Posted on 09/18/2006 5:07:27 AM PDT by Tolik
<...SNIP...>
In free societies, the best weapon against those who choose not to fight is simply to tell the public — constantly and candidly — why we should fight. This is true even in ugly wars that present only bad and worse choices. Western armies always do better when a Pericles or a Franklin Roosevelt explains — rather than asserts — how difficult the task is, what the enemy is up to, and how we will, as in the past, ensure its defeat. For all the talk of Vietnam, one forgets that America has so far been quite successful in preventing another 9/11 and removing fascist governments from Afghanistan and Iraq, and that its subsequent efforts to establish lasting democracies may yet prevail.
Unfortunately, the United States will probably have to fight more wars, in places and in ways it would otherwise not choose, and against ever more sophisticated terrorists. What we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq — sometimes well and sometimes not so well — will not impede us from achieving our objectives. But neither will it help us — unless we take time to learn from our recent history.
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
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
" after a month in Lebanon, the Israeli Defense Forces are no closer to destroying Hezbollah's Katyusha missiles than they were to eliminating the even more primitive Kassem rockets Hamas launched from Gaza "
Wars are not won by destroying weapons -- wars are won by destroying the enemy's will to fight.
In that context, the Islamofascists are winning -- and will continue to win, until we force ourselves to look at this hard truth:
Victory over Islamofascism will only come when civilian populations are convinced that the consequenses of aiding/supporting/encouraging the terrorists is too horrible to contemplate.
The Angry ReaderSeptember 13, 2006What, Sir, are you recommending? More troops to Iraq? Bomb Iran? If so, please explain where such troops will come from or what bombs you mean. How will either curb Islamist sentiment or make us safer? WWII showed that strategic bombing does not lower morale, halt arms production, or cause regime change — ditto for Vietnam and Lebanon. Massive German losses in Russia were a key contributor to its defeat, and fear of Soviet occupation was a key deterrent to opposition to Allied occupation in the aftermath. It turns out that Japan's decision to surrender was also definitely influenced by the Soviet declaration of war — after the two U.S. atomic strikes. There is no Stalin or Genghis Khan to play this role towards Islam today. Neither are there any huge armies to settle struggles in any sort of conventional battlefield. There are, however, nukes. But do you really think that killing many thousands of Iranians this way will earn us any thanks?
Hanson: Let me answer your incoherent queries in the order you raised them.
1) I never recommended more troops for Iraq, (cf. a Commentary article on why we should not do that), because more would only create dependency, inflate the support footprint, and resemble Saigon circa 1968.
2) I never recommended bombing Iran, but rather letting the U.N. work, the E.U. work, and allow China and Russia to work, the Iranian dissidents to work, the Iraqi Shiias to demonstrate democracy works, do all that and don't bomb anything until it is sure that all that failed and the theocracy is ready to arm nuclear intercontinental missiles.
3) WWII, especially against Japan after March 1945, and in Europe after Spring 1944 with the onset of improved tactics, long-range fighter escorts, more planes and less resistance, in fact does tragically show that bombing really does tax arms production and leads to defeat. The Red Army would have lost WWII had not the Wehrmacht diverted thousands of planes and artillery to protect its cities to the rear from air attack. We are learning that 1st-generation precision weapons brought the Vietnamese to the peace table; and Israel did much more damage than the media let on in Lebanon. Bombing is not the answer in war, but it is sometimes a viable choice in concert with other strategies.
4) Yes, Russia killed two out of three German foot soldiers, but only because it was freed from a submarine campaign, a surface fleet campaign, a strategic air campaign, an Italian campaign, a North Africa campaign, a Western European campaign, a Japanese island campaign, a Pacific Ocean campaign, a supply campaign to help its allies, etc. The allies in nine months from beaches got as far into Germany as the Russians did from Moscow in four years.
5) No one wishes to kill "many thousands" except the Iranian President himself who has promised to "wipe out" Israel and others who have called Israel a "one-bomb state"
In short, your history is faulty, and you display the sad wages of the Left — hysterical allegations that other viewpoints are warmongering, while offering no concrete solutions to dealing with fascists seeking nuclear weapons to reify what they have stated in public.
http://victorhanson.com/Books%26Things.html
Yup. And, that will probably require killing millions of them which I have no problem with.
the reason terrorists are pissed is that we're effective against them.
Victor should run for president in 2008!
Don't see how Kennedy fits here, and he left out LBJ for good reason. Who among today's Democrats would "reluctantly" go toe-to-toe with Ahmadinejad?
Also, pre-Pearl Harbor America had an isolationist attitude towards WW2 when the public was aware of events in Europe. It's important to tell the truth to the public, but I'm not sure it helped with our involvement in WW2.
Given Iraq's disregard for UN inspectors and authorities under Saddam, it is unreasonable to expect terrorists will recognize and comply with the UN.
Hansen is good at ancient civilization and Greek history. He loses me when he switches to modern warfare and present day politics.
=D
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.