Our Summer of Discontent?

National Review Online ^ | 8/1/2003 | Victor Davis Hanson

[sheltonmac]

In the context of the piece, I read someone who thought the Serbian intervention was completely justified, which I find absurd.

You are right, JG. While Hanson may not have come right out and said, "Serbia poses a threat to the U.S.," it is clear that he believed Milosevic was a threat to U.S. interests, and that our intervention was justified:

"Just as the removal of Milosevic was critical in the formation of a post-Cold War moderate Eastern Europe, so too a change in Iraq might foster a similar spread of sanity in an otherwise insane region."
--from Things Forgotten

"In Grenada, Panama, Serbia, and Kosovo we preemptively attacked governments that had not directly assaulted us, because they posed perceived dangers to either our own interests or their own people."
--from Iraqi Interrogatories

[JohnGalt]

Thanks for your work on this subject.

His selective use of the word 'we' shields himself from criticism, but it also places himself as no more than a court historian. I cannot tell whether he is being intentionally confusing or just sloppy.

I did not like him to begin with because he is a Shermanphile, which means he believes war on civilians is just fine. Anyway, I take a pass on his ability to be deemed a clear thinker during these trying times.

[wayoverontheright]

On the news of some dramatic development — Saddam's death or capture, the collapse of the mullahs in Iran, firm textual or material evidence of WMD — our summer of discontent will end.

I think all three will come to pass, and for the Democratic party, there will be hell to pay!

Bill Clinton allowed the mainstream media to be exposed as untrustworthy, and backlash to his manipulation created the success of Fox News, Rush, the internet, etc. as purveyors of truth. Now, their mantras aren't purchased wholesale by the masses, they have been exposed, their lies brought to light by being wrong every step of the way on Iraq.

[beckett]

...it is clear that [Hanson] believed Milosevic was a threat to U.S. interests...

We're not talking about "interests." The charge was that Hanson believed Serbia "posed a threat to the United States." JohnGalt clearly wanted his readers to understand that Hanson believed Serbia posed military or security threat to the US, although now he seems to be backing off by saying things like "[Hanson believed] the Serbian intervention was completely justified." The dispute is not whether Hanson supported intervention or thought it was justified. It's whether he ever claimed that Serbia posed a military or security threat to the US.

Our "interests" are manifold, but those who can threaten us militarily constitute a very exclusive club of which Serbia is not a member. I doubt very strongly that Hanson has ever been in the least confused on that point.

[JohnGalt]

My readers? You give me way too much credit.

You are debating semantics at this point to the question of whether VDH brings anything to the table when discussing current national security affairs.

My reading of his stuff tells me that in hindsight, he believes that the case could have been made that Serbia posed a threat to the United States. Did he mean this cynically perhaps? Fair, but I take him at his word.

[beckett]

You are debating semantics...

There is nothing at all semantical about the question under discussion!

Here's your original post:

He thought Serbia posed a threat to the United States; that rather puts into question his knowledge of contemporary national security questions, doesn't it?

Do you claim that Hanson thought American national security depended on our intervention in Serbia or don't you?

Semantics has nothing to do with it.

[JohnGalt]

That is not my claim.

My claim is that VDH thought Serbia posed a threat to the United States. If that is what he believes than I suspect he believes Liberia poses a threat as well. Its hard to take him seriously.

[sheltonmac]

You ARE debating semantics. Hanson has referred to the nation of Serbia (among others) in columns written in support of our war in Iraq. Whether he specifically said "U.S. security" or "U.S. interests" is irrelavent. Hanson--the good little neoconservative that he is--sees no difference between the two. As far as Hanson is concerned, Hussein, like Milosevic, may have not attacked the U.S. directly, but he deserved to be attacked on "moral" grounds.

[beckett]

You ARE debating semantics.

Semantics is the study of meanings. This debate is about semantics only if you believe that "national security threats" and "national interests" mean the same thing. If you do believe that, I'm afraid the remedial work you require on geopolitics would take more time than I have to spare at the moment.