Victor Davis Hanson: Response to Readership 6/25/04

Q: Can Islam coexist with the West and its modernity or will events result in a war that may, in the end, provoke a nuclear retaliation and a third world war, a war more terrible and destructive than has ever been known?

Hanson: I surely hope not. And in fact I don’t think it will happen that way. …

Q: Why do you think the U.S. failed to come to Israel's defense and veto the U.N. Security Council's May 19 resolution condemning Israel for its actions in Gaza?

Hanson: The U.S. apparently has this tacit relationship with Israel that goes something like this: …

Q: I have no question that America will achieve its military goals in Iraq. My fear is that the liberal press will somehow make it a defeat. If this is our most serious enemy, how do we defeat it? Should changing public opinion be a military objective? Should national defense also include the weapons to achieve a national will to stay the course?

Hanson: Iraq is now a symbol for the Left, divorced from reason and logic, perhaps like Vietnam circa 1971. …

Q: Do you believe that we are not at the 'mission accomplished' level like the sign on the boat announced LAST May? One might assume from your appeal to shock and awe that you might agree that we should just nuke Najaf. Is this the message you intend to send about Iraq? That would be pretty shocking and awful; although I am not sure it would play well in the popularity polls.

Hanson: Be careful of rhetorical excesses like "nuke Najaf" when some suggest that in war you cannot promise to arrest or kill Mr. Sadr only to back off and invite him to join the political process, or march off and surround Fallujah only on the eve of victory to invite in former Baathists to occupy it. …

Victor Davis Hanson Ping !

Can Islam coexist with the West and its modernity or will events result in a war that may, in the end, provoke a nuclear retaliation and a third world war, a war more terrible and destructive than has ever been known?
I surely hope not. And in fact I don’t think it will happen that way. Many of the Gulf States live with and thrive on modernism, and seem to have accommodated Islam with it, albeit with a strong dose of anti-Semitism and convenient anti-Western parlor talk.
The danger, as I see it, is that the terrorists still do not fully comprehend their peril or the strong visceral hatred of them that they have earned in the West. Thus countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Iran that think this is all a funny game discount the real peril that they are in. If there is another 9-11 and if the terrorists are shown to have originated from a Middle East country that knowingly harbored them, then the American reaction really would be terrible. It would have to be— if we were to continue our civilization. Ask yourself what we would have done had the Soviets sent a one-kiloton cruise missile into the World Trade Center. As I gauge US public opinion, it is in a holding pattern, watching events in Iraq. It simmers over the beheadings; it is tired of seeing the Arab Street; it has no patience with the Arab talking heads who assure us that we are to blame, but for the moment it is not ready to unleash its full power. So let us hope that nuts like the mullahs, Mr. Assad, the Pakistani border al Qaedists, or Hezbollah do not do something stupid—because this time there is no real restraint on American counter-responses.

Response to Readership

Current Affairs and Classic

Can Islam coexist with the West and its modernity or will events result in a war that may, in the end, provoke a nuclear retaliation and a third world war, a war more terrible and destructive than has ever been known?

I surely hope not. And in fact I don’t think it will happen that way. Many of the Gulf States live with and thrive on modernism, and seem to have accommodated Islam with it, albeit with a strong dose of anti-Semitism and convenient anti-Western parlor talk.

The danger, as I see it, is that the terrorists still do not fully comprehend their peril or the strong visceral hatred of them that they have earned in the West. Thus countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Iran that think this is all a funny game discount the real peril that they are in. If there is another 9-11 and if the terrorists are shown to have originated from a Middle East country that knowingly harbored them, then the American reaction really would be terrible. It would have to be— if we were to continue our civilization. Ask yourself what we would have done had the Soviets sent a one-kiloton cruise missile into the World Trade Center. As I gauge US public opinion, it is in a holding pattern, watching events in Iraq. It simmers over the beheadings; it is tired of seeing the Arab Street; it has no patience with the Arab talking heads who assure us that we are to blame, but for the moment it is not ready to unleash its full power. So let us hope that nuts like the mullahs, Mr. Assad, the Pakistani border al Qaedists, or Hezbollah do not do something stupid—because this time there is no real restraint on American counter-responses.

What do you make of the 9-11 commission?

Hanson: Nothing like it is all bad or all good. Investigations, if done properly and timed right, are, of course, essential for a democracy. But look at this present politicized charade.

Televised grandstanding; hearings sometimes held in places like Greenwich Village; former Clintonites who need to be questioned for their own laxity now questioning others (who will police the police?); a jeering gallery; generals summoned from the front to sit and be hectored; and bad timing since we are in the most critical moment in Iraq as the handover nears.

It all reminds me of the Athenian Assembly during the last phase of the Peloponnesian War when the mob adjudicated critical negotiations and always came to the wrong and ultimately fatal decision. The most recent hair-splitting over Saddam and al Qaeda was pathetic. We all know Zarqawi was close to bin Laden and was treated in Baghdad; we all know that al Qaedists were encouraged to attack Kurds in Iraq. Add the still strong possibility that Atta was in Prague and that Saddam knew a great deal about the first World Trade Center, and the statement of the New York Times that there were no “ties” is really shameful. Saying al Qaeda and Saddam had no relations is like saying Milosevic knew nothing about the Kosovar and Bosnian holocausts. Mr. Clinton would have none of it—and neither should we now in Iraq.

Again, the New York Times headlines say it all.

Why do you think the U.S. failed to come to Israel's defense and veto the U.N. Security Council's May 19 resolution condemning Israel for its actions in Gaza?

Hanson: The U.S. apparently has this tacit relationship with Israel that goes something like this: "We have x-number of dramatic public displays of support we can give you per year. Any more and we lose swing Israeli supporters here at home and make things unnecessarily messy abroad. So on the big things we are with you; but on the symbolic ones, let us recede a little for cover.

Good idea? In peace, perhaps. In war? I doubt it's wise unless Israel is doing something opposed to our interest, which right now is defeating fascists in the Middle East. Once the radicals in the Middle East realize that we support Israelis because they are democratic and precisely not like a Syria, Libya, or Saudi Arabia, and that we are proud rather than ashamed of such allegiance, they will see that we are at least principled and mean business. As a general rule, the Middle East has everything to do with autocratic and tribal rule versus democracy-envy, jealousy, pride, and emotion clouding the issues of proper boundaries and relations between Israel and Palestine.

I have no question that America will achieve its military goals in Iraq. My fear is that the liberal press will somehow make it a defeat. If this is our most serious enemy, how do we defeat it? Should changing public opinion be a military objective? Should national defense also include the weapons to achieve a national will to stay the course?

Hanson: Iraq is now a symbol for the Left, divorced from reason and logic, perhaps like Vietnam circa 1971. It represents preconceived stereotypes -America is imperial, exploitative, crass, cruel, and run by mean, white Republican males who connive to profit at others' expense-which are not supported by the facts of liberating 26 million from fascism, providing billions in aid, and supporting democratic reform. Had Bush bombed Serbia for 8 weeks, he would have been called a "coward" who was afraid to have "boots on the ground" and a war-criminal who incinerated babies from 30,000 feet. In turn, had Clinton invaded Iraq, he would be praised for bringing Wilsonian idealism and American sacrifice back to foreign policy by promoting democracy, feminism, and freedom abroad. By the same token, if we persist in Afghanistan and Iraq, within ten years Bush will be considered a great president, in the manner that the removal of Milosevic is considered Clinton's only major foreign policy achievement.

Do you believe that we are not at the 'mission accomplished' level like the sign on the boat announced LAST May? One might assume from your appeal to shock and awe that you might agree that we should just nuke Najaf. Is this the message you intend to send about Iraq? That would be pretty shocking and awful; although I am not sure it would play well in the popularity polls.

Hanson: Be careful of rhetorical excesses like "nuke Najaf" when some suggest that in war you cannot promise to arrest or kill Mr. Sadr only to back off and invite him to join the political process, or march off and surround Fallujah only on the eve of victory to invite in former Baathists to occupy it. The fact is that we must find a balance involving the Iraqis, but using enough force to defeat the terrorists-not easy when Islamic fascism, Baathism, tribalism, and Arab nationalism are all at odds with consensual government. We are doing OK, but must get tougher with the killers, and let the Iraqis have more air time, more praise, and more honor in creating a unique society in the Middle East.

I am not sure you are reading it right. Opinion quoted was Hanson's, and I don't see him as a trigger-happy. Neither am I.

The only time I mentioned nuking anything was in a mental exercise where the author of the article was pondering some Muslims unquestionable belief in Allah and his micromanagement of their affairs. The logical question was to ask if Mecca and Medina are obliterated (don't have to be nukes), is there a chance that they will decide that their god was a false one? It also inferred that because other major religions don't see their God participating in the day to day activities anymore, the similar devastation does not necessarily shakes the believes. (Actually Holocaust did make many Jews unbelievers, because how G-d can allow that... I read that and heard, have no statistical evidence).

As I said before, I take allies where I can find them. That Muslims who will fight jihadists will be my allies. That leftists who see the terrorism and Muslim extremism as more important than our differences will be my allies too.

Do I need to defend myself more?

My reading of Hanson is that IF 9/11 repeated on large scale, the response will be devastating, and we will stop being extra careful where the bombs fall (as we are now). I am not sure its necessarily true, but has a high probability. And I share Hanson's hope that it won't come to that. Also I share his opinion that we need to emphasize Iraqi participation in rebuilding of their country and make their role more visible.

In regards of Fallujah, if we said we are going to take it, we should not back down, because perception is big part of Mideast reality. But hey, its just me, I just being stupid.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.