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.

[EarlyBird]

I often wonder if the U.S. Defense Department has either the wisdom or the intellect to understand. Do you have any evidence (again -- from before March of 2003) that the term "counter-insurgency" was ever even discussed by the U.S. military in the context of the war preparations?

He he. Without even meaning to, you are proving one of VDH's points in the article:

"And wars rarely follow the script laid out before hostilities commence."

[LexBaird]

...even as the secular Islamic national leader who had most clearly demonstrated his willingness and capability to deal with Islamic extremism in his country sits in an Iraqi prison and goes through a circus of a "trial" for his crimes.

" [W]illingness and capability to deal with Islamic extremism." Nice euphemism for exterminating whole towns. I guess even Saddam Hussein has admirers on FR. That "circus" is far more of a trial than his opponents were likely to have gotten.

[johnny7]

It's great you agree... but you're both wrong.

[american spirit]

Well said.......most of what you've discussed makes a lot more sense than this other babble. IMO, a good excercise to discover the real reason we're in Iraq is find out into who's pockets are the oil revenues flowing ever since the Hussein family has been eliminated from the picture.

[stuartcr]

I know, my question was rhetorical.

[stuartcr]

Won't do us much good, if it's 2000 yrs from now, but I suppose it would fulfill the prophecy.

[LS]

That's your view. Mine, of course, is correct.

[Alberta's Child]

The average American has a pathetic comprehension of what the world of international power really involves. Most of them can't even name the governor of the adjoining state or tell the difference between the Mayflower Compact and the War of the League of Augsburg. They only know they are comfortable, they expect to remain comfortable, and think their vision of the world today is what most people on earth experience.

You're absolutely right about that, though that still doesn't keep elected leaders in this country from 1) pandering to them, and 2) propagandizing them to secure popular support in pursuit of a political agenda.

[Alberta's Child]

Support has declined because of the media's 3-year concentration on the death toll rather than on the fact that a viable nation is in fact actually being built.

Once the death toll reached the thousands the media did not have to "concentrate" on it anymore. Because with each additional U.S. casualty the number of Americans with a family, friend or relative affected by war casualties increases exponentially. I would also add that nobody in the media -- even those who have been strong supporters of the U.S. military effort for years -- will ever be able to make the case that a "viable nation" is actually being built as long as you have a viable insurgency at work in Iraq.

I can't really follow your convoluted arguments. And if MNJohnnie didn't address your so-call specific points, it's probably because he can't either.

I don't know what "arguments" you are talking about. My initial post on this thread contained five definitive statements -- none of which has been addressed in any subsequent posts.

Lastly, Bush may not like nation building for nation building's sake, but nation building as part of winning the war on terror is not really nation building at all -- it's a sound military strategy.

The only problem with this argument is that there was no "war on terror" when this administration's initial plans for invading Iraq were made.

[Alberta's Child]

I'll have to go back and see if VDH was making that same point before hostilities commenced in this case.

[Alberta's Child]

Nice euphemism for exterminating whole towns. I guess even Saddam Hussein has admirers on FR.

You are closer to the truth than you might think. If exterminating whole towns was his crime, then Saddam Hussein is basically on trial for doing something that about 80% of the posters here on FreeRepublic were calling on the U.S. military to do in Fallujah in late 2003 and early 2004.

[Alberta's Child]

Thanks! :-)

[EarlyBird]

It's hardly an original thought and has been around long before this war or even the ten preceding wars. Haven't you ever heard the saying, "The best war plan never survives the first battle?"

You really are making a fool of yourself.

[LexBaird]

My initial post on this thread contained five definitive statements -- none of which has been addressed in any subsequent posts.

Fine. I'll address them.

Why did the successful war in Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein with a democracy lose the majority support of the American public?
I can attribute this to a number of factors: 1. The fixation on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq through the current and prior administrations.

IOW, the public has bought the Big Lie. "No WMDs found" has been successfully conflated with "No WMDs existed". This is patently untrue. Instead of asking why the US hasn't found stockpiles, the question should be "Where are the stockpiles we and the UN knew to exist?"

2. The childish, utopian "promoting the spread of democracy" crap the emanates from the mouth of every person inside the Beltway who makes a public statement in support of the war.

IOW, you don't believe establishment of democracy is an effective method of dealing with aggressive nations.

3. The blatant conflict of interest and pernicious actions of one Richard Perle, who had the unusual distinction of resigning twice in disgrace back in 2004 -- once as head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board when he became a political liability for George W. Bush's re-election campaign, and then as a member of the board itself when his lobbying efforts in the Pentagon on behalf of Communist China were made public.

98% of the American public has no clue who Richard Pearle is. Just because he is a Paleocon bete noire does not mean anyone else cares.

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

IOW, the wogs can't understand what we enlightened people can. As if Japan had a history of respect for personal liberty, and we are delusional to think they could ever develop one. Or Turkey, or India, or the other scads of nations who have become democracies without an underlying Western culture.

How condescending.

5. The violent, pathological response of Muslims all over the world to something as trivial and inconsequential as a newspaper cartoon . . . even as the secular Islamic national leader who had most clearly demonstrated his willingness and capability to deal with Islamic extremism in his country sits in an Iraqi prison and goes through a circus of a "trial" for his crimes.

So violent pathological secular dictators who have sworn to destroy us are good, but violent pathological religious Muslims who have sworn to destroy us are bad? And we should therefore stop supporting the fighting of said violent pathological religious Muslims, and abandon an infant democracy to them?

Except for your first point, none of your "reasons" for the alleged decline of support has anything to do with the general public. They all have to do with why paleocons didn't support it in the first place.

[EarlyBird]

Actually, the quote should read:

"The best laid plan rarely survives contact with the enemy."

Just wanting to be precise in the interest of your edification.

[afnamvet]

Maybe the public support for military campaign in Iraq declined because it started to look more like nation-building and less like national defense.

I agree with your point. Nation building should never be the job of our armed forces. I would add two points. First, remove "political correctness" from the lexicon and its effects on the military. Second, no commitment of our troops and treasure without the President going before Congress and asking for a declaration of war. If Congress grants it, so be it.

[mrsmith]

That is a good one.

But he has written on counter-insurgency as you can find merely by searching. Of course, counter-insugency wasn't a large part of ancient wars since it was not technically possible to be both precise and effective in applying force.

That hasn't been true since at least our successful occupation of the Phillipines. And the Iraq insurgency doesn't have fighters that can compare to the warriors of the Moro.

But we do. Those are our true "privileged" of America.

[fallujah-nuker]

You are closer to the truth than you might think. If exterminating whole towns was his crime, then Saddam Hussein is basically on trial for doing something that about 80% of the posters here on FreeRepublic were calling on the U.S. military to do in Fallujah in late 2003 and early 2004.

"Who you talkin bout Willis?"

[okie01]

5. The violent, pathological response of Muslims all over the world to something as trivial and inconsequential as a newspaper cartoon . . .

Notably, there is one Muslim country which has been free of the "violent, pathological response", as you call it.

Iraq...

[okie01]

Why did the successful war in Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein with a democracy ever have the majority support of the American public in the first place?

Because it made sense at the time.

And it still does...