[Free the USA]

fyi

[backhoe]

Locator ^

[68skylark]

Great article -- thanks for the post.

What is it that permits this radically dysfunctional system to perpetuate itself?

If I can make one quibble, I think this question isn't quite right. Radically dysfunctional systems have been the norm through all of human history, and they are more or less still the norm today. A better question might be, What is it that permits a few good alternatives (like the United States of America) to emerge, and what are the best ways to support and defend these good systems?

[MattinNJ]

Ping

The new American military proved lethal beyond its numbers, as near-adolescents without combat experience showed themselves to be more adept at street fighting than the so-called Saddam fedayeen. What has become clear from the war is that, from year to year, the American military has increased its lethality geometrically, not incrementally.

Makes you proud to be an American, the mightiest most benevolent nation in history.

[MattinNJ]

Great post.

[Travis McGee]

ping

[St.Chuck]

Good Post.

Mr. Hanson appears to be applying the thesis he developed in his book, "Carnage and Culture:Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power" to the campaign in Iraq. His contention is that cultural distinctions are the most significant factor in deciding the outcome of military engagements. There are many holes in his theory, but certainly the Arab/American juxtaposition would give sound support to his theory.

However, it may be premature to write the history of the current conflict in Iraq. Lest we forget, since the "liberation" of Iraq in early April, U.S. forces have lost at least one soldier a day due to in theatre accidents or hostile fire. The possibility exists that the overall goal to create a stable and friendly Iraq may not be achieved, and then Mr. Hanson's thesis will need to be revisited.

[Sparta]

Victor Davis Hanson ping

If you want on or off the Western Civlization Military History ping list, let me know.

[EggsAckley]

Great article!

Frankly, I'm still wondering why, this time, Iraq did NOT fire on Israel. Maybe we just kept them too busy? I really cannot fill in that blank.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Great, Great article!

[knighthawk]

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, American viewers were exasperated or convulsed at the circus-like spectacle provided by Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the so-called Baathist information minister—a/k/a “Baghdad Bob”—whose daily communiqués detailed an endless string of catastrophes for coalition forces. Seeming at first odious, then deranged, at last almost entertaining, al-Sahaf confidently declaimed lines like “We have killed most of the infidels, and I think we will finish the rest soon” even as split-screen television images revealed Abrams tanks looming a few miles away, or Marines resting in Saddam’s Baghdad palaces.

Middle East list

If people want on or off this list, please let me know.

[GOPJ]

BINGO:

WHAT IS it that permits this radically dysfunctional system to perpetuate itself?

The question is really political rather than military, and ultimately the answer is a state-induced terror that has its roots in the absence of consensual government and of notions of personal freedom, thus ensuring little self-criticism or accountability in matters of war-making or anything else. Helping to keep this entire edifice afloat is an ingrained (but also state-supported) habit of denial: a disavowal of just how deep, and how self-inflicted, are the deficiencies of one’s own society; a rejection of every alternative view of reality that would expose these inadequacies for what they are; an unwillingness to assume any responsibility for repairing them.

[nathanbedford]

Although our intervention in Iraq neatly gave the lie to the conventional wisdom that the Israel-Arab dispute is at the “heart” of the Middle East problem,

The author fails to specify how this lie was so "neatly" given.

The author assumes without more that it is "conventional wisdom" that the Israel-Arab dispute is at the "heart" of the Middle East problem. We have been assured by President Bush and the Neo-cons since 9/11 that the principal motivation for Islamist terrorism is their hatred of our love of freedom - not our support for Israel. When the President and his spokesmen articulate a contrary proposition it is difficult to accept the original proposition as the "conventional wisdom."

The author, regretably, ends an otherwise thoughtful piece with a non sequitor obviously politically motivated to discourage americans from putting too much pressure on Israel to obtain peace. He says:

almost as if the amazing military prowess of Western armies required some kind of psychological compensation in the form of political concessions. Thus, in the aftermath of the first Gulf war, the rapid convening of the Madrid conference set the stage for the disastrous Oslo accords—and hence the current “road map.”

I would rather have thought that the author had made a reasonable case that the demonstration of American military prowess had placed the ARABS in a place where they must recognize reality and make concessions. Logically, it would seem unarguable that American influence for peace will never be stronger than it is right now in the immediate aftermath of overwhelming victory. Why does the author fight the obvious?

History teaches that such gross imbalances in power are not perpetual. America must consider the possibility that a new technology or some new factor will somehow restore the balance to the Araabs. We cannot afford to let Israel presume on our present military superiority forever. Contrary to the author's unsupported conclusions, it is clearly in America's national interest to exploit its victory and extract a reasonable peace from both sides. Thereafter, America should extract itself as quickly and thoroughly as possible from all Israeli or Palistinian entanglements.