Victor Davis Hanson: What History Says About the Iraq War

victorhanson.com / The American Enterprise Magazine ^ | February 8, 2006 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tolik]

Why did the successful war in Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein with a democracy lose the majority support of the American public? Despite steady U.S. military progress against jihadists, and the bold endorsement of peaceful self-rule by 11 million Iraqis, public approval was slowly eroded by an accumulation of hits...

...Perhaps most of all, public ambivalence about the Iraq war is due to generalized ignorance of military history. Without guidance from the past, too many people are shepherded through the experience of war by nothing deeper than the rollercoaster emotions whipped up by 24-hour news coverage of explosions and suicide bombings...

...there has been no Darwinian evolution of human nature in the very short span of civilization. The old threats of passion remain constant and predictable. Nor has the use of sophisticated technology and computers altered either the chemistry or hard-wiring of our brains. Rather than denying the human propensity for violence, it is far wiser to accept it and then defend the rules of civilization that alone can contain and ameliorate it.

Modern life in Western countries has also become so privileged and protected that it is hard to convince affluent suburbanites that shooting and bombing your way to power remains a norm in much of the world. Wealthy moderns too often imagine that issues of governance, religion, and tribal affiliation are solved through talk shows, lawsuits, or “60 Minutes” reports. Mostly, though, these conflicts abroad continue to be settled through violence.

...Our enemies — who cling to history far more tightly than most Americans — know this. And because ...warrior fanatics understand our recent past, and their own distant one, better than we do, they will continue to fight in places, and with methods, that challenge our often unhistorical sense of the civilized self.

[okie01]

Still, common sense tells me that, after Afghanistan, there was only one place to go: Iraq.

Perhaps there was a predisposition to take out Saddam. So what? Because, after 9/11, Iraq had to be dealt with.

When the plane hit the second tower, Saddam's neck automatically went on the line -- Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, et al notwithstanding.

[EarlyBird]

...But I have asked him at least twice on this thread to provide us with any supporting evidence that "the case for war in Iraq" he described was ever the goal of the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. State Department, or any other branch of the U.S. government. Until he does this, his post has all the fascinating intrigue of -- and no more credibility than -- a Tom Clancy novel.

See MNJohnnie's post #85 and the link there. READ WHAT'S LINKED. Read it and weep.

[fallujah-nuker]

Until he does this, his post has all the fascinating intrigue of -- and no more credibility than -- a Tom Clancy novel.

You're being too kind, I thought it seemed more like what Jimmy Carter would have gotten from Amy when consulting with her about such weighty matters as nukyuler weapons.

[Sam Cree]

"4. The delusional notion that democracy without an underlying culture that acknowledges and respects personal liberty is possible, or even desirable."

Respect for personal liberty is rare, has historically been rare. Pretty much confined to English speaking countries, IMO. Although I notice that the idea of personal liberty is far from universally respected even among Freepers.

Democracy, OTOH, has had a pretty fair run in various places. I note that Iraqi voter turnouts have been higher than most of ours here in the US, which indicates at least some desire for democracy there, even if only so the Iraqis can vote themselves into a nation run by some form of Islamic law. However, I think that is not what the majority wishes for.

[joebuck]

"I think this guy, whoever he is, makes much sense."

I am also late to the party on Victor Davis Hanson but I am now a fan. I just finished his book "Carnage and Culture" and can't wait to read more. His insights into the impact of culture on military success or defeats in the battlefield are very persuasive.

[ZULU]

I have to check thqt book out.

Actually, this is the first I ever heard of the guy. I have read other authors like Keegan, but he seems to approach the subject from a different perspective - one that is very relevant to today.

Unless a Country is completely steamrolled, a people are only defeated when they are convinced they are. The Islamofascists are losing, but they are not convinced.

We, on the other hand, as in Viet Nam, are winning, but are being convinced we are losing by leftist media scum and the "intellectual" elites.

[prognostigaator]

once more