NONSENSE, mmmkay?
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council’s efforts to keep the current regime’s behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa–tory political system that will include all of Iraq’s diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq’s weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.
Eric:
The first and foremost reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq was the same: to democratize the Middle East. Afghanistan was chosen for obvious reasons, not least of which was the highly oppressive government that ran the place. Excessively centralized governments are easier to conquer because the snake has only one head. Or so the theory goes.
Iraq, being run by a wicked despot, was also “ripe” for democratization, and since overthrowing Saddam was official U.S. policy since 1998 (see Some Guy’s statement), it only made sense. Iraq’s geographic location (central) and geographic conditions (mostly flat, as opposed to the mountainous Iran) were favorable, as well.
The quest to democratize the Middle East has always been job one. Everything else is peripheral.
I don’t know if you are including it in your “background” reading for you reviews, but Michael Lind’s book on Vietnam might present an interesting context and supplements your thesis.