Why We Must Stay in Iraq


Recommended Posts

Why We Must Stay in Iraq

By Victor Davis Hanson

Sunday, September 4, 2005; Page B01

Vietnam is once again in the air. Last month's antiwar demonstrations in Crawford, Tex., have been heralded as the beginning of an antiwar movement that will take to the streets like the one of 30 years ago. Influential pundits -- in the manner of a gloomy Walter Cronkite after the Tet offensive -- are assuring us that we can't win in Iraq and that we have no option but a summary withdrawal. We may even have a new McGovern-style presidential "peace" candidate in Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.

America's most contentious war is being freely evoked to explain the "quagmire" we are supposedly now in. Vietnam is an obvious comparison given the frustration of asymmetrical warfare and savage enemies who escape our conventional power. But make no mistake, Iraq is not like Vietnam, and it must not end like Vietnam. Despite our tragic lapses, leaving now would be a monumental mistake -- and one that we would all too soon come to regret.

If we fled precipitously, moderates in the Middle East could never again believe American assurances of support for reform and would have to retreat into the shadows -- or find themselves at the mercy of fascist killers. Jihadists would swell their ranks as they hyped their defeat of the American infidels. Our forward strategy of hitting terrorists hard abroad would be discredited and replaced by a return to the pre-9/11 tactics of a few cruise missiles and writs. And loyal allies in Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan, along with new friends in India and the former Soviet republics, would find themselves leaderless in the global struggle against Islamic radicalism.

The specter of Vietnam will also turn on those who embrace it. Iraq is not a surrogate theater of the Cold War, where national liberationists, fueled by the romance of radical egalitarianism, are fortified by nearby Marxist nuclear patrons. The jihadists have an 8th-century agenda of gender apartheid, religious intolerance and theocracy. For all its pyrotechnics, the call for a glorious return to the Dark Ages has found no broad constituency.

Nor is our army in Iraq conscript, but volunteer and professional. The Iraqi constitutional debate is already light-years ahead of anything that emerged in Saigon. And there is an exit strategy, not mission creep -- we will consider withdrawal as the evolution to a legitimate government continues and the Iraqi security forces grow.

But the comparison to Vietnam may be instructive regarding another aspect -- the aftershocks of a premature American departure. Leaving Vietnam to the communists did not make anyone safer. The flight of the mid-1970s energized U.S. enemies in Iran, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Central America, while tearing our own country apart for nearly a quarter-century. Today, most Americans are indeed very troubled over the war in Iraq -- but mostly they are angry about not winning quickly, rather than resigned to losing amid recriminations.

We forget that once war breaks out, things usually get far worse before they get better. We should remember that 1943, after we had entered World War II, was a far bloodier year than 1938, when the world left Hitler alone. Similarly, 2005 may have brought more open violence in Iraq than was visible during Saddam's less publicized killings of 2002. So it is when extremists are confronted rather than appeased. But unlike the time before the invasion, when we patrolled Iraq's skies while Saddam butchered his own with impunity below, there is now a hopeful future for Iraq.

It is true that foreign terrorists are flocking into the country, the way they earlier crossed the Pakistani border into Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban, and that this makes the short-term task of securing the country far more difficult. But again, just as there were more Nazis and fascists out in the open in 1941 than before the war, so too there were almost none left by 1946. If we continue to defeat the jihadists in Iraq -- and the untold story of this war is that the U.S. military has performed brilliantly in killing and jailing tens of thousands of them -- their cause will be discredited by the stick of military defeat and the carrot of genuine political freedom.

All this is not wishful thinking. The United States has an impressive record of military reconstruction and democratization following the defeat of our enemies -- vs. the abject chaos that followed when we failed to help fragile postwar societies.

After World War II, Germany, Italy and Japan (American troops are still posted in all three) proved to be success stories. In contrast, an unstable post-WWI Weimar Germany soon led to something worse than Kaiser Wilhelm.

After the Korean War, South Korea survived and evolved. South Vietnam, by contrast, ended up with a Stalinist government, and the world watched the unfolding tragedy of the boat people, reeducation camps and a Southeast Asian holocaust.

Present-day Kabul has the most enlightened constitution in the Middle East. Post-Soviet Afghanistan -- after we ceased our involvement with the mujaheddin resistance -- was an Islamic nightmare.

So we fool ourselves if we think that peace is the natural order of things, and that it follows organically from the cessation of hostilities. It does not. Leave Iraq and expect far worse tribal chaos and Islamic terrorism than in Mogadishu or Lebanon; finish the task and there is the real chance for something like present-day Turkey or the current calm of federated Kurdistan.

Have we forgotten that Iraq before the invasion was not just another frightening Middle East autocracy like Syria or Libya, but a country in shambles -- not, as some will say, because of international sanctions, but thanks to one of the worst regimes on the planet, with a horrific record of genocide at home and regional aggression abroad? As the heart of the ancient caliphate, Iraq symbolized the worst aspects of pan-Arab nationalism and posed the most daunting obstacle for any change in the Middle East. Thus al Qaedists and ex-Baathists alike are desperate to drive us out. They grasp that should a democratic Iraq emerge, then the era of both Islamic theocracies and fascist autocracies elsewhere in the region may also be doomed.

Our presence in Iraq is one of the most principled efforts in a sometimes checkered history of U.S. foreign policy. Yes, there is infighting among the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis, but this is precisely because Saddam Hussein pitted the sects against each other for 30 years in order to subjugate them, while we are now trying to unite them so that they might govern themselves. The United States has elevated the formerly despised and exploited Shiites and Kurds to equal status with the Sunnis, their former rulers. And from our own history we know that such massive structural reform is always messy, dangerous -- and humane.

So, too, with other changes. It is hard to imagine that Syria would have withdrawn from Lebanon without American resolve in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor would either Pakistan's A.Q. Khan or Libya's Moammar Gaddafi have given up on plans to nuclearize the Middle East. Saddam's demise put pressure on HosniMubarak to entertain the possibility of democratic reform in Egypt. These upheavals are, in the short term, controversial and volatile developments whose ultimate success hinges only on continued American resolve in Iraq.

There is no other solution to either Islamic terrorism of the sort that hit us on Sept. 11, 2001, nor the sort of state fascism that caused the first Gulf War, than the Bush administration's easily caricatured effort to work for a third democratic choice beyond either dictatorship or theocracy. We know that not because of pre-9/11 neocon pipedreams of "remaking the Middle East," but because for decades we tried almost everything else in vain -- from backing monarchs in the Gulf who pumped oil and dictators in Pakistan and Egypt who promised order, to "containing" murderous autocrats like Saddam and ignoring tyrannous theocrats like the Taliban.

Yes, the administration must account to the American people for the radically humanitarian sacrifices of American lives we are making on behalf of the freedom of Kurds and Shiites. It must remind us that we are engaging murderers of a sort not seen since the Waffen SS and the suicide killers off Okinawa. And it must tell us that victory is our only option and explain in detail how and why we are winning.

The New York Times recently deplored the public's ignorance of American heroes in Iraq. In fact, there are thousands of them. But in their eagerness to view Iraq through the fogged lens of Vietnam, the media themselves are largely responsible for the public's shameful lack of interest.

A few days ago, while the networks were transfixed by Cindy Sheehan (or was it Aruba?), the United States military, in conjunction with Iraqi forces, was driving out jihadists from Mosul -- where the terrorists are being arrested and killed in droves. Lt. Col. Erik Kurilla of the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, who had worked for months to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding on the city's streets, was severely wounded as he led his men to clear out a terrorist hideaway. The jihadist who shot him -- who had recently been released from Abu Ghraib -- was not killed, but arrested and given medical care by U.S. surgeons.

Not long before he was wounded, Lt. Col. Kurilla had delivered a eulogy for three of his own fallen men. Posted on a military Web site, it showed that he, far better than most of us, knows why America is there:

"You see -- there are 26 million people in Iraq whose freedom we are fighting for, against terrorists and insurgents that want a return to power and oppression, or worse, a state of fundamentalist tyranny. Some of whom we fight are international terrorists who hate the fact that in our way of life we can choose who will govern us, the method in which we worship, and the myriad other freedoms we have. We are fighting so that these fanatical terrorists do not enter the sacred ground of our country and we have to fight them in our own backyard."

Amen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...678.html?sub=AR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that America must stay in Iraq now even if we disagree about the time in which it was started. I think a quote I heard in a movie is suitable. "Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of justice."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what really ticks me off is how the media shows how much they want to pull out of the war every time I turn on the TV. I was listening to Neil Borhtz on the radio and one of the soldiers that was on leave from there but was going back the next week called in and exlplained how what the news is reporting and what is really going on are 2 opposite things. One example he gave was an instance there was a firefight in Iraq and his men were trying to protect the children in the street and the next day CNN reported that the soldiers were using the kids as human shields! The soldier on the radio said he lost 3 men that because they were protecting these kids but the media has a different agenda. sickening.

He also said that over 90 percent of the Iraqi people he talked to are glad that American troops are there and are actually very gratefull for our aid but he comes over back to the States and no one really hears what this man experiences every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that now the war has started, the job needs to be finished. But criticising not murdering a person..cmon..I'm suprised the article ended in "Amen" and not "Yeehaw!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your never going to win a war in iraq eventually your going to get fed up of getting no where and spending money on a war you cannot win sooner or later your going be evacuating your remaining troops in iraq on a mass scale with your tails between your legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what really ticks me off is how the media shows how much they want to pull out of the war every time I turn on the TV. I was listening to Neil Borhtz on the radio and one of the soldiers that was on leave from there but was going back the next week called in  and exlplained how what the news is reporting and what is really going on are 2 opposite things. One example he gave was an instance there was a firefight in Iraq and his men were trying to protect the children in the street and the next day CNN reported that the soldiers were using the kids as human shields! The soldier on the radio said he lost 3 men that because they were protecting these kids but the media has a different agenda. sickening.

He also said that over 90 percent of the Iraqi people he talked to are glad that American troops are there and are actually very gratefull for our aid but he comes over back to the States and no one really hears what this man experiences every day.

586481031[/snapback]

It seems like the media takes more joy in reporting sickening negative news as opposed to crediting righteous soldiers. Obviously CNN is not for the war, they try to turn American's against two things: the war and Bush and his administration. The way I see it, it was Bush's decision to send some troops over, which I feel was somewhat unneccesary at first but it seems justifiable now. But when CNN tries to say "oh the troops over there are doing wrong", people then make their own deduction that it's all Bush's fault, and that the war is pointless.

Basically I think we should stay in Iraq, because for one we've already started it, and two, we obviously seem to be making some sort of progress if 90% of Iraqi's appreciates American's being over there. However, this soldier could be tweaking his perceptions on what actually happened just to back up the war, but I believe he is telling the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like the media takes more joy in reporting sickening negative news as opposed to crediting righteous soldiers. Obviously CNN is not for the war, they try to turn American's against two things: the war and Bush and his administration. The way I see it, it was Bush's decision to send some troops over, which I feel was somewhat unneccesary at first but it seems justifiable now. But when CNN tries to say "oh the troops over there are doing wrong", people then make their own deduction that it's all Bush's fault, and that the war is pointless.

Basically I think we should stay in Iraq, because for one we've already started it, and two, we obviously seem to be making some sort of progress if 90% of Iraqi's appreciates American's being over there. However, this soldier could be tweaking his perceptions on what actually happened just to back up the war, but I believe he is telling the truth.

586481940[/snapback]

The problem is that 'Soldiers defeat insurgents' is not as exciting as 'Soldiers use human shields.' Such is the media, especially if they can ride the topic for days (tsunamis, hurricanes), or if it can cause a lot of controversy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An update to this article with questions and answers by the author.

Questions on "Why We Must Stay in Iraq"

Transcript from an online chat with VDH in "Outlook"

Washington Post

September 10, 2005

Knoxville, Tenn.: The Middle East already has a democracy, its called Turkey, which shares borders with Syria and Iran. Arabs also have full access to U.S./European democracy thanks to satellite T.V. like Al Jazeera etc. What is so special about the paper democracy being created in Iraq?

Victor Davis Hanson: Questions like these are emblematic of the problem in even discussing Iraq ? what is so special. Turkey is a long U.S. ally, member of NATO, and a post-Attaturk society. Iraq is Arabic, replete with a terrible history of oppression, a former U.S. and Western enemy, and under the sway of Islamic Wahhabis, who are no longer bribed off by Saddam. So it is an enormous risk, and undertaking, and it has the potential to change the entire debate on the Middle East and improve the lives of millions, as we see from the reform going on in Egypt, the Gulf, and LebanonMadison, Ind.b>: With so many wise, informed experts drawing parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, why do you believe otherwise?Victor Davis Hanson:b> I suppose because I look at situation empirically and don't really care whether Bush or Clinton or their successors are involved. Iraq is supposedly what the 1960's called for ? principle in U.S. foreign policy of supporting democratic reform rather than the old order and autocracy. And as I look at Vietnam in the last 30 years, the millions of boat people, incarcerated, the Cambodia holocaust, and systematic oppression, I see our loss there not as inevitable but as an unfortunate product of the tragic events of 1974-5 when we left after stabilizing the soutWashington, D.C.: As a graduate student in history at the American University here in Washington, D.C., I wonder how you as a historian can rationalize your methodology which argues that Iraq is not analogous to Vietnam? How can you premise your entire argument for American involvement in Iraq on lies: Lies of weapons of mass destruction, and lies of links to Al Qaeda? Just as our involvement in Vietnam was based on the failed paradigm of the "Domino Theory," our involvement in Iraq is based on a failed oil based Middle East policy dating back to 1950's and the ouster of Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq by the CIA. The United States and this administration has abused its power, and it is showing in the streets of New OrleanVictor Davis Hanson: Let me address "lies" for a second. To believe that the U.S. deliberately lied about WMD rather than mistakenly privileged that casus belli over the other 27 writs for war passed by the U.S. Senate, one would have to believe that the Clinton administration and most Democratic senators were lying all during the 1980's and during the debate over their war resolution in October 2002, that European intelligence was lying, that Arab governments who warned about tactical use of WMD were lying, and that U.S. commanders in the field who ordered their soldiers to wear protective gear in unbearable heat were part of the lie as well as was their own independent military intelligence. So no, I think it is peril to keep chanting "lies" and leads nowhere. It reminds me of what they said about Lincoln when he signed the Emancipation Declaration and supposedly introduced a new reason for the war other than saving the Uni

Toronto, Canada: If the Bush regime cannot handle the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina what reason is there to suppose that they know what they are doing in IraVictor Davis Hanson: You tip your hand by the use of "regime" to refer to an elected government. You seek perfection and thus give no exemption to human frailty and thus think we cannot be good. Katrina was the worst natural disaster in our history; the Mayor did not order an evacuation when asked to by the federal government, the Governor is paralyzed into inaction. And yet, the federal government is finally mobilizing, but given a storm, levee break, and a corrupt state political culture it is difficult. As far as Iraq ? we have made several mistakes from not securing the borders, to Paul Bremmer?s too frequent public exposure, to disbanding the army, and on and on. And yet what startles is that here we are with a constitutional debate, Saddam scheduled for a judicial trial not a firing squad, and millions of voters in Iraq of all places. If you read what Arab newspapers are saying about the U.S., it is not anymore than we support corrupt dictators nor are intellectuals berating us for cynicism, but now it is our misplaced idealism and naivet? that riles them ? and that itself says qu

Harrisburg, Pa.:g, Pa.: People in Iraq and throughout what used to be Arabia have a long history of resisting the intervention of military forces from foreign nations. Wouldn't we be better, as a general strategy, spreading democracy and mutual understanding better through economic development assistance, trade, and diplomacy than attempting to force it through military o

Victor Davis Hanson:Hanson: In an ideal world, yes. But after the 1991 Gulf War, 11 years of occupying his air space, four attacks on regional neighbors, genocide, and legitimate worries over his past record of doing everything from harboring the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, providing shelter for Afghan terrorists like Zarqawi, and sending Iraq intelligence agents to promote terrorism, the decision was made to remove him, and second, not to leave as in the past, but do the dirty work of staying on, reconstructing the country and trying to offer a real chance at freedom. I note I was not in favor of the 1998 letter to President Clinton by some asking for Saddam's removal. I supported the war only in the context of a post-September Arlington, Va.:n, Va.: Good Morning. I enjoy your columns on National Review Online very much. I am wondering if you would give us your assessment of the performance of the military leadership in Iraq. Since you just brought up Lincoln, I am reminded that Lincoln repeatedly replaced his generals (McClellan, Hooker, Burnside, Meade, etc.) until he reached Grant. President Bush has been very loyal to the leaders serving under him. However, I have recently heard calls in various quarters for a shakeup in the military leadership. For example, even some of the ex-military officers who support the war and comment on it for Fox News are calling for such a shakeup. What are your

Victor Davis Hanson: anson: Well, if you look carefully, there have been shakeups from our original proconsul Garner to a number of high-ranking generals who were reassigned. But in World War II, we in fact rarely removed generals, even mediocre ones like Mark Clark. George Marshall made horrendous blunders, so did Admiral King. But rightly so, it was felt such recriminations could wait. Lincoln never removed Halleck, his army chief of staff. Grant was not sacked after Shiloh, nor even Sherman after his crack-up. We have the right people, we have the right strategy, we are seeing results, but we need patience. Things are tipping our way, and we can see the angst and confusion in the Arab world among its dictators, from Assad to Khadafi who don't know quite what to make of this new U.S. Examine carefully Secretary Rice's speech in Cairo on June 20th. It was a revolutionary moment: in the middle of an American subsidized autocracy, she admitted past U.S. fault, urged change, and warned the U.S. is not going to abide with the status quo any longer. Yet few noted other than a few realists who were angry and leftist who turned her idealism into

Washington, D.C.:, D.C.: Your response to the question regarding "lies" is reminiscent of the Bush administration's calling those who disagree with the war "unpatriotic." Please address the poster's contention, namely, that a flawed methodology leads to flawed results, and in this case, a flawed policy. No Lincoln metaphorsVictor Davis Hanson:Hanson: Here we go again. I called no one unpatriotic at all. I did point out how the allegation that mistaken intelligence could hardly be deliberate lies, given the numerous foreign and domestic, friendly and hostile, states that came to the same independent conclusion. You did not read either what I wrote: there were 20 some reasons the Senate voted to authorize war with Saddam. Read what John Kerry and Hillary Clinton said on the floor of the Senate. All were legitimate. So the policy of removing a dictator with a long history of war with the U.S., attacking regional states, genocide, and state-sponsored terror was rational, not flawed in a post-September-11 world. And despite our lapses we are seeing the dividends in both the Middle East in general and insSilver Spring, Md.:g, Md.: I agree that Iraq is not a surrogate theater of Cold War like Vietnam. However, for some of us, our lack of support for the Iraq war is that the Bush administration never provided an honest, helpful view of why Iraq should be invaded while allowing the really dangerous murderers and 8th century dreamers to continue. We have had very weak follow through in Afghanistan, have let Pakistan's leaders lie to us and benefit by very leaky borders, and let oil rich Saudi Arabia export Islamic hatred all over the world, including Europe. I wish you could make a stronger case for squandering American lives and resources on a "humanitarian" effort in Iraq rather than really attending to a war on terror that has always seemed centered in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan ? Victor Davis Hanson:s Hanson: Look. We are approaching year four in the war. No further September 11 like attacks have transpired, although that is not true of the U.K., Spain, Turkey, and elsewhere. Al Qaeda is scattered. The Taliban are gone. Public support for bin Laden is weaker and he is polling below his September 11 popularity. Pakistan's nuclear antics are exposed. Libya's too. Syria is out of Lebanon where elections are in process. The U.N.'s Oil-for-Food extortion is over. The Gulf is in foment as elections in Kuwait proceed. Egypt is dealing with the same dilemma. All this is dangerous and risky and costly in lives, but we are seeing the results in a safer U.S., and a world that is coming to the consensus that for all the hysteria, the U.S. really is on the right side of history. As I said, India, Japan, Russia, China do not see us as French and Germans do. And I note both Shroeder and Chirac who whipped us such anti-American hysteria are on their last legs as well. So we need patience in these dark hours, just as we could not see the end of the war during the bulge Va.:

Va.: Were you or other people from the Hoover Institution in Iraq the last 2-3 years? What was your Victor Davis Hanson:s Hanson: Many were. I was in the West Bank and will go to North Africa this fall. Their impressions are mixed. Larry Diamond supported the war, but left Iraq in disgust after a few months. Others tell a different tale. We have a number of military fellows who are still confident. I met another officer recently at Hoover who pleaded to give the military more time, that they can feel the Iraqi security forces gaining confidence and are hitting on the right strategy of creating large zones of normality. The Sunnis ? no oil, a minority population, a history of Wahhabi support that turns off the world, collaboration with Saddam ? are not in a position of strength, and have few options other than votiChicago, Ill.:hicago, Ill.: It is great to have all this intellectual analysis, but the reality is we are losing. You can stipulate and postulate all you want Mr. Historian, but the reality on the ground is we are losing. The reforms you cite in Egypt and Lebanon are laughable and reveal you as a partisan ? there are absolutely no reforms taking place in Egypt except for the lip service the President there pays and Lebanon is as dangerous as ever. My question to you is how long will this war go on and what conVictor Davis Hanson:r Davis Hanson: Again, the sarcasm leads nowhere and tires. We are not losing. Two-thirds of Iraq are secure. The Sunni clerics for the first time are urging their people to vote, though to do so is in defiance of the death sentence announced by the al Qaedists. Anyone who thinks Syrians out of Lebanon, under investigation for assassination by of all people the U.N., and Egyptians writing things in newspapers impossible a few months ago is nothing is simply not looking at the facts.

Winning? Very simple. When the constitution is ratified, an Iraqi army can keep the peace, and the terrorists find no sanctuary. We are seeing such a model in Afghanistan, which we should remember was liberated 18 moVienna, Va.:Vienna, Va.: In the context of 9/11, would it be even more legitimate to attack Saudi Arabia? You seemed to have some problems even with placing this very simple question not to sVictor Davis Hanson:r Davis Hanson: I don't think so for a variety of reason, and I speak as one who in 2002 wrote a widely criticized article entitled "The Saudis, Our Enemy."

First, we have radically cut relations back, most notably by withdrawing all 10,000 troops (something the Clinton administration never did). We are doing things already that are driving them crazy, from promoting democracy next door in Iraq, to encouraging reform in the other Gulf states, to pulling away from the Mubarak autocracy in Egypt, the center of Arab nationalism, to monitoring and dismantling Wahhabi charities, and finally to restricting visas and entry into the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. So the old corrupt calculus is ending. Can we do more? Maybe if we get an energy policy of conservation and more exploration, but even then we learn that China, India, and Europe have no scruples, far less than ours, in cozying up to the largest reserves of

Stewartstown, Pa.:wartstown, Pa.: It seems to be that a central point has been left out of discussions about Iraq. The U.S. doesn't have a right to attack other nations and remove their leaders just because it thinks that doing so will make the world "better off." Other nations have a right to their governments ? even if those governments are nondemocratic. The U.S. ? and any other country ? only has a right to attack a nation that poses a clear and direct threat. Iraq was not endangering the United States. Even if Saddam had WMDs, why would he use them against the U.S.? The Soviet Union was an enemy of the U.S., and had WMDs, but didn't use them.

Why do the rights of other nations never seem to be considered in U.S. foreign policy? If America can invade whatever nation it likes, why can't Germany, Japan, Victor Davis Hanson:>Victor Davis Hanson: You too did not read carefully my other posts. Read the casus belli that the Senate passed. It included violations of the 1991 armistice accords, genocide, assassination attempts on a former U.S. president, links with terrorism (their writ not mine), etc. And read too the critique at the time: in October 2002 it was that Saddam did not have WMD (even the Left believed that), but that the Bush administration was using a "shot gun" approach and trying to throw too many reasons on the wall to see which would stick. The worry over WMD was not that he would attack the U.S. with Iraqi forces but twofold: 1) he had used them in the modern age, so had no moral qualms, 2) he was a host to terrorists, among them one who had tried to blow up the WorlChantilly, Va.:

Chantilly, Va.: Dr. Hanson, I appreciated your article in The Post although I was quite surprised to see The Post actually publish one of your articles. One of your themes is that a democratic led people who choose to take action are a formidable fighting force. Your recount of Alexander's army retreating across the know world and surviving comes to mind. Do you believe that the Iraqis have it in them to develop the means for that kind of tenacity inVictor Davis Hanson:>Victor Davis Hanson: Yes, if we stay on and help them. They are already improving, and almost the only Arabs in the Middle East daily risking their lives to kill al Qaeda terrorists to preserve democracy. Their only fear is that the U.S., Vietnam-like, will leave, and their fragile institutions will be no match for hard cadres of killers, who are emissaries of states who want Iraq to fail. I'm not naive; it won't be New England. But Kurdistan shows neither Islam nor the Middle East is in

Arlington, Va.:.

Arlington, Va.: I agree that we need to stay in Iraq until the job is done. The stakes are enormous. The reason was stated by Mr Paul Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore (comparing North Korea to Iraq).

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.&quotVictor Davis Hanson:>Victor Davis Hanson: Not entirely. If we speak of realism only: North Korea may have nukes; no one thought Saddam had and thus the war would not go nuclear. Second, it is not just our oil. We are not the prime importers of Middle Eastern oil, but ourselves the world's second largest producer. Europe, China, and India, and indeed the entire present global system needs a stable supply from Iraq and its neighbors. Third, for all the horror of North Korea it is not involved in the present Islamic terrorist movement. Iraq had ties with al Qaeda in Kurdistan and was involved in pre-September terrorists aid, and its autocracy was emblematic of the failure that in that region leads to Islamicism. 75% of all Koreans live under a democracy ? in thCharlotte, N.C.: .

Charlotte, N.C.: I read today that we bombed two bridges inside Iraq. Don't you generally blow your own bridges in retreat? What does that say about or efforts in Iraq, that we cannot secuVictor Davis Hanson: b>Victor Davis Hanson: Actually, you just as often do not blow bridges in retreat, unless you plan on never returning. As I understand it, we blew them to cut off the insurgents not escape from them. In this war there are no fronts, neither London, New York, or Madrid. Victory comes not just from safe territory, but from defeating and discrediting an ideology, and thatPeshawar, Pakistan:

Peshawar, Pakistan: Mr Hanson, having a paper constitution and paper government as well as barely capable security services is not a definition of success or winning. Iraqis are still living in misery with violence, unemployment, poor infrastructure etc. You can crow all you want about the constitution and elections, but they do nothing to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis. I would also dispute your answer to the questioner from Silver Springs. What happens in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Egypt etc is independent of Iraq and has its own pace and dynamics.

Why are neoconservatives like you so relucta

Victor Davis Hanson: >

Victor Davis Hanson: 1. Iraqis have lived with misery since the onset of Saddam. But the government is not now engaged in systematic terror, genocide, or murder. And that is a big difference. I didn't crow about anything but repeatedly stressed the tragedy and difficulty. Elections are already making a difference; it depends on who you are; ask a Kurd or Shiite if they wish to return to the 1980's or 1990's. What happens around Iraq is of vital importance, and is dependent in no small degree on Iraqi failure or success.

All neoconservative means is "new conservative". On this policy I support the President though I am a Democrat; on matters of open borders, agriculture subsidies, deficit spending, and other issues I do not. I supported Clinton's effort in the Balkans at a time when conservatives suc

Phoenix, Ariz.: t.

Phoenix, Ariz.: To suggest that "even the Left" believed Iraq had WMD is a bit misleading. Democratic politicians went along with the U.S. party line. People in other countries were not so sure. The lists of misdeed by Iraq you list, while impressive, could easily be listed for Israel who we know has WMD. Can Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Egypt just launch war on Israel because they may feel threatened? And you never answered a basic question ? how long will this enterprise take and how many lives lost. Its funny how the most strident supporters of this war sit in academia, government or corporate offices ? Victor Davis Hanson:n.

Victor Davis Hanson: This is an absurd letter. We don't worry about WMD in France or the U.K. or Israel, because they are under control of elected and constitutional governments. That is why we worry less about Russia's arsenal, even with its present government, than during the Soviet era. No one knows how long any war will last; but in terms of past ones from WWI to Vietnam, we have waged a war that has tried to minimized the costs in lives. I have not gained off the war, and wrote far more books before than after September 11. Your comment reminds of my farming neighbors who when we all were going broke said no one had the right to comment on agricultural policy unless they grew food. I added that according to his crazy logic ? nor eat it either unless they weSt Brieuc, France: long.

St Brieuc, France: Before we go round the world removing tyrannical dictators (surely a laudable aim in theory) maybe we should first start by not putting them in place, then propping them up? Iraq is a case in point. Noone punished him for gassing the Kurds, and western governments practically ignored it, because he was an ally then.

There's even some indication that he (mistakenly, I assume) believed he was being given the go-ahead to invade Kuwait at a meeting with the U.S. ambassador just before the invasion.

What is the U.S. government doing to rectify this disastrous policy which is the root cause of the existence of Victor Davis Hanson:ers?

Victor Davis Hanson: I agree with some of what you say. But up to 1991, the U.S. had supplied Saddam with 2% of his arsenal, your country far more. And we, unlike you, had no oil concessions in Iraq after 1991. It was a terrible mistake in March 1991 to encourage revolt and then let him butcher the revolters, and with air power no less.

I don't think April Gillespe gave the go ahead as commonly thought, and that invasion was not condoned by the US as we saw.

We have had a long policy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend well before the Iran-Iraqi war ? witness the 400,000 trucks given to a mass murdering Stalin to defeat Hitler. But lately that realpolitik has lost its resonance, and even "allies" like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who say "the alternative to us is even worse" aMinneapolis, Minn. shrill.

Minneapolis, Minn.: I'm confused by one of your thoughts: "No further September 11 like attacks have transpired, although that is not true of the U.K., Spain, Turkey, and elsewhere." The U.K. was and is one of the U.S.'s strongest ally in this war. If Iraq was indeed linked to Al Qaeda and this war is legitimate, why was Britain Victor Davis Hanson:#39;t?

Victor Davis Hanson: Because the U.S. has made enormous strides in domestic security and immigration changes. U.S. Muslims do not poll 25-35% in favor of attacking their own country of residence and that makes it hard to find a good host community to operate within. That being said, after 4 years the U.K. has only been hit twice, and may not be again, given its U.S.-l

Landover, Md.: discussion.

Landover, Md.: Your comment that you supported Madeline Albright's adventure in the Balkans reveals much. When someone makes a comment like "what good is a world class military if you don't use it", it reveals the soul of an Interventionist. Things are to be messed with.

They should spend some time getting shot at or blown up rather than shedding crocodile tears for "poor Iraqis". The military exists to protect our security and our

Victor Davis Hanson:ither.

Victor Davis Hanson: I was not an interventionist per se. It was only when after 10 years of genocide and the urgent request of our NATO allies that we intervened late. And as I said I did not support a 1998 letter to Clinton advocating preemption in Iraq. But after 9-11 fighting overseas made a lot of sense as did rejecting the cruise missile/writ policy of past retribution. We have still lost only 65% of those killed on the first day of this war, and that is a testament to our

Bristow, Va.:our soldiers.

Bristow, Va.: Sir, in the concluding paragraph of your editorial you said:

"Some of whom we fight are international terrorists who hate the fact that in our way of life we can choose who will govern us, the method in which we worship, and the myriad other freedoms we have. We are fighting so that these fanatical terrorists do not enter the sacred ground of our country and we have to fight them in our own backyard."

Your concluding paragraph seems self-contradictory to me. The very fact that the terrorists (Al-Qaeda) are international in scope implies that no matter where we fight them in the world this will not prevent them from attacking us here in at home. This statement is completely consistent with numerous statements by President Bush indicating that another attack within the U.S. should be expected.

Indeed, it appears that the movement inspired by Bin Laden is gaining strength. A researcher in Israel has documented the number of Jihadists Websites on the Internet over time. From fewer than a dozen when President Bush came to office to almost 5000 as of a few months ago. This empirical evidence would seem to imply that our own policies are furthering the war plans of our enemies, i.e. the lifeblood of Al-Qaeda is recruitment. Could Iraq actuVictor Davis Hanson: rity?

Victor Davis Hanson: You too do not read what is written. I quoted that from a wounded officer who gave those remarks as an eulogy. I, like the Col. quoted, believe that the U.S. has the better ability to destroy jihadists worldwide than they do to attack the U.S. Thank you all for your questions. I tried to answer as many as quickly and honestly as possible. And while no one seemed to agree with much of what I wrote, I thank you for your courtesy and the spirit of you criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'll counter your copy and paste with my copy and paste....

What Victor Davis Hanson Does to History

Bard of the Booboisie

By WERTHER*

Let us stipulate straightaway: Victor Davis Hanson is the worst historian since Parson Weems. To picture anything remotely as bad as his pseudo-historical novels and propaganda tracts, one would have to imagine an account of the fiscal policies of the Bush administration authored by Paris Hilton.

Mr. Hanson, Cal State Fresno's contribution to human letters, is the favorite historian of the administration, the Naval War College, and other groves of disinterested research. His academic niche is to drag the Peloponnesian War into every contemporary foreign policy controversy and thereby justify whatever course of action our magistrates have taken. One suspects that if the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute were suddenly seized by the notion to invade Patagonia, Mr. Hanson would be quoting Pericles in support.

Once we strip away all the classical Greek fustian, it becomes clear that the name of his game is to take every erroneous conventional wisdom, cliche, faulty generalization, and common-man imbecility, and elevate them to a catechism. In this process, he showcases a technique beloved of pseudo-conservatives stuck at the Sean Hannity level of debate: he swallows whatever quasi-historical balderdash serves the interest of those in power, announces it with an air of surprised discovery, and then congratulates himself on his boldness in telling truth to power.

This is a surprising and rather hypocritical pose by someone who reportedly sups at the table of Vice President Cheney. For Mr. Hanson is one of a long and undistinguished line of personalities stretching back into the abysm of time: the tribal bard, the court historian, the academic recipient of the Lenin Prize. Compared to him, politically connected scribes such as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., resemble Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Like a Hellcat aviator at the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, one hardly knows where to fire first, so target-rich is the Hanson opus.....

Con't at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/werther09072005.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your never going to win a war in iraq eventually your going to get fed up of getting no where and spending money on a war you cannot win sooner or later your going be evacuating your remaining troops in iraq on a mass scale with your tails between your legs.

586481450[/snapback]

Who's talking about winning?At this point,it's not even about winning,it's about getting the job done and doing it right,then,getting out of there.Unfortunately,we have to stay and finish what was started. Alot of things have been done and it would be wrong to pull out now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's talking about winning?At this point,it's not even about winning,it's about getting the job done and doing it right,then,getting out of there.Unfortunately,we have to stay and finish what was started. Alot of things have been done and it would be wrong to pull out now.

586515915[/snapback]

Getting the job done..... Doing it right...... Finish what we started......

What a bunch of claptrap. Can you be any more vague with your "talking points"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people are crazy. Eventually we'll have to deal with it because they don't care about life. They claim to fight the "infidel invader" but all I see is them blowing up more and more of their own people. One would think that given their motive they would be trying this on westerners. They'll kill like 2 American soldiers and then bomb hundreds of their own. The sooner they die the better. If only they didn't take anyone else with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing of that war, is that Sunni iraqis are killing Shiete Iraqis (and they are both eventually muslim, like the protestant and the catholics).... and for what...

america is not to blame on this, but the iraqis them selfs.

the sunni minority want to rule once more... with the depression of the shiete majority.

truly sad thing what happening nowdays in iraq, but it can not be called genocide, more like a civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing of that war, is that Sunni iraqis are killing Shiete Iraqis (and they are both eventually muslim, like the protestant and the catholics).... and for what...

america is not to blame on this, but the iraqis them selfs.

the sunni minority want to rule once more... with the depression of the shiete majority.

truly sad thing what happening nowdays in iraq, but it can not be called genocide, more like a civil war.

586528762[/snapback]

i call it brain damage on the part of the insurgents.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing of that war, is that Sunni iraqis are killing Shiete Iraqis (and they are both eventually muslim, like the protestant and the catholics).... and for what...

america is not to blame on this, but the iraqis them selfs.

the sunni minority want to rule once more... with the depression of the shiete majority.

truly sad thing what happening nowdays in iraq, but it can not be called genocide, more like a civil war.

586528762[/snapback]

Like Valhalla_rk said, I dont think this qualifies as genocide by definition. There's gotta be a -cide word for it, but I cant recall...

And ummm, the thing about Shi'ite/Sunni<=>Protestant Catholic. Im *pretty* sure the Catholics and the Protestants have taken a few swings at each-other in the past.

People have always, and will always kill eachother over religion. You can try to stop it, and you very-well may stop it for a period of time, but the tensions rise, and then they go at it again. Imo, quit wasting your time and other peoples lives trying to keep two groups that hate each-others guts off eachothers throats and let them settle this the old-fashioned way. Its not like the world couldnt spare a few thousand people here and there anyways...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no right word for it...and that is the problem...Its not ethnic cleansing, its not really geonocide...its just...daily slaughtering of neibours...so, the way I see it, its like a civil war within a real war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word for it is terrorism. Yes I know the word can be overused, but that's what this is. It's not really genocide or ethnic cleasnsingbecause they're just bombing everyone although Sunnis are bearing the brunt of it. Hiding in the dark, bombing civilians to push them into fear and force their own objectives...sounds a lot like terrorism to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo, quit wasting your time and other peoples lives trying to keep two groups that hate each-others guts off eachothers throats and let them settle this the old-fashioned way.  Its not like the world couldnt spare a few thousand people here and there anyways...

586528841[/snapback]

See I'd really like it if it were that simple, but it isn't. Just because your run of the mill Sunni has beef with the run of the mill Shiia does mean every Sunni and Shiia is involved. Clearly letting school children be blown up because these people can't get their crap together just isn't an option.

It isn't as if it is two drunks fighting at a bar, how are only going to hurt themselves. far too many innocent people are at risk because of these jerks. If everybody who didn't want to be involved could be spared, I'd agree with you 100% though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think because of the attention the hurricane damage is getting that the body count will have to be much higher. Some people are saying that al qaeda in iraq declared war on the shiite muslims and set off carbombs over the past few days to try to get people's attention again. The government won't even tell us what the civilian death toll is because they say that they don't keep track of it. Why the hell don't they!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think because of the attention the hurricane damage is getting that the body count will have to be much higher.  Some people are saying that al qaeda in iraq declared war on the shiite muslims and set off carbombs over the past few days to try to get people's attention again.  The government won't even tell us what the civilian death toll is because they say that they don't keep track of it.  Why the hell don't they!?

586532832[/snapback]

This is true...The insurgents did declare war on shiite muslims, the neformed government and all its supporters. The US gov is keeping track of the death toll but the reason they don't want to publish it is obvious...they don't need war skeptics to use this toll against them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's not as simple as X amount of people die so lets pull out.

Whther you believe in the intial cause for the war is a valid argument but no longer relevant at this point in time.

Now we have to decide what we want as an outcome. that so many have died is unfortunate, there no other way to say it, it just isn't a good thing, however what would be worse than all those deaths would be if they all died for nothing. If we left today would there be any true stability in Iraq? Even looking at it with pure hatred for the US, to try and see the other point of view, I still find it hard for anyone to think that once we leave that Iraq will magically pick itself up, get rid of these people who are killing thier own and form some kind of remotely decent country out of it.

There are things worse than death, and in my opinion a decent outcome will help bring meaning to an otherwise meaningless death. While that's no consolation to anyone who's lost someone, I know I'd rather my death have some kind of ultimate meaning, if I lived in Iraq and was bombed because someone didn't like the idea of the new government while I was out buying fruit or some **** and then the next day we left and Iraq just fell into chaos I'd be ****ed to no avail, albiet still dead I guess.

So what would be sadder than 200,000 deaths would be 200,000 deaths with no good outcome because of it. We started it and I think we have a responsibility to finish it. Plus in reality it doesn't matter which decision we take veeryone will hate us for it, of course we do bare the major blunt of responsibility since we were the aggressors, but if we stay people will be ****ed because people are dying, if we live and things go to **** people will be ****ed because wew will have destroyed thier government and infrastructure and left them worse of then they were, so in the terms of appeasing people we're screwed either way. So the only thing left to do is follow through and not let the fallen's deaths be in vain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.