Suffering the slings and arrows

One of the good things to come out of 9/11, if I can think of it that way, is that I discovered Victor Davis Hanson. He is a classicist, a military historian, a California farmer, and in my opinion, there is no writer out there today with a better sense of why this war against the terrorists is necessary, combined with a clear understanding of the fortitude it will take to finish this war.

In addition to his writing, he does his share of public speaking, and interacting with the public. On his website, there is a transcript of an online Q&A session he did September 6 for the Outlook section of the Washington Post. That transcript can be found here.

Many of the questions were emblematic of the kind of thinking that can be found among the anti-war Left. The questions show the stark lack of coherent argument I often find on the Left.

Hanson is well practiced at fielding such questions, as his answers show. Let me provide you some examples.

Washington, D.C.: As a graduate student in history at the American University here in Washington, D.C., I wonder how you as a historian can rationalize your methodology which argues that Iraq is not analogous to Vietnam? How can you premise your entire argument for American involvement in Iraq on lies: Lies of weapons of mass destruction, and lies of links to Al Qaeda? Just as our involvement in Vietnam was based on the failed paradigm of the "Domino Theory," our involvement in Iraq is based on a failed oil based Middle East policy dating back to 1950's and the ouster of Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq by the CIA. The United States and this administration has abused its power, and it is showing in the streets of New Orleans.

Victor Davis Hanson: Let me address "lies" for a second. To believe that the U.S. deliberately lied about WMD rather than mistakenly privileged that casus belli over the other 27 writs for war passed by the U.S. Senate, one would have to believe that the Clinton administration and most Democratic senators were lying all during the 1980's and during the debate over their war resolution in October 2002, that European intelligence was lying, that Arab governments who warned about tactical use of WMD were lying, and that U.S. commanders in the field who ordered their soldiers to wear protective gear in unbearable heat were part of the lie as well as was their own independent military intelligence. So no, I think it is peril to keep chanting "lies" and leads nowhere. It reminds me of what they said about Lincoln when he signed the Emancipation Declaration and supposedly introduced a new reason for the war other than saving the Union.

This is a topic too large to tackle here, but as Hanson points out, it is a common theme among the anti-war Left to say President Bush "lied" to get us into Iraq. I have yet to see, however, any proof from the Left that the Bush Administration knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, but said just the opposite. (To my humble way of thinking, that would be the definition of "lie".)

The US government, as well as other governments, had reason to believe WMDs would be found in Iraq, and poor intelligence is not the same as falsehoods. I also believe the complete story hasn't been told yet, as we don't yet know how much of Iraq's WMD program was spirited away to Syria.

On Hanson's part, he is correct to point out to this graduate student of "history" (the youth might consider reading other sources other than what he/she has latched on to) that there were many reasons for going into Iraq, all outlined in public. The Bush administration, wisely or not, chose to highlight the WMDs for the public. As was proven after the fact, the Bush administration was right to think the public as a whole wouldn't grasp some of the more subtle arguments.

Here's another question and reply:

Toronto, Canada: If the Bush regime cannot handle the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina what reason is there to suppose that they know what they are doing in Iraq?

Victor Davis Hanson: You tip your hand by the use of "regime" to refer to an elected government. You seek perfection and thus give no exemption to human frailty and thus think we cannot be good. Katrina was the worst natural disaster in our history; the Mayor did not order an evacuation when asked to by the federal government, the Governor is paralyzed into inaction. And yet, the federal government is finally mobilizing, but given a storm, levee break, and a corrupt state political culture it is difficult. As far as Iraq — we have made several mistakes from not securing the borders, to Paul Bremmer’s too frequent public exposure, to disbanding the army, and on and on. And yet what startles is that here we are with a constitutional debate, Saddam scheduled for a judicial trial not a firing squad, and millions of voters in Iraq of all places. If you read what Arab newspapers are saying about the U.S., it is not anymore than we support corrupt dictators nor are intellectuals berating us for cynicism, but now it is our misplaced idealism and naiveté that riles them — and that itself says quite a lot.

As Hanson says, the use of the word "regime" speaks volumes about that person's worldview.

Washington, D.C.: Your response to the question regarding "lies" is reminiscent of the Bush administration's calling those who disagree with the war "unpatriotic." Please address the poster's contention, namely, that a flawed methodology leads to flawed results, and in this case, a flawed policy. No Lincoln metaphors, please.

Victor Davis Hanson: Here we go again. I called no one unpatriotic at all. I did point out how the allegation that mistaken intelligence could hardly be deliberate lies, given the numerous foreign and domestic, friendly and hostile, states that came to the same independent conclusion. You did not read either what I wrote: there were 20 some reasons the Senate voted to authorize war with Saddam. Read what John Kerry and Hillary Clinton said on the floor of the Senate. All were legitimate. So the policy of removing a dictator with a long history of war with the U.S., attacking regional states, genocide, and state-sponsored terror was rational, not flawed in a post-September-11 world. And despite our lapses we are seeing the dividends in both the Middle East in general and inside Iraq.

The claim of being called "unpatriotic" is another common script.

Chicago, Ill.: It is great to have all this intellectual analysis, but the reality is we are losing. You can stipulate and postulate all you want Mr. Historian, but the reality on the ground is we are losing. The reforms you cite in Egypt and Lebanon are laughable and reveal you as a partisan — there are absolutely no reforms taking place in Egypt except for the lip service the President there pays and Lebanon is as dangerous as ever. My question to you is how long will this war go on and what constitutes winning?

Victor Davis Hanson: Again, the sarcasm leads nowhere and tires. We are not losing. Two-thirds of Iraq are secure. The Sunni clerics for the first time are urging their people to vote, though to do so is in defiance of the death sentence announced by the al Qaedists. Anyone who thinks Syrians out of Lebanon, under investigation for assassination by of all people the U.N., and Egyptians writing things in newspapers impossible a few months ago is nothing is simply not looking at the facts.

Winning? Very simple. When the constitution is ratified, an Iraqi army can keep the peace, and the terrorists find no sanctuary. We are seeing such a model in Afghanistan, which we should remember was liberated 18 months before Iraq.

I love that "and tires". But better is what Hanson points out, there have been significant changes in the Middle East as a direct result of the US presence in Iraq.

Stewartstown, Pa.: It seems to be that a central point has been left out of discussions about Iraq. The U.S. doesn't have a right to attack other nations and remove their leaders just because it thinks that doing so will make the world "better off." Other nations have a right to their governments — even if those governments are nondemocratic. The U.S. — and any other country — only has a right to attack a nation that poses a clear and direct threat. Iraq was not endangering the United States. Even if Saddam had WMDs, why would he use them against the U.S.? The Soviet Union was an enemy of the U.S., and had WMDs, but didn't use them.

Why do the rights of other nations never seem to be considered in U.S. foreign policy? If America can invade whatever nation it likes, why can't Germany, Japan, and others do the same?

Victor Davis Hanson: You too did not read carefully my other posts. Read the casus belli that the Senate passed. It included violations of the 1991 armistice accords, genocide, assassination attempts on a former U.S. president, links with terrorism (their writ not mine), etc. And read too the critique at the time: in October 2002 it was that Saddam did not have WMD (even the Left believed that), but that the Bush administration was using a "shot gun" approach and trying to throw too many reasons on the wall to see which would stick. The worry over WMD was not that he would attack the U.S. with Iraqi forces but twofold: 1) he had used them in the modern age, so had no moral qualms, 2) he was a host to terrorists, among them one who had tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.

The anti-war Left wants to accede large swaths of US authority to the United Nations. Yet, these same people never talk about how Saddam Hussein violated countless UN resolutions. These violations were among the reasons cited for the invasion. What good is it to hail the power of the UN, if there will be no effort to back up the UN's authority with consequences for flagrant disobedience?

Charlotte, N.C.: I read today that we bombed two bridges inside Iraq. Don't you generally blow your own bridges in retreat? What does that say about or efforts in Iraq, that we cannot secure or hold these bridges?

Victor Davis Hanson: Actually, you just as often do not blow bridges in retreat, unless you plan on never returning. As I understand it, we blew them to cut off the insurgents not escape from them. In this war there are no fronts, neither London, New York, or Madrid. Victory comes not just from safe territory, but from defeating and discrediting an ideology, and that's what we are doing.

Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail has been doing tremendous work documenting the US campaign in western Iraq. Hanson points out what Roggio has written about, some bridges were destroyed to box the terrorists in. This questioner betrays a common ignorance of military matters among the anti-war Left.

One last one from this transcript:

Phoenix, Ariz.: To suggest that "even the Left" believed Iraq had WMD is a bit misleading. Democratic politicians went along with the U.S. party line. People in other countries were not so sure. The lists of misdeed by Iraq you list, while impressive, could easily be listed for Israel who we know has WMD. Can Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Egypt just launch war on Israel because they may feel threatened? And you never answered a basic question — how long will this enterprise take and how many lives lost. Its funny how the most strident supporters of this war sit in academia, government or corporate offices — no sacrifice, plenty of gain.

Victor Davis Hanson: This is an absurd letter. We don't worry about WMD in France or the U.K. or Israel, because they are under control of elected and constitutional governments. That is why we worry less about Russia's arsenal, even with its present government, than during the Soviet era. No one knows how long any war will last; but in terms of past ones from WWI to Vietnam, we have waged a war that has tried to minimized the costs in lives. I have not gained off the war, and wrote far more books before than after September 11. Your comment reminds of my farming neighbors who when we all were going broke said no one had the right to comment on agricultural policy unless they grew food. I added that according to his crazy logic — nor eat it either unless they were on the tractor all day long.

Another mystery for me. The anti-war Left's moral scale is a sliding one. They cannot fathom a world where true evil exists, and the difference between a democracy and a brutal dictatorship.

One of Hanson's books is entitled An Autumn of War, and contains a collection of columns and essays he wrote in the wake of 9/11. Chapter 20 is entitled War Talk, Listening to America. Hanson describes this chapter as a "melange from the dozens of actual inquiries I have encountered since September 11".

Hanson describes general types of people that ask questions at his talks, or in venues such as described above. The way Hanson describes these archetypes is a spot-on description of many on the anti-war Left, and how just about anything other than facts and logic are used as debating tools.

The Pacifist - The question is rarely presented as a question, but rather as a quite heated and very unpacifistic rant--with ample references to little-known foundations, books, and the questioner's own high-minded efforts and programs

The Voice of Moral Equivalence - Like the pacifist, the moralist offers no realistic plan of action to deal with September 11, but wishes to force you to concede that you are in fact a murderer like the Taliban

The Europeanist - The questioner is soft-spoken and sometimes condescending, typically highly educated, well-traveled abroad, and a denizen of either coast. In a live setting, clapping usually follows his question

The Anti-American - Full of all sorts of false knowledge, strange, but unsupported and fascinating "facts" and conspiracy theories; usually his voice breaks into pained stammering by the fourth minute of the question

The Military Alarmist - Usually half-educated, he has culled the Internet for bits and pieces about Alexander the Great and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

The Islamist - Usually a visitor from the Middle East who mentions Israel in the first ten seconds of a very, very, very, long nonquestion

The Advocate of the Palestinians - Usually on a student visa, he raises the word "Israel" after second two, and thereafter every third second, until minute five of the question. Questioner usually announces that he is a moderate, but then proceeds to prove by voice and tone that he in fact is hardly moderate at all

The Frightened - Often refers to kids, suburbs, work--as if he or she alone as such concerns

The Academic - Usually a professor of English, sometimes of political science or government, in his/her mid-fifties--their long questions require a very short answer

The Oil Conspirator - Prefaces questions with odd bits of information about redwoods, the ozone layer, and far-distant pipelines with strange names

The Ignoramus - Most often a student activist, and the most interesting of all the questioners, since he reveals instantaneously the erosion of the American educational system during the last three decades--arrogance coupled with ignorance proving a fatal combination

What that man must go through.

He provides sample questions that these people ask, and provides his usual brilliant answers. All of his books are worth reading.

-----
Others linking to the VDH transcript are:

PDB
Newsbeat 1
TheGoldenGate