I talk to my neighbors and they have already “checked out” of Iraq. In their minds, we gave the Iraqis a chance, they were ingrates, and now we should leave. This is in Ohio where support for the war was near 100% in 2003.

Americans are black and white thinkers. The idea that the proper policy is a gray area of leaving some troops there indefinately is not going to fly. The Republicans know this and are screaming bloody murder up on the hill. Americans want out, ALL THE WAY OUT, and if there is a bloody end in Iraq, well the Iraqis brought it upon themselves. Now THAT is realism.

Seriously, I’d like to know who the Hamiltonians who brought us 9/11 are. I’d be interested in understanding the argument behind that assertion.

I read a book called Special Providence. As I understand the arguments of that book, Jacksonians don’t have to wait their turn–they’re currently running things. I shudder to think that our next leaders could be both less realistic and more belligerent. So I’d really like to have that explained, too.

BTW, Michael, American Jacksonians are realists, too. My concern is that, unfortunately, it may be their turn next.

During the first few weeks of the war (during which time our troops managed to overthrown Hussein’s regime rather quickly and with relatively few casualties), Hanson was quick to crow about how easy Baghdad had fallen and how horribly wrong critics of the war had been in their predictions.

Yet Hanson’s own predictions haven’t exactly panned out themselves. Here are a few comments he made during the months prior to and the first few weeks of the war:

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, February 19, 2002:

Now we are told an attack against Iraq will supposedly inflame the Muslim world. Toppling Saddam Hussein will cause irreparable rifts with the Europeans and our moderate allies, and turn world opinion against America…

The conventional wisdom of our Theban chorus of critics is that we are now blood-drunk on our victories and thus seeking a self-righteous and perpetual war against inequity — cynically either to guarantee large defense budgets at home or to expand American hegemony abroad.

The opposite is more likely true. If we practice diplomacy and military action creatively and forcefully, in the future we can be far less visible and active in the Middle East than we are now. The key is to make our current enemies into friends and in some sense our present “friends” into enemies. Should Hussein leave Iraq — a secular and wealthy state — and the people craft some sort of moderate government, there would be three immediate and beneficial effects. We would end U.S. belligerent action in the skies over the Gulf; Iraq would serve as a model and catalyst for Iranian reform next door; and we could exit Saudi Arabia and put the Gulf sheikdoms on notice that what transpired in Baghdad can and should happen to them.

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, March 28, 2003:

When this is all over — and I expect it will be soon — besides a great moral accounting, I hope that there will deep introspection and sober public discussion about the peculiar ignorance and deductive pessimism on the part of our elites.

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, April 14, 2003

In general, the media has now gone from the hysteria of the Armageddon of Afghanistan to the quagmire of Iraq to the looting in Baghdad — the only constant is slanted coverage, mistaken analysis, and the absence of any contriteness about being in error and in error in such a manner that reflected so poorly upon themselves and damaged the country at large at a time of war. It is as if only further bad news could serve as a sort of catharsis that might at least cleanse them of any unease about being so wrong so predictably and so often.

So, Hanson was wrong about the Iraq War not inflaming the Muslim World.

He was wrong about the Iraq War not turning world opinion against America.

He was wrong about a liberated Iraq serving as a model and catalyst for Iranian reform next door.

He was wrong about expecting the Iraq War being over “soon” (unless “soon” means four a half years ).

And despite Mr. Hanson’s constant association of anti-war liberals with “appeasement”, he appears to somewhat of an appeaser himself–offering knee-jerk support and appraisal for President Bush with regards to Iraq.

But worst of all, Hanson continues to spout the big lie with regards to our involvement in the Middle East. According to him, Muslim extremists attacked us on 9/11 because 1) they hate us for our freedom, democracy, and modernity and 2) emboldenment due to inaction on the part of prior administrations. Like Rudy Giuliani, who pounced on Congressman Ron Paul during the second Republican Presidential debate for daring to suggest that our foreign interventionism in the Middle East is a large contributor to why Muslim extremists hate America, Mr. Hanson refuses to even acknowledge the concept of blowback as a major cause of Muslim hatred toward America. Consider, for example, Mr. Hanson’s explanation as to what caused the tensions between our two countries:

Our beef with Iran, of course, goes back well before George W. Bush’s presidency. “The Great Satan” as a slur for America was coined when Jimmy Carter was president. In 1979, student gangsters stormed the American embassy in Tehran and took hostages. Prior to 9/11, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization.

Predictably, Hanson cites the 1979 Revolution and taking of our embassy. And just as predictably, he fails to even mention 1953–the year in which the democractically-elected Prime Minister of Iran was overthrown following a covert operation by the CIA.

The bellicose foreign policy that Mr. Hanson has advocated these last five years is exactly what we DO NOT NEED. And it takes a special kind of arrogance for him to continue to accuse anti-war liberals of “appeasement” given how wrong he and his fellow warmongers have been with regards to the Iraq War.

Yeah – first timer I think?

Do we actually agree about something? I must be dreaimng.

Given the politics and the state of the Union, a withdrawal of some sort is necessary reasobably soom.
I have always sided with a cautious step-by-step approach, with pauses and reassessments.

That’s, in the end, what makes foreign policy matters to interesting, to me at least. It’s incredibly difficult to work out a good plan / approach. As I see it, you got to look at the situation time and again, and be willing to adjust your earlier plan to recent developments.

It’s a balancing act, that’s for sure. It’s almost impossible to work something out, but it has to be done nonetheless.

Also, no matter how the surge ends, we will still be the unwelcome occupiers of Arab lands. We can never completely win hearts and minds in the face of that reality. The memory of Abu Graib will not fade just because we say we’re sorry.

No matter how you slice it, it’s still a lot of speculating and guessing and trying to choose the least damaging of possible results.
We still have to pick among a series of realities.