Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Tough Choices of Overseas Intervention
Townhall.com ^ | February 25, 2016 | Victor Davis Hanson

Posted on 02/25/2016 4:37:58 AM PST by Kaslin

The United States has targeted a lot of rogues and their regimes in recent decades: Muammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Mohamed Farrah Aidid, Manuel Noriega and the Taliban.

As a general rule over the last 100 years, any time the U.S. has bombed or intervened and then abruptly left the targeted country, chaos has followed. But when America has followed up its use of force with unpopular peacekeeping, sometimes American interventions have led to something better.

The belated entry of the United States into World War I saved the sinking Allied cause in 1917. Yet after the November 1918 armistice, the United States abruptly went home, washed its hands of Europe's perennial squabbling and disarmed. A far bloodier World War II followed just two decades later.

It may have been wise or foolish for Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson to have intervened in Vietnam in 1963-1964 to try to save the beleaguered non-communist south. But after 10 years of hard fighting and a costly stalemate, it was nihilistic for America to abandon a viable South Vietnam to invading communist North Vietnam. Re-education camps, mass executions and boat people followed -- along with more than 40 years of communist oppression.

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: iraq; iraqwar; libya; muammarqaddafi; saddamhussein; vdh; victordavishanson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

1 posted on 02/25/2016 4:37:58 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bestintxas; COBOL2Java; DuncanWaring; EXCH54FE; ExTexasRedhead; FreedomPoster; Gondring; Kennard; ..

Victor Davis Hanson Column


Please Freepmail me if you want to be added, or removed from the ping list

2 posted on 02/25/2016 4:38:50 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him. He got them and now we have to pay the consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We can’t bring down every bad regime and replace it with one of our own choosing.

On the other hand, we can’t really ignore an uncivilized, violent, and adversarial world, either.

So... what do we do?

I have no idea, myself, but, then, I’m not getting the Big Bucks to make these decisions.

Good luck to those who are.


3 posted on 02/25/2016 4:52:37 AM PST by Jack Hammer (uff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
By 2011, Iraq certainly seemed viable. Only a few dozen American peacekeepers were killed in Iraq in 2011 - a total comparable to the number of U.S. soldiers who die in accidents in an average month. The complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops in December 2011 abruptly turned what President Obama had dubbed a "sovereign, stable, and self-reliant" Iraq - and what Vice President Joe Biden had called one of the administration's "greatest achievements" - into a nightmarish wasteland.

Hillary Clinton bragged of the 2011 airstrikes in Libya and the eventual death of Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died." cackle, cackle

We cannot afford the SocialistDemocRAT party to inflict any more damage on America or the World.

4 posted on 02/25/2016 4:53:49 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

What do we do? Two words: Pax Americana.


5 posted on 02/25/2016 4:56:53 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

Actually we CAN “ignore an uncivilized, violent, and adversarial world”.

We should leave the rest of the world alone, but make it clear that if someone brings that violence to the US, we will respond with maximum force (i.e. firebomb a major city to the ground like Dresden) and that if they respond significantly to that punishment, that they face a nuclear response.

One possible policy would be that for every American that is killed by an enemy, we kill 1,000 people from that place in retaliation. Screw morality. What Homo sapiens understands is a steel boot kick to the teeth.


6 posted on 02/25/2016 5:00:05 AM PST by baltimorepoet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We throw some bombs and send a few troops against half-assed enemies and expect to win on the cheap with politically correct generals and pussy rules of engagement. Meanwhile China builds large bases in the South China Sea while we whistle and say “nothing to see here. Move along.”

I just retired from the Army. 24 years of service. Spent too many days in Muslim shitholes. Served for 16 years under Liberal POS presidents. Thought Bush would be a little better, but he sucked too.

I have 3 sons aged 11, 9, and 4. I always thought I’d raise them to be patriotic Americans and encourage them to serve their country. Now I have to teach them to resist the idiocy of 50+% of the population that put people like the Clintons and Obamas in power. I don’t see the divisions in our country going away. I only see trouble. It’s going to be ugly.


7 posted on 02/25/2016 5:10:29 AM PST by strider44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

scorched earth..come home for cake and ice cream....
you’re welcome.


8 posted on 02/25/2016 5:34:42 AM PST by rrrod (just an old guy with a gun in his pocket.l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baltimorepoet

‘One possible policy would be that for every American that is killed by an enemy, we kill 1,000 people from that place in retaliation.’

Never happen.

And, no, we can’t ignore a violent world, or they’ll be showing up in Manhattan, St. Louis, and Dubuque.


9 posted on 02/25/2016 5:34:43 AM PST by Jack Hammer (uff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

‘Pax Americana.’

Sounds good - what, precisely, does it mean?


10 posted on 02/25/2016 5:35:30 AM PST by Jack Hammer (uff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: strider44
Well said. Hope you find an acceptable level of professional activity and comfort in your retirement.

Many, of course, probably including you, were willing to return to some of those %hitholes because of the children who stood there in rags with smiles and big eyes looking at us as though we had come to rescue them. Always believed we would most likely need to remain until they grew up per WWII if we were to make any difference.

11 posted on 02/25/2016 5:39:33 AM PST by frog in a pot (Did the founders intend that our CinC could be born in a foreign country to a foreign parent?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
‘One possible policy would be that for every American that is killed by an enemy, we kill 1,000 people from that place in retaliation.’ Never happen. And, no, we can’t ignore a violent world, or they’ll be showing up in Manhattan, St. Louis, and Dubuque.

If I was President, I'd do it. And I'd consider flattening another city just for spite, if people bitched too much about it.

We don't need spineless wimps running the show when it comes to dealing with the Islamic world. We need another Charles "the Hammer" Martel, Jan Sobieski III, or Count Vlad the Impaler.
12 posted on 02/25/2016 5:43:06 AM PST by baltimorepoet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: baltimorepoet

Yes, I do see what you’re saying.

I hate to point out a painful reality, but... you’re NOT president.

And, trust me on this, you never will be.


13 posted on 02/25/2016 5:45:44 AM PST by Jack Hammer (uff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: strider44
I have 3 sons aged 11, 9, and 4. I always thought I’d raise them to be patriotic Americans and encourage them to serve their country. Now I have to teach them to resist the idiocy of 50+% of the population that put people like the Clintons and Obamas in power. I don’t see the divisions in our country going away. I only see trouble. It’s going to be ugly.

Sons 17, 15, 12 and daughter 6. I thought the same once but I have told my 17 yr old that if he joins the military I will kick his a$$. And I told him why (not out of some misplaced disrespect for the US military but because of the civilian morons like Bill Clinton or GWB that end up giving it stupid missions).

Heck, when my enlistment term was up in the Navy Reserves in the 90's, I got out, specifically because of the BS that happened in Somalia. And yes, it is going to get ugly. Even my 17 yr old can see the writing on the wall, both with the US and the world in general.
14 posted on 02/25/2016 5:50:46 AM PST by baltimorepoet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
Yes, I do see what you’re saying. I hate to point out a painful reality, but... you’re NOT president. And, trust me on this, you never will be.

Yes, of course.

I am boss of my little patch of land, though. And intend to remain so, even if the idiots-in-charge result in mushroom clouds on the horizon.

I wouldn't want to be president, because I'm not willing to be a whore.
15 posted on 02/25/2016 5:53:55 AM PST by baltimorepoet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
When the Roman Empire was at its height, it ruled most of the world. It "conquered" vast territories from east Asia to Britannia, and governed widely variant cultures, from the Mongols and Tatars to Persians and Greeks to Gauls, Huns, and Celts.

It did so by establishing local governors -- Pontius Pilate was one example -- who acted as plenipotentiaries within their domains. They brought with them Roman law and order, but did not attempt to impose any particular set of beliefs or values, preferring instead to co-opt the dominant values of the region and adapt them to a more orderly society.

Violations of acceptable behavior -- criminality -- were quickly and severely punished, usually by death.

While that may sound tyrannical, the Romans brought with them a degree of learning, technology, and peace most of these regions had never known. Everyone benefited. Because the cost of that prosperity was a tribute to Rome, usually in the form of taxes.

The Middle East of Christ's time was an example of Roman discipline. Shortly after He was crucified, a band of Zealots led a rebellion against Roman authority in Judea. Pilate summoned the Tenth Legion from Britannia, which spent the next ten years building a ramp to attack the main fortification of the rebels high on a plateau. While the retribution in this case wasn't swift, it was certain. The occupiers of the fortress perished to a man, all at their own hands rather than be captured by the legion.

The peace administered by Rome as known as the Pax Romana, and marked a period of relative stability around the civilized world. Pax Americana would be the modern-day equivalent.

16 posted on 02/25/2016 6:25:19 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

I see. Got it. Thanks.


17 posted on 02/25/2016 6:32:41 AM PST by Jack Hammer (uff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

Actually, VDH explained it in a lot fewer words: American interventionism.


18 posted on 02/25/2016 6:36:21 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

I say we just nuke the problem areas and wait a decade or so for the rad levels to drop. Then we move in and let former President Trump build golf courses.

If the Romans had nukes Carthage would have glowed for 100 years.

L


19 posted on 02/25/2016 6:37:33 AM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
a viable South Vietnam to invading communist North Vietnam. Re-education camps, mass executions and boat people followed -- along with more than 40 years of communist oppression.

A liberal considers this as peaceful utopia.

20 posted on 02/25/2016 6:51:31 AM PST by libertylover (The problem with Obama is not that his skin is too black, it's that his ideas are too RED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson