Posted on 11/21/2007 11:23:47 AM PST by rellimpank
Adaptability, self-critique, and persistence will prevail.
The war in Iraq — as all wars — is fraught with savage ironies.
In the build-up to the invasion, anti-Americanism in Europe reached a near frenzy. It was whipped up by French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, and evoked warnings of an eternal split in the Atlantic Alliance. If Iraq had proved a catalyst for this expression of near hatred — fueled by long-standing angers and envies — it soon, however, proved to be a catharsis as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Excellent analysis by Hanson.
The parallel between Lincoln and the Civil War and Bush and Iraq is very interesting. Fertile ground.
I think a good strategy would be to begin calling Democrat defeatists “copperheads”.
The left in America must be dealt with, with extreme prejudice.
bump & a ping
Good idea. I will do that.
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Pajamasmedia: http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
Correct - the Iraqi people needed to learn, through time and effort, that we wouldn’t cut and run on them. After our failure to support the Shiite uprising (which we encouraged) in 1992, and hundreds of thousands of Shiites were killed by Saddam’s troop - the people of Iraq needed to know that we wouldn’t pull another “Somalia Black Hawk Down” cut and run manuever, and leave them to further tragedies!
Ultimately - the Monday Morning Quarterbacks (MMQ) state that the war was mis-managed, but lack the credibility to state what alternate plan would have worked better.
Had we gone in with a force of 500,000 soldiers - would we have won quicker than the already quick 3 weeks? (How much longer would it have taken to field that number?)
If we had gone in with a force of 500,000 soldiers, would the “Arab Street” have felt that we were a permanent occupation force intent on stealing the oil wealth, and thereby creating more opposition and worse reactions than the insurgency that occurred? Would Muslims from North Africa to Indonesia have been tempted to rally to help oppose this “invasion force”?
The MMQs complain that we disbanded the Iraq military - yet they ignore the fact that the Iraqi military disbanded themselves in the face of the 150,000 military. How much faster would the disbanding have been with 500,000 - but what else could have happened?
Ultimately, the MMQs don’t have the military strategy/knowledge basis to be able to know the dynamics of what can happen under different circumstances. While I grieve with the families of the four thousand soldiers who have died (and the families and military who have serious life-changing injuries) ... the fact is that we liberated a country, and have worked hard to give the Iraqi people a chance to decide to choose freedom, and the cost has been extremely low compared to any other war in the history of man. Maybe we should slap down any commentator who declares “failed military policy” and ask them to prove how they could have done better!!
Mike
Electricity production has hit 5,000 megawatts per day and is climbing steadily, but consumption has skyrocketed from prewar levels. If Iraqis would consume electricity at prewar levels, they would probably now have power almost 24-hours per day. What the coalition and the Iraqi ministries are trying to do, then, is, at a time of war, protect and restore electrical service, but at the same time increase it threefold to meet increased demand brought on by millions of imported electrical appliances.
Bump for victory!
the cost has been extremely low compared to any other war in the history of man. Maybe we should slap down any commentator who declares “failed military policy” and ask them to prove how they could have done better!!
@@@@@
Ask them how they could have done better
and
Ask them if they support our moral choice to engage an enemy while trying to avoid all collateral damage
When that enemy uses “collateral damage” - blowing up women and children - as a tactic!
God works in strange ways. Unfortunately there was a cost in our KIA and WIA, as well as the Iraqi casualties, but the fact that it had to reach this point, where the Sunni of Iraq decided to reject Al Qaeda themselves, after living under their rules, is a major victory in the WOT. IMHO, it could be the turning point. Apart from whatever else happens in Iraq, the Sunni in Iraq rejecting AQ is a major setback for the extremists in the entire ME.
I completely agree with you.
Massive troop levels from the beginning may have gone differently, but it is impossible to say it would have been better.
In an insurgency, more boots on streetcorners means more targets and more dead.
Even if it was shorter... But at double or triple the cost in lives... Would that have been “better”?
The Russians went into Afghanistan with massive force, but it did not win the war for them. Our strategy, while imperfect, was probably the best way to accomplish our goals there.
A Hillary win next year will be the end of General Petraeus’s military career.
what a great great great article....
The lessons are only the eternal ones: that wars won’t be fought as believed and won’t end as planned, but that adaptability, self-critique, and persistence, in an effort believed to be both right and necessary, will eventually prevail.
what a great comment to finish it on...
Good commentary.
Lost in the fog, and mostly unremarked upon, is that in 1991 we could put 500,000 troops in the field.
By 2001, we were lucky to be able to field 150,000.
Anybody care to speculate as to why that remarkable decline in our military strength continues to go unmentioned?
IT’S THE DEMOCRATS’ “PEACE DIVIDEND, STUPID”.
The Democrats, under Bill Clinton, cut over 1/3 of our military. When (Democrat) commentators remark that under Clinton, there were cuts in the Government - what they don’t want to emphasize is that 90% of government cuts were in the Department of Defense, cutting both military and civilian jobs. Almost everywhere else - growth.
Of course, Clinton dodged and evaded dealing with terrorist issues, so that they would only get bigger and more dangerous, and we would have fewer resources to deal with them.
And in 2001, there were too many “leaches” sucking at the Government’s teat who didn’t want any of those new programs cut . . . Their solution was to raise taxes on the wealthy (i.e. - reverse the cuts that spurred our economic growth) or cut military programs even more to pay for the war on terror. Senseless and stupid!!
Mike
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.