Learning from History

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-06-07&-token.story=157557.112113&-token.subpub= ^ | Orson Scott Card

[ventanax5]

History does repeat itself. Never exactly – there are always enough differences in the details that people who are determined not to learn anything from the past can find an excuse.

But history shows patterns precisely because human beings don't change.

After the First World War (then called the Great War), Britain and France were exhausted. They had triumphed – barely – but they had left more than a million dead soldiers on the battlefields.

[franksolich]

I agree; it’s an overused and trite—and erroneous—cliche, to say “history repeats itself.”

In a way, one supposes it does, but actually what happens is that humans keep on making the same mistakes over and over and over again.....thus suffering the same consequences over and over and over again.

[RobinOfKingston]

A good article. Lotsa predictions. Once the string of events begin to play out (I think they already have) the neat set of predictions will get more messy.

One thing the author says that is absolutely true: our main strategic enemies, Russia and China, will do all in their power, even to their own detriment, to see us broken.

For those who may not think so, consider the left end of our own society. They are willing to suffer to see America “brought down to size.”

[mathluv]

There was a letter to the editor in our paper this morning. It compared our current time/situation (illegal immigration) with the fall of the Roman empire - also due to ‘letting’ illegals stay.

[gcruse]

“Are we too stupid to learn from history?’

Yes.

[Tolik]

Orson Scott Card - PING  [please freepmail me if you want or don't want to be pinged to Orson Scott Card political articles]

This article will be posted permanently (eventually) on his The Ornery American website http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/index.html

Links: his articles discussed at FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/k-orsonscottcard/browse  and archived here (it is a must go place for all new to OSC political writing): http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/index.html

His fresh articles appear in the Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC: http://www.rhinotimes.com/greensboro/  (before being posted permanently on his The Ornery American website). Read his books/movies/and everything reviews: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/ 

His "About" page: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/about.shtml

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[TChris]

I love OSC.

Good stuff.

[Cicero]

Yes. I see that Card agrees with what I have always thought was Bush’s biggest mistake in the GWOT—his failure to tackle Syria as well as Iraq during his first term in office.

Far from making things harder, it would have made things greatly easier.

Iran was the other major problem. Harder to say what should have been done, but simply ignoring the threat was definitely wrong. The longer Bush has waited, the more difficult the political situation in this country, and the better prepared the Iranians are to resist us.

It would have been hard to deal with Iran four years ago, but now, after the loss of congress, it’s nearly impossible.

[neverdem]

I was wondering where Mr. Card’s commentaries were just the other day. BTTT!

[MNJohnnie]

Over 50% of American voters, and about 50% of the US Senate doesn’t think we should even be in Iraq.

Just where were you going to get the votes to tackle Syria and Iran?

[MNJohnnie]

It would have been hard to deal with Iran four years ago, but now, after the loss of congress, it’s nearly impossible

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/jfq/1625.pdf

Would of been outside our military capacities to do. Just because some one wills it be done, doesn’t mean the Military means are available to do it. The end result would of been operational over reach.

[Cicero]

As I said, it’s probably too late now. A quick move into Syria would actually have made the post-invasion situation in Iraq easier to handle, and would have greatly improved matters for Lebanon and Israel.

Iran was a much harder problem, although the regime has never been all that popular. Probably the best solution would have been to take out the nuclear facilities, the leaders, and the Islamist brigades, over a period of a few weeks, then pull out and let the Iranians sort it what kind of government they could come up with. It couldn’t have been worse than the one Jimmy Carter installed.

That’s theoretical now. It might have been done earlier, but there’s no political will or congressional majority to do it now. Too late.

[MNJohnnie]

Sure Bush should of put more PR effort into maintaining support for the war effort. However, the argument presented here, to put it bluntly, is utterly unrealistic and simplistic.

You do not run a marathon by sprinting the 1st two miles.

This is how Democracies win long wars. This is the basic problem for most on the Right. They cannot seem to grasp the fact that Counter Insurgency is not Total war.

Sure, you maybe would of got a great effort out of the American people for a year or two. But this sort of war cannot be won in a year or two since the underlying problems that caused it have been building for generations. Even in WW2 you had politicians and people complaining about how long we were taking.

Unfortunately the political opposition in this country was too criminally irresponsible to allow this issue to fade into the background. They wanted to exploit this war for domestic political advantage.

For MOST Americans this war is a complete non issue. About 95% of the American people neither know anyone in Iraq or in the Military. If the Democrats had behaved as American patriots, instead of political opportunists, this war would of faded into the background noise. Thus the US Military would of had the time they needed to win this war. The only reason Iraq is an issue is because various Democrat politicians, aided and abetted by a cheer seconding in the “ News Media” scream at them 24/7/365 that they should be upset about it.

The basic fact of the matter is Counter Insurgency is a slow, painful ugly job. It is NOT a “hurry up and win” sort of mission.

So we maybe would of got a great upsurge in support followed by a corresponding massive drop in morale when the massive efforts put out produced little to no short term return in Iraq. No Mr.. Card, this sort of war cannot be won with a “Churchill” style leader. The expectations raised by a Churchill are beyond the capacities of a Counter Insurgency mission to gratify in the short term.

Bush has it right on this. As anyone who reads the raw data on Iraq can see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iraq

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[TopQuark]

Yep, I’ve been saying the same for years: the Goths that were allowed to settle on the Roman soil as foederati — a special status invented for that purpose -— rose up against Rome a couple of generations later and destroyed the Western Empire. How is that different from Muslim foedarati in Europe and our own immigrants, allowed in without assimilation?

[JasonC]

Maybe if people aren't willing to be free, those of us who are should go ahead and stay free anyway.

Men who aren't willing to be free are quite unlikely to stop us.

What, you think we should be more terrified of pansies than the Iranians are?

[JasonC]

It is different because the Goths were in fact morally superior to the Romans they settled among.

[Old Student]

“In a way, one supposes it does, but actually what happens is that humans keep on making the same mistakes over and over and over again.....thus suffering the same consequences over and over and over again.”

Some of the Science Fiction authors I read have taken to using something like “History doesn’t really repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

[TopQuark]

the Goths were in fact morally superior

Firstly, please elaborate: what are the standards of comparison?

Secondly, one has the right to my country even if (s)he is "morally superior."

[TopQuark]

CORRECTION:

the Goths were in fact morally superior

Firstly, please elaborate: what are the standards of comparison?

Secondly, one DOES NOT have a right to my country even if (s)he is "morally superior."