Victor Davis Hanson: Anatomy of Iraq. How did we get to this baffling scenario?

NRO ^ | March 2, 2007 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Chani]

We are talking about support for the War...not the economy. By pushing 'shopping' as a euphemism for carry on normally, it did not get the American public INVOLVED in the war effort.

[Louis Foxwell]

"keep on shoppin'" was exactly the medicine the economy needed.

I could not be in greater disagreement. At the time I was outraged that the American people were held in such low esteem by the President that we were asked to do nothing more than be consumers of goods and services. Then the government began clamping down on private activity. The airlines were the worse but lots of other segments of society were also put under the microscope. This was Big Brother setting out to protect us for our own good. The solution was elitist from the beginning.
There was no call to arms. There was no effort to engage the citizenry in meaningful activity to fight this war.
I do not believe the government even today has the slightest clue about fighting terrorism. It is about more than police security and military action. It is a cultural struggle for the hearts and minds of us as a people. That war is being lost by inches every day.

[Chgogal]

Please put me back on the VDH ping list. I very seldom comment on VDH because there is usually not much more to add. Thank you in advance.

[Vineyard]

Okie is correct ....

The Democrats wanted sacrifice - read more taxes, more big government programs.

We didn't need a full scale military mobilization and build up similar to what happened after Pearl Harbor. I doubt that if the President had asked for sacrifice, there would have been zero intention by the politicians to spend the additional taxes on military - but it would have gone for non-military programs.

And - if we HAD done the "lets sacrifice because we are at war" - we would have likely had our economy go into the tank - which would have been quite acceptable by the Democrats.

Mike

[okie01]

Thank you for your support.

There is no question that, under the circumstances, "Keep on shoppin'" were the best fighting words available.

[highball]

There is no question that, under the circumstances, "Keep on shoppin'" were the best fighting words available.

I am not disputing that a strong economy is essential to the war effort.

My issue is that the American people were told that shopping would be the sum total of their contribution to the war effort. We weren't asked to sacrifice a thing - quite the contrary. The President set up disastrous expectations by insisting that the war would not impact us in any way.

Now we complain that Americans have lost their stomach for war, but that comes from the top.

[crazycat]

Tks. as usual VDH nails it.

[okie01]

My issue is that the American people were told that shopping would be the sum total of their contribution to the war effort. We weren't asked to sacrifice a thing - quite the contrary. The President set up disastrous expectations by insisting that the war would not impact us in any way.

If what you are saying is true, then the American people either a.) weren't listening or were b.) incapable of understanding the President's message.

Personally, I don't believe either is the case.

From the outset, the President promised that this war would be a long and arduous one and could last a generation. That it should be hard should come as no surprise.

People who heard him say "no sacrifice will be necessary" were hearing what they wanted to hear.

At the same time, this was not a war that would require us to buy savings bonds, collect scrap iron or ration sugar -- or, in the fevered desires of Democrats, require us to raise taxes or institute a draft. To have represented it as requiring such would have been an unmitigated lie.

[highball]

From the outset, the President promised that this war would be a long and arduous one and could last a generation. That it should be hard should come as no surprise.

I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong.

The Vice President went on talk shows to say that we would be "greeted as liberators" by the Iraqis. The President assured us that we wouldn't need as many troops as the generals were saying.

All the signs were there, that this would be a relatively painless and easy war. I really think that they believed that - they never anticipated that it could turn out as it had, or they wouldn't have so poorly managed the war itself, much less the public relations battle.

[okie01]

The President and his administration have been very clear about the long-term nature of the WOT from the very outset.

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
The State of the Union address, January, 2002

Moreover, VP Cheney's comment on Meet The Press, when taken in context, makes perfectly good sense.

The Iraq War, itself, was relatively short and fully successful. We accomplished our objectives in fairly short order. And, if the elections we made possible are any indication, we were "greeted as liberators" -- by the vast majority of Iraqis.

What has been going on in Iraq ever since is another battle in the War on Terror -- against al-Qaeda and the surrogates of the Iranian mullahs. And we are fighting them in Iraq, on ground of our choice, rather than here in the U.S. or elsewhere. It could just as easily be in Somalia. That it happens to be in Iraq was a strategic choice for the U.S.

A fair reading of Mr. Cheney's comments would reveal this truth. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to find the exact context of Cheney's remarks. Liberals are fond of quoting them, but you have to sort thru pages and pages of Google to find the original transcript -- which you're invited to read (below). Note that the term "liberators" orginates with Russert:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Our objective will be, if we go in, to defeat whatever forces oppose us, to take down the government of Saddam Hussein, and then to follow on with a series of actions such as eliminating all the weapons of mass destruction, finding where they are and destroying them, preserving the territorial integrity of Turkey. As I say, standing up a broadly representative government that’s preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq and standing up a broadly representative government of the Iraqi people. Those will be our objectives.
Meet The Press, March 16, 2003

Snip...

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.

Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.
Meet The Press, March 16, 2003

[highball]

Thank you. The Cheney quote proves my point, especially the entire second paragraph.

They didn't anticipate the resistance, didn't anticipate the sectarian violence, and thought that the only thing our troops had to fear was the Republican Guard.

Russert might have used the word "liberators" first, but Dick Cheney's smart enough to not repeat it (twice!) unless he thought it apt.

You also didn't address the fact that the Administration under-staffed the war, providing fewer troops than many generals wanted.

Let's face facts - the Administration expected a very different kind of war than we have been fighting. The pre-war plans turned out to be totally inadequate, or Rumsfeld wouldn't have been fired and we wouldn't need the troop surge noe.

And W sold the American public on the kind of war he thought we were going to fight, not the war we ended up in.

[okie01]

Sorry, I just don't read it the way you do.

"Welcomed as liberators" could be construed as an ill-advised overstatement...as a sound bit, but not as an expression of policy or expectations.

Looking at the entire quote -- and recalling the background of the President's pronouncements on the issue -- I'm not troubled by Cheney's comment...at all.

Perhaps, it is a matter of "nuance"...