A brilliant yet sadly naive effort by National Review's own Victor Davis Hanson:):):)...
...this week...
Our Strange War...
I have to say that Victor Davis Hanson is DEFINITELY earning his stripes, these days:):):)...his last two articles for NR have been FABULOUS:):):)...
This article on the war is REALLY REMARKABLE in its very accurate and fair description, I believe, of the neuroses of both Arab societies and all-too-self-loathing liberals in the West not yet clear that we are in a war with a desperate and ingeninuous enemy:):):)...
Victor's description of the denial in both liberal and Arab and Muslim camps is INREDIBLE, really:):):):):)...
And some of his best work that I've ever read:):):)...
Victor is definitely proving himself to be a writer who can tackle difficult policy questions as well as military questions:):):):):)...which is a BRILLIANT progression from his EQUALLY BRILLIANT tactically-focussed military histories:):):)...
VERY IMPRESSIVE:):):):):):):)...
Now...
Here's the question that Victor and I differ on, at this point...
Victor ends his REALLY QUITE POWERFUL essay as follows...
"Which choice do we make now?...
Where will it all end? Our choices are threefold.
We can wind down — essentially the position of the mainstream Left — and return to a pre-September 11 situation, treating Islamism as a criminal justice matter or deserving of an occasional cruise missile. This, in my view, would be a disaster and guarantee another mass attack.
Or we can continue to pacify Iraq. We then wait and see whether the ripples from the January elections — without further overt American military action into other countries — bring democracy to Lebanon, Egypt, the Gulf States, and eventually the entire Middle East. This is the apparent present policy of the administration: talking up democracy, not provoking any who might disagree. It may well work, though such patience requires constant articulation to the American people that we are really in a deadly war when it doesn’t seem to everyone that we are.
Or we can press on. We apprise Syria to cease all sanctuary for al Qaedists and Iran to give up its nuclear program — or face surgical and punitive American air strikes. Such escalation is embraced by few, although many acknowledge that we may soon have few choices other than just that. But for now we can sum up the American plans as hoping that democracy spreads faster than Islamism, and thus responsible government will appear to ensure terrorists and WMD disappear.
The above, of course, is what we plan, but gives no consideration to the intent of the enemy. As we speak, he desperately searches for new strategies to ward off defeat as jihad seems more likely to lead to ruin than the return of the caliphate.
For now Islamic fascist strategy is to make such horrific news in Iraq that America throws up its hands and sighs, “These crazy people simply aren’t worth it,” goes home, snoozes — and thus becomes ripe for another September 11."
...also...for anyone interested:)...Victor's credentials...
"Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com"
So the choices Victor proposes, to sum up are:
1) Quit
2) Press on and try to appease Iraqis (and terrorists, presumably) peacefully...or...
3) Win the war and press on to Syria as a next step:)...
Pretty simple, don't you think?:):):)...
Either we appease:):):):):)...or we win:):):):):)...
That's I love this guy:):):):):)...
He just has a knack for taking the politically complicated:):):):):)...
And reducing it to its lowest common denominator:):):):):)...
And I mean that statement in ALL of its possible connotations:):):):):)...
Victor is CLEARLY in good faith:):):)...
AND...he is overlooking several important options, out of his zeal to defend his preference:):):)...
Most importantly:):):)...
A million variations on one combined with soft power suggestions mentioned at length in Victor's BRILLIANT essay:):):)...WITHOUT APPEASING A GODDAMN SOUL:):):):):):):)...
And here's where Mr. Hanson's lack of any seriously demonstrated international policy understanding beyond warfare become a pretty serious handicap for him:):):)...
The Bush Administration, currently, is engaged in a two-pronged international policy effort -- absent any of the promised changes detailed in the previous Washington Post article:):):)...
First...to win the war in Iraq:):):)...
And second...to prevent the escalation of North Korea's and Iran's nuclear threat via diplomacy and negotiations:):):)...
So...
Here's the problem with Victor's preferred solution of bombing Syria to kingdom come:):):)...
Attacking Syria becomes a VERY CREDIBLE threat to North Korea and Iran that they will be attacked by the United States:):):)...
Iran and North Korea who have already, remember, INCREASED their ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons post-Iraq War, are now give ADDITIONAL incentive to do the same 3, 4, 5, 10, 100 fold, as long as their threatened:):):)...
So:):):)...
The option by the Administration at this point is either...
1) Remaining oblivious to current or then geopolitical realities...MUCH more seriously undermining U.S. credibility in international relationships -- especially with democratic and its strongest democratic partners:):):)...inviting a charge of war crimes to be brought on by Amnesty International, the United Nations and whichever other liberal, conservative (remember...conservatives INTERNATIONALLY, generally, feel MUCH DIFFERENT about this war than conservatives in America:):):))independent, and unaffiliated groups choose to engage in such a crusade (which...by my lights...would be an EMINENT THREAT, to use the President's language:):):)...but with a guarantee of a much more certain reality, sadly, for the President and the world:):):)...and trying to fight a two-front -- and if Iran and North Korea get the bomb, a three or four or more front war involving nuclear warheads pointed at Americans as well as at Syrians, Iraqis, North Koreans, Iranians, and don't forget about al Queda and other terrorist groups:):):)...especially if the U.S. ever starts LOSING that war, in which case:):):)...these folks are VERY SERIOUSLY likely to gang up on the ol' U.S. of A.:):):)...and do some SERIOUS CIVILIAN DAMAGE:):):):):):):)...
And...in the meantime:):):)...
Still having the same but even more ESCALATED violence, nuclear threats, and anti-American hate supporting terrorists' and the ugly regimes' causes world-wide:):):)...
...or...
The slightly more SANE idea:):):):):)...
Which...at the point at which this blunder will have been made:):):):):)...
2) Apologizing our hearts out and hoping the God that the above scenario does not unfold ANYWAY:):):):):):):)...
Does anyone see why it is so foolish to study war without seriously studying policy:):):):):):):)...
And why you're probably better off studying with a seroius international policy thinker with a defense department background, like Joe Nye, then a brilliant and yet utterly naive fool like Victor Davis Hanson:):):):):)...
What Victor just can't or won't or whatever look at:):):):):)...
Is where things are GETTING WORSE IN THE WORLD, GEOPOLITICALLY, YOU GODDAMNED FOOL:):):):):):):)...
And the CORRELATION between our ACTIONS IN IRAQ and an INCREASED NUCLEAR THREAT FROM IRAN AND NORTH KOREA:):):):):):):)...
Yeah, yeah, yeah:):):):):)...
What are all the conservative excuses for this situation, again?:):):):):)...
Everyone in chorus:):):):):)...
Appeasement by liberals...
The anti-war movement...
Anti-Americanism...
John Kerry...
Bill Clinton...
Jacques Chirac (the CONSERVATIVE LEADER in France:):):), Gerhard Schroeder (the FREE MARKETS liberal/socialist leader in Germany), and that UGLY CABAL OF CORRUPTION AND GREED known as the United Nations:):):):):):):)...
International opinion against the war and in league with the terrorists to kill Americans:):):):):)...
And MUCH, MUCH MORE:):):):):):):)...
The gig is up, Victor:):):):):)...
There's a reason by Mr. Bush is consulting with your BETTER:):):)...the more liberal and far more thoughtful military historian, James McPherson:):):):):)...
You're lead-up analysis, here, is BEAUTIFUL, Victor:):):):):)...
But your conclusion is kind of weak, given your total obliviousness to current geopolitical realities:):):):):):):)...
"But...but," Victor will protest:):):)...
"What liberal appeasement will sucker the war effort and we'll all die when our complacency lets the terrorists strike unannounced":):):):):):):)...
HEY MORON:):):):):):):)...
How in the world will fighting a three, possibly, four, possibly five front war with NO SERIOUS ASSISTANCE OR PARTNERSHIP from NATO or democratic or non or less democratic countries ENHANCE OUR PROBABILITY OF STOPPING A TERRORIST ATTACK?:):):):):):):)...
Victor...there is a reason why you need to stick to history and not to giving international policy expertise:):):):):):):)...
Because you are one of most NAIVE military historians that I have ever encountered in my entire life:):):):):):):)...
But the rest of your article was REALLY TERRIFIC, Victor:):):):):):):)...
Thanks for the GREAT READ:):):):):):):)...
But maybe take up golf or something in your spare time, Victor:):):):):)...and leave the SERIOUS MILITARY AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY ADVISING to people who KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING:):):):):):):)...
Love,
Ben
