I was happy to hear Tenet use the word "honor" when discussing how these cretins tried to hang the failure to find WMDs around his neck. What a great, nineteenth century concept, honor. Where people who were found to have done ruinous dishonest, and yes, dishonorable things immediately resigned in disgrace,and where appropriate, went into the drawing room, took a shot of brandy, and put a revolver in their mouth.
I am not suggesting mass suicide by the contemptible people who have done this to our country, but starting with the Kagans [all of them!] and the Wolfowitzes, how about some abject apologies followed by resignations from public life? They should be as shunned by decent people as pro-german sympathizers were after the camps were uncovered. There is no way that their opinions about anything should appear on the op ed page of WaPo, which is a despicable insult to the dead and wounded, on their part and on the part of those who continue to publish them.

it really is incredible that anyone accords the opinions of these people with any respect whatsoever, given their miserable track record.

I hate to correct the distinguished "military historian", Victor David Hanson but in December 1945 World War II both the European and Asian fronts had been over for months. Gee, I just love these guys. Don't you?

It's amazing how far we haven't come in four years, and how bad things are in Iraq on a day-to-day basis. While I think Reid should have phrased things a trifle differently, it really does drive home a point. And I still don't understand what "winning" in Iraq really means anyway.

I also find it fascinating that the big conservative think tanks are used to portray a legitimate view of the real situation in Iraq. The just spew the same ol' BS.

I wasn't going to post a comment, but really, how could I resist when the security code is "shame"?

That's laughable. Why didn't they get a PNAC statement too? They're still organized, aren't they?

JDAlessandro: I was happy to hear Tenet use the word "honor" when discussing how these cretins tried to hang the failure to find WMDs around his neck.

I like your discussion of nineteenth century honor but I don't agree that Tenet is a credible advocate of it. He had his chance to stand up to the neocons but instead he was just a yes man. His lame excuse for using the phrase "slam dunk" is pathetic. It's also pathetic that he now says he shouldn't have accepted the Medal of Freedom from Chimpy.

I still remember how everyone was saying the neocons wouldn't get away with scapegoating the CIA and we were all waiting for Tenet to stand up. He had his chance to demonstrate honor and he passed.

Tedious as it is to listen to them, it's fair enough that Kagan, Hadley, and Victor David "THIS IS SPARTA!" Hansen were allowed to join in -- I bet they thought they'd get a lot more support in the pages of the Washington Post than they did.

But it is telling and instructive that when these three stooges are the last people who still say the war is winnable, you know the cause is lost.

The USA-centric comment of the historian, that the "challenge is winning back hearts and minds at home," is stunning.

It's as if, over in Iraq, we continue to be greeted with flowers and chocolate...

"No. The war is not lost -- no more than it was in winter 1776, July 1864, December 1945 or November 1950. "

The "military historian" Victor Davis Hanson is aware that World War II had been over in December 1945 for several months, right?

WaPo also gives us another "no":

"Not yet. Some people will say the Yankees have lost if they're down in the eighth inning. They'll get in their cars and leave. But some people will stay until the last pitch. It's not lost until we collectively decide it's lost. The question is, how much are you willing to pay?"

-- Paul Rieckhoff, Army platoon leader in Baghdad, 2003-04

Ah, sports metaphors to describe war are just the BEST.

Aside from the fact that for his metaphor to work there would have to be a pre-determined end (timetable) to this fun little Saturday afternoon jaunt we call the War in Iraq, his closing point is quite important: How much are you willing to pay (to continue this epically proportioned mistake)? If, like some, you're willing to pay more than the hundreds of billions already spent; if, like some, you're willing to pay tens of thousands more than the lives already stolen; if, like some, you're willing to breed an exponentially greater breed of America-haters and unreasoned ideological pawns, then you are also "lost" and should be given no respect on the pages of a national newspaper.

I hate to correct the distinguished "military historian", Victor David Hanson but in December 1945 World War II both the European and Asian fronts had been over for months. Gee, I just love these guys. Don't you?
Posted by: Thom Rogers
Date: April 29, 2007 08:55 AM

Shhhhhh. Hanson works for the "Hoover Institution", which means he's way too distinguished to be called on a simple factual error.

Hanson's dates are perplexing. If he means to point to low points in public morale during American wars, he is a bit off. Valley Forge was Winter 1777-78, not 1776. July 1864 is a poser. Grant laid seige to Petersburg and Sherman was packing his bags for Atlanta. But maybe Hanson means it was a low point for the Confederacy. And we all know how the South persevered and won that war (irony). December 1945 is several months after VJ Day. November 1950 must refer to the Chinese offensive in Korea. But it is also the month of my birth which may, or may not, have been a low point in American History.

Isn't it time for the inept and bumbling David Broder to step down? The entire DC pundit culture seems to have broken away from the continent and are drifting out to sea. Not that I'll miss them, but shouldn't the 'Dean' of that culture be looking for the lifeboats about now?

In, um, fairness, I suppose ol' VD Hanson means January, 1945, the period of the Battle of the Bulge.

The fact remains that that German offensive was a desperation gambit because, well, the war was lost-- for them. Maybe Hanson really is on the other side, hmm?

Victor Davis Hanson to the teacher before a history test:

"Do we have to remember dates?"

I 2nd those comments re Tenet's honor.
"Loved I not honor more" is a sentiment as foreign to these contemptible "neocons" as maiden's milk.

Tenet, Powell, Gonzo, the darlings of the atty purge, et al, are careerists in the worst way -- do ANYTHING their bosses want and worry about it later. I suspect their arrogance -- no, hubis -- made them believe they would never be called to account for it. I'm sure their bosses assured them of that.
Ah, but we may be witnessing a sea change in American politics.
Guys like Josh, Stewart,Moyers, members of Moveon -- to name just a few -- would be shot under some regimes so maybe there's hope for our beloved Republic yet.

Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

The fundamental reason that the war is lost is that Bush has never managed to articulate or implement a coherent strategy or even a strategic objective for America in it. Our tactics do keep improving, but that's largely beside the point when our strategic goals are neither articulated to the American people nor shared with an Iraqi government of our creation to which we are now hostage.

If the American people could be persuaded that what we had at stake was comparable to what was at stake in December of 1941 or in 1776, something that could be defined as victory might be achieved despite the cost.

There is no chance that Bush, McCain, or any of the other dolts promoting this war can do that.

i never got passed the "you'll unleash the gates of hell"

kagan, hadley, and hanson (et.al) must have a part in the concession on the toll of that gate

I think VDH is referring to December 1941, when the U.S. Pacific fleet was bombed into near oblivion.

I am not suggesting mass suicide by the contemptible people who have done this to our country

I'll suggest it. They have been so incredibly, disastrously wrong - wrong at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars - that it's the only decent thing left to do.

But, I'll compromise if they aren't willing to commit harikiri: how about if they STFU forever?

Security code: sheep. Heh.

I think VDH is referring to December 1941, when the U.S. Pacific fleet was bombed into near oblivion.

yeah, why would one expect a military historian to get that date right?

What a douche.

Hadley, Kagan and Hanson are the only respondents to give a categorical "no"?! The responses of Kagan and Hadley, since they were being intimately involved with the administration's planning of the war and surge should not have been mentioned and Hanson is a delusional classics professor who hangs with Cheney and believes "war" is an inevitible part of the human condition that people should embrace not avoid. Read anything he has written on "war" and the tone is one of 'war can be good clean fun.' Not to mention, Hanson is a staunch supporter of the Bush Doctrine and believes that the only way to successfully wage war is ferociously and single-mindedly. See http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-130934257.html. Because of his past support of Bush and his belief that war must be waged single-mindedly, the only conclusion is that he will never waver from supporting the Iraq war - no matter how grim the facts.

Like any good statistician would do, the WaPo should have truncated the responses to eliminate any illegitimate "no's and yes'" from the report. Having not done this the peice reeks of a propaganda.

security code: Flag - as in flag waving fools.

Speaking of "evil sorts" (as in "Iraq, where brave thousands join us each day to fight an evil sort the likes of which we haven't seen in recent memory", VDH), has anybody else read Nick Kristof's op-ed today?

There's "losing" for you.

Really, Hanson can be completely rational and coherent when he is discussing military history with other historians. When he starts thinking about politics, his brain switches off and he foams at the mouth, snarling and babbling like Rush Limbaugh with a bad batch of illicit pills.

Here's a gem I just found at CNN.com:

The Army's new chief of staff said he wants to accelerate by two years a plan to increase the nation's active-duty soldiers by 65,000.

The Army has set 2012 as its target date for a force expansion to 547,000 troops, but Gen. George Casey said he told his staff to have the soldiers ready earlier.

"I said that's too long. Go back and tell me what it would take to get it done faster," he said in an interview Saturday with The Associated Press during a stop in Hawaii.

...

Casey told a group of soldiers' spouses that one of his tasks is to try to limit the impact of the strain on soldiers and their families.

"We live in a difficult period for the Army because the demand for our forces exceeds the supply," he said.

A woman in the group asked Casey if her husband's deployments would stop getting longer. She said they used to last for six months in the 1990s but then started lasting nine months and 12 months. Two weeks ago, she heard the Army's announcement that deployments would be extended as long as 15 months.

"Do you honestly foresee this spiral, in effect, stopping?" she asked.

Casey said the Army wants to keep deployments to 15 months, but "I cannot look at you in the eye and guarantee that it would not go beyond."

More troops, huh? How about less war, rather than more troops, General??? Does the general know something I don't know?

Hanson got confused. He was probably thinking of the Battle of the Bulge (Dec. 44).

But, then again, pseudocons are always confused.

RE: Paul Rieckhoff, Army platoon leader in Baghdad, 2003-04

Rieckhoff is actually a sharp critic of much about the war, and it's a shame he's not identified in more detail (and that he's grouped with those clowns). As a soldier, of course he "supports the troops," but he pulls no punches for the administration and believes that "the military is breaking down." He's now in the reserves, and has been very vocal, both in print (Chasing Shadows) and news media.

In short, he hardly seems a "booster" of the surge, as the WaPo presents it. If he were to answer his own question "what are we willing to pay," the answer would likely be: "not enough, especially for a diversionary war that costs too much." At least that's my take ...

"The war is not lost -- no more than it was in winter 1776, July 1864, December 1945 or November 1950"

This is a minor point, but the Iraq war didn't start until 2003, so it certainly wasn't lost or not lost in 1776.

The clarity of his writing seems to fit pretty well with his command of history.

I'm still waiting for the Bush daughters to enlist. Maybe that would turn the tide.

Ironically, the security code is "rule."

A good companion piece is this morning's NYT article, "Uneasy Alliance is Taming On Insurgent Bastion," which has two distinct voices: one speaks in generally hopeful terms about declining violence and popular support, while another describes what's behind it: a willingness of US forces to work with a "Mafia"-like Sunni police force composed of ex-insurgents and run by tribal leaders--one of whom the article describes as "Al-Capone" like.

That's the face of a US "victory" in Iraq?

What I find most perplexing is the simple non-acknowledgement of the type of conflict that Iraq has become. No pretense of answering the question of what "winning" or "losing" means, simply grandiose references to what we all know are grandiose moments in history (except in the case of our Hover Scholar, who apparently doesn't know history).

We have spent upward of $500 billion to eliminate a non-existent threat and replace it with a daily death toll on our soldiers, and a requirement that our soldier kill on a daily basis in order to minimize their own mortality rates.

Have we lost? Have we won?
As long as we keep the game going we can say that no-one has won or lost because the game is not over; our loyal-bushies are correct in saying that.

Can we ask a new question? One less political in nature: Is there any value to our troops remaining in Iraq?

I believe this is a question that deserves an honest debate from both the "anti-war" and "pro-war"

That's the face of a US "victory" in Iraq?

we've come a long way from spreading democracy and freedom in the Middle East, huh? As Bill Maher says, it's all about keeping the shit to shoe level now.

The question was "Is the Iraq War Lost?" According to Hanson's reply, we've been fighting it since 1776, and winning the whole time. Who knew?

I didn't know that when Bush was talking about winning hearts and minds, James Hansen was thinking those were American hearts and minds.

Either way, none of these bums are winning shit.

"Success" in Iraq might have made more sense, if all we had tried to do was mediation or therapy. But waar just does not make sense there anymore.

Imagine if a therapist feels defeated when a couple or a family cannot or will not find common ground. Imagine if in such a situation a therapist (or mediator) calls in the police. Are the police going to be any better at preventing a divorce?

I think we need to completely shift our metaphors here. There is no shame in my admitting to a couple or a family that we have done all we could. Would it not be dishonest on my part to keep doing therapy if the couple itself is unwilling to do the work? And expects me to do the work? What can I possibly do to save a marriage or a family, if they won't make changes themselves?

If anyone wins in Iraq, it will be the Iraqis, not us!

Even from an ethical perspective, when you have done all you can do, then it's wrong to continue down the same path.

There is no shame in recognizing reality. Indeed, it is shameful to NOT recognize reality.

And reality is telling us we are not Iraqis. And we cannot vote there. And we cannot control the government or the culture there. And it is time to recognize that.

Only Americans have a "won" or "lost" mentality. How many Iraqis who have lost fathers, brothers, uncles, and cousins and who've lost their homes and been forced to flee to Syria, Iran, or Jordan are thinking "we still might win this thing"?

I think Hanson is referring to perceived low points in past American wars, which were shortly followed by major victories on the field and an eventual capitulation by the enemy. Therefore: Valley Forge (Winter 1777), Wilderness and Cold Harbor (May/June 1864), and Chosin (Nov 1950).

I can't think of anything that fits during WW2. Corregidor (May 1942) perhaps? Singapore for the Brits and the retreat to Stalingrad for the Soviets.

.............

I've done a little scraping myself.

Back in the day, your shit never seemed to last until payday. It was a common practice to scrape the bottom of the pipe to get that last bit of residue.

I empathize with the desperation these clowns are experiencing.

I empathize, but I don't feel a damn bit sorry for them.

..............

Note that Hanson says nothing of February 1968.

Since the shrub'ites won't define what they mean by winning, why don't we do it for them?

Winning, for PNAC, was to install a U.S. friendly regime in Iraq that would be happy to host the U.S. military bases that are no longer welcome in Saudi Arabia.

That probably never would have happened, and certainly is not ever going to happen now.

Now, winning is simply staying there until the next president comes along to clean up the mess (followed by blaming that president, and the democrats, for 'losing Iraq').

It's just the latest and most spectacular Arbusto Energy for the boy king.

Hansen's right. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

"I am not suggesting mass suicide by the contemptible people who have done this to our country"

"I'll suggest it. They have been so incredibly, disastrously wrong..."

I may be late to the party - but aside from expressing the appropriate degree of frustrated outrage, suggesting mass suicide as a remedy for being "incredibly, disastrously wrong" lets them off easy.

Our leaders (and their surrogates) must be held accountable for more important transgressions than being disastrously wrong: their misinformation campaign, their obvious contempt for rational debate and the democratic process. For that we should (poetically and politically) string them up.

I don't want to see them punished for misdemeanors (being wrong) when the felonies and high crimes are where we can learn the lessons of arrogance, despotism and democratic monotheism.

I'm surprised they didn't ask that well known military historian John Blutarsky:

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, hell no!"

I think I have found what Hanson was implying by "December 1945."

There was a lone Japanese officer left in the Philippines jungle who fought until 1972 without realizing the war had been lost. When he realized it had been lost and he had not won hearts and minds back home, he gave up. Evidently he is far smarter than Hanson.

George Will, of all people, said on the ABC Sunday morning talk show today that Republicans are running from the idea that Bush may be to foreign policy what Herbert Hoover was to economics and the Depression. He emphasized his point by adding that Republicans run the risk of permanently losing the adivantage they have had on national security issues since at least 1968.

"No. The war is not lost -- no more than it was in winter 1776, July 1864, December 1945 or November 1950."

Actually since we're in the fifth year of this conflict, comparing our current state with "winter 1776" is hardly appropriate. It's more like 1780/1781.

Victor the Warrior probably meant December 1944: The Ardennes. Nineteen thousand American lives were lost there in six weeks, but the issue was never seriously in doubt, and it never ceases to amaze that the top American Generals were not canned.

Victor Davis Hanson could just as easily taken the tack that The Bulge was Hitler's "Surge," and note where that got him.

Nice of Larry, Curly and Moe to show up.

Obviously 1716 was a reference to Valley Forge. But that was a different kind of war. One where rag tags improvised against an army of occupation sent by a mad king bound and determined to impose policies that caused the locals to form an insurgency, using unconventional tactics that drove the occupying power's generals to conclude, in the long run, that "victory" was simply not obtainable.

Oh, wait...

"Actually since we're in the fifth year of this conflict, comparing our current state with 'winter 1776" is hardly appropriate. It's more like 1780/1781." — Leo

You got it. And the French are about to help us at the decisive Battle of Yorktown. Hooray! They are willing to help us, right?

ER make that 1776...

Do you consult the fox about the construction of hen house safety features? I don't think so.

http://www.counterpunch.org/werther09072005.html

What Victor Davis Hanson Does to History

Bard of the Booboisie

By WERTHER*

Let us stipulate straightaway: Victor Davis Hanson is the worst historian since Parson Weems. To picture anything remotely as bad as his pseudo-historical novels and propaganda tracts, one would have to imagine an account of the fiscal policies of the Bush administration authored by Paris Hilton.

Mr. Hanson, Cal State Fresno's contribution to human letters, is the favorite historian of the administration, the Naval War College, and other groves of disinterested research. His academic niche is to drag the Peloponnesian War into every contemporary foreign policy controversy and thereby justify whatever course of action our magistrates have taken. One suspects that if the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute were suddenly seized by the notion to invade Patagonia, Mr. Hanson would be quoting Pericles in support.

Once we strip away all the classical Greek fustian, it becomes clear that the name of his game is to take every erroneous conventional wisdom, cliche, faulty generalization, and common-man imbecility, and elevate them to a catechism. In this process, he showcases a technique beloved of pseudo-conservatives stuck at the Sean Hannity level of debate: he swallows whatever quasi-historical balderdash serves the interest of those in power, announces it with an air of surprised discovery, and then congratulates himself on his boldness in telling truth to power...

Hilarious...

I wet myself!

One blinks in disbelief at such a statement. World War II is the subject of an avalanche of more books and films than any other historical subject, most of them if anything overstating, mainly by implication, the precise American contribution to Allied victory. Has Mr. Hanson never heard, that far from being unheralded, General Patton was the laudatory subject of an Oscar-winning film that is a staple of Turner Classic Movies? Did the overwhelmingly favorable public response to Saving Private Ryan bounce off his consciousness like so many Swedish peas off a steel helmet? [2]. Was there no notice of the recent dedication of the World War II Memorial in Reader's Digest or other publications appropriate to Mr. Hanson's Rotarian tastes? The History Channel is All World War II, All The Time - largely from the American perspective; Mr. Hanson is apparently too busy watching Fox News to notice.

http://www.counterpunch.org/werther09072005.html

If the Democrats had a lick of political sense, they wouldn't say "we lost the war, now bring the troops home". Instead they'd say "we won the war, now bring the troops home."

The "war" was to defeat Saddam's government. Mission accomplished, as they say.

What's going on now is not a war, and it can't be "won" by the military.

I'm just happy that Tenet again raised the concept of honor- as some here have said, he's one of the worst possible bearers of this message, since he hasn't returned the medal yet, and was too much of a coward to do the right thing at the right time, but its good to hear the word again. Colin Powell is in the same category. Maybe we can start a public discussion about this concept, and why those like Gonzalez who refuse to resign when they have disgraced their office, should be shunned and disrespected until they are compelled to do the right thing. And those like Russert who put such people on the air should also be shunned [by the way, when were Reid or Pelosi last on MTP? Coincidence?]

It is interesting, the inane quality of man to avoid the simple task of admitting that they were wrong in instituting a flawed and/or stupid policy or practice. The practice of salving one's frail ego (particularily in the case of polliticians and policy makers) leads to the engagement in wars where nobody wins---especially the populations upon whom the war is perpetrated or the warriors who conduct the war.

Most importantly, the weight of any guilt connected to these actions really rests upon the shoulders of the populace who, through ignorance or mental laziness and lack of engagement, allow said policy makers to wage war in their names.

TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR FOLKS!!!

For Chicago Tribune Op-Ed readers, each week is bookended by neocon editorialists. Mondays, we get Krauthammer, Fridays we get Victor Davis Hansen. I read 'em just to see how deluded the neocons are in the face of their ideology's consequences, but it's not fun.
We used to have a break from the con's drumbeat during the week with Molly Ivins, but she's gone.

I'm waiting for someone to ask these experts if they would be willing to declare victory if another Pakistan-Mynamar type state arises to flank Iran with a general in a tailored suit promising to be an important ally while stifling all dissent.

I think VDH is referring to December 1941, when the U.S. Pacific fleet was bombed into near oblivion.

For having been "bombed into near oblivion," the US sure came up with 4 carrier groups pretty quickly (a few months later) at Midway, didn't they?

Gimme a break. The Japanese bombed mostly aging junk at Pearl, probably because (as more and more historians agree) Roosevelt had been tipped off (we had broken the Japanese code in '39). We conveniently removed the modern fleet from Pearl in November.

A question to our astute "historian" Hanson-go back and compare the rantings of Goebbels, the German propaganda spokesman as the Russians were pounding Berlin in April 1945 and the comments coming out of the Admin these days about the success of the surge. The tone and tenor are remarkably similar.

The rhetorical power of alluding to specific dates in history as analogies is lost when the dates don't make sense even to people who know American history. Sorry, Victor.

Besides, if we're going for historical war analogies, how about "If this were WWII, we'd have won by now." The significance I see in his December 1945 date is that is was four years after Pearl Harbor, and the war on both fronts was over. Four years after the Iraq invasion, we're still cobbling together a counter-insurgency and locked in street fighting.

"If the Democrats had a lick of political sense, they wouldn't say "we lost the war, now bring the troops home". Instead they'd say "we won the war, now bring the troops home."

The "war" was to defeat Saddam's government. Mission accomplished, as they say.

What's going on now is not a war, and it can't be "won" by the military.
Posted by: Oberon
Date: April 29, 2007 11:36 AM"

Bingo

Security Code:
sharp

David Broder is an embarrassment and should step down.

"If the Democrats had a lick of political sense, they wouldn't say "we lost the war, now bring the troops home". Instead they'd say "we won the war, now bring the troops home."

True, but the mission failed. That's not true either. The mission never had a chance of success. The policy failed. The goal of the mission? A western aligned, secular democracy in Iraq. The administration failed. You don't get do overs in real life. We were all better off with Saddam. That's what needs to said, accepted and understood. Period.

It has always seemed obvious to me, from the text in Bob Woodward's book, that Tenet did in fact intend "slam dunk" to refer to the likelihood of selling the intelligence, such as it was, to the American people. His response was to Bush's question, "Is that all you've got? Can we convince Joe Public to go along with this?" (quote approximate). It was that question Tenet eagerly answered with "It's a slam dunk!" I find it quite odd that Woodward essentially denies that reading in his subsequent "State of Denial." Whatever Woodward intended, the words on the page support Tenet's version.

I have a certain sympathy for Tenet, in spite of his failure to speak out sooner, after reading Ron Suskind's compelling "The One Percent Doctrine," for which Tenet was a primary source.

Suskind's writing is both fluid and compelling, and he has a real knack for explaining obscure concepts to the uninitiated, as he does in his book on the former Treasury secretary.

TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR FOLKS!!!

Posted by: Richard Gillette
Date: April 29, 2007 11:39 AM

ok, Richard, I get what you meant, but when I look in the mirror, I see someone who has been voting against--and ranting about and working to oust--the neocons from the beginning of the BushCo administration. So, can I be excused?

And Hanson ever seen a war he didn't like?

i love it--my security code is "bell," as in "ringing the ____" and yelling "The Neocons Are Coming, the Neocons Are Coming!"

Richard, I've been contrary to the line of the Inner Party and its MSM puppets since before September 11, 2001.

My conscience is clear on this one.

I don't see any comments yet that mention how we didn't win in Korea. We're still there, still armed and facing N. Korea. And it's now 56 years plus from that "low point"...

And one could argue that we "lost" the Gulf war, since we're back there again, and we "lost" WWI since we completed a military victory and lost the post-war peace, leading to WWII, which led to the Cold War, Vietnam, and on and on.

YES!

The people who sent that in are the 'salt of the earth.' (inspired by my security code: salt)

Of course, my 10 year old grand-daughter would say the same. She doesn't follow the news intently but just entering the room where her parents are watching yet another aftermath of yet another explosion in Baghdad would prompt her to say 'yes.'

George Will, of all people, said on the ABC Sunday morning talk show today that Republicans are running from the idea that Bush may be to foreign policy what Herbert Hoover was to economics and the Depression. He emphasized his point by adding that Republicans run the risk of permanently losing the adivantage they have had on national security issues since at least 1968.

GOOD and deservedly so. Couldn't happen to a more deserving pack of shitstains.

If indeed the war is lost, then it's not yet lost badly enough to make an impression on the administration and its legions of patsies. While we all grieve along with the widows and orphans of Bush's War, we must consider the possibility that only a truly resounding, devastating loss for the United States will ever force this conclave of megalomaniacs to face reality.

I think VDH is referring to December 1941, when the U.S. Pacific fleet was bombed into near oblivion.

Posted by: Mellifluous
Date: April 29, 2007 09:55 AM
--
Correct. And by analogy to December 2002, when the Iraqi Air Force and Navy launched their surprise and devastating attack on NATO forces in western Europe, leaving nothing but smoking rubble.

I can see why Professor Hanson might view 1945 as a setback, since does seem to have a thing for the, um, unitary executive.

"evil sort the likes of which we haven't seen in recent memory."

That is a good description of Bush and his gang.

Broder asks for Reid to resign. Isn't that rich? When Gonzales and Wolfowitz are still gainfully employed.

I guess Broder needs a new pair of spectacles.

Greg, you've omitted a few other individuals who have concluded that the Iraq mission is lost:

1. Henry Kissinger
2. Gen. William Odom
3. Gen. Joseph Hoar
4. Gen. Wesley Clark
5. Zbigniew Brzezinski
6. Gen. Merill McPeak
7. Robert McNamera
8. Lt. Col. Larry Wilkerson
9. Brent Scowcroft
10.Lt. General Robert Gard

The way I heard it, WW II was over in August 1945.

"It has always seemed obvious to me, from the text in Bob Woodward's book, that Tenet did in fact intend "slam dunk" to refer to the likelihood of selling the intelligence, such as it was, to the American people. His response was to Bush's question, "Is that all you've got? Can we convince Joe Public to go along with this?" (quote approximate). It was that question Tenet eagerly answered with "It's a slam dunk!" I find it quite odd that Woodward essentially denies that reading in his subsequent "State of Denial." Whatever Woodward intended, the words on the page support Tenet's version."

So true, Bettie. It always struck me as the ONLY way Tenet's slam dunk comment made sense. He was clearly talking about the PR effort to sell the war to the rubes.

The real shame is that Tenet was correct. It WAS a slam dunk -- the rubes swallowed it hook, line and sinker (to mix a couple of metaphors.)

Speaking of mixed metaphors -- can you "unleash" the "gates of Hell?" Wouldn't you "open" gates? I think you "unleash" dogs.

Too bad the Post didn't ask Joe Biden. This morning on MTPress when asked by White House spokesman Tim Russert if he agreed with Harry Reid
that "the war is lost", Biden gave a shameful, scattered response that, when taken at face value, meant No, I don't think the war is lost. Biden is such a spineless political animal.

The war in Iraq is lost.

The war was probably lost even before it started when the Pentagon senior leadership (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith) refused any attempt to plan for post-war Iraq, actively shutting out any advice from State Department experts whose efforts were scornfully regarded as "Nation Building" and not in line with their plan to install the charlatan Ahmed Chalabi as president.

The war was definitely lost in the first year when, contrary to all advice from the generals, State Department experts, and intelligence community officials, L. Paul Bremer implemented the de-Baathification order and the disbanding of the Iraqi army. These two decisions doomed the US in Iraq by directly creating the insurgency and giving it fuel in the form of former soldiers sent home in disgrace (with their weapons) and nothing to lose. The horror of Abu Ghriab only further infuriated the population against us.

And any hope of turning around these mistakes was dashed by the Administration's intentional mis-reading of the situation for political purposes. Bush frames Iraq as part of the war on terrorism, chanting that we have to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. He has claimed that as the Iraqi forces trained by the US increases, we will be able to stand down. But Iraq is imbroiled in a multi-dimensional civil war between Sunni and Shiite for control of the country and its biggest resource: oil. There may be local troublemakers calling themselves Al-Qaeda fighters, but they are by no means at the heart of the situation (killing Zarqawi made not a bit of difference in the fighting). And those legions of Iraqi troups that the U.S. is producing have loyalties which are at odds with peace and may be turning their weapons and training back against us.

Even in spite of all of this, it would be possible to retain some hope for the terrible situation if the president showed some signs of realistically evaluating the situation. But he continues to delude himself and the American people. Although he is on record admitting that Al-Qaeda is not the problem in Iraq, he continues to drop comments making the terrorism connection. He claims that any attempts of Congress to tie funding to redeployment timetables will give the terrorists an incentive to wait it out. This is absurd---it's been more than four years (longer than the U.S. fought in World War II) and if the Iraqis cannot manage their country by now there is no reason to believe that more time will help. Meanwhile Americans are dying in a war that was originally started as a lie (remember yellow cake uranium and alumium tubes?). And, despite the administration's nonsensical claims that the "surge" is working, the violence has steadily increased---each the last 3 months have shown the highest number of attacks since Bush declared the fighting over in the "Mission Accomplished" photo event. Today there was a terrible car bombing that took the lives of ten more soldiers. The situation is as bad as it has ever been.

What possible basis can there be for thinking, after all this, that there is some way that victory will come for America in Iraq?

In World War II, the German generals realized that the war was lost after the success of the D-Day landings. But Hitler, much like Bush, refused to consider the facts, calling his generals defeatists. The German generals turned on Hitler and tried to assassinate him; he ended up killing hundreds of them in return (including the popular Rommel, whose murder was covered up with a huge state funeral). Bush doesn't kill his generals---he just fires them (Shinseki, Gardner, Abizaid) and replaces them with pliant ones willing to do his bidding (Myers, Pretraeus). This is what makes a mockery of Bush's claims to listen to his "Generals on the ground."

I'm a patriot. I love this country and the freedoms it provides. I seldom comment here, and I really don't want to start an argument and be called all sorts of names. But its time to speak the truth, and I think everyone here needs to hear it.

The war in Iraq is lost beyond any hope.

The war was probably lost even before it started when the Pentagon senior leadership (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith) refused any attempt to plan for post-war Iraq, actively shutting out any advice from State Department experts whose efforts were scornfully regarded as "Nation Building" and not in line with their plan to install the charlatan Ahmed Chalabi as president.

The war was definitely lost in the first year when, contrary to all advice from the generals, State Department experts, and intelligence community officials, L. Paul Bremer implemented the de-Baathification order and the disbanding of the Iraqi army. These two decisions doomed the US in Iraq by directly creating the insurgency and giving it fuel in the form of former soldiers sent home in disgrace (with their weapons) and nothing to lose. The horror of Abu Ghriab only further infuriated the population against us.

And any hope of turning around these mistakes was dashed by the Administration's intentional mis-reading of the situation for political purposes. Bush frames Iraq as part of the war on terrorism, chanting that we have to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. He has claimed that as the Iraqi forces trained by the US increases, we will be able to stand down. But Iraq is imbroiled in a multi-dimensional civil war between Sunni and Shiite for control of the country and its biggest resource: oil. There may be local troublemakers calling themselves Al-Qaeda fighters, but they are by no means at the heart of the situation (killing Zarqawi made not a bit of difference in the fighting). And those legions of Iraqi troups that the U.S. is producing have loyalties which are at odds with peace and may be turning their weapons and training back against us.

Even in spite of all of this, it would be possible to retain some hope for the terrible situation if the president showed some signs of realistically evaluating the situation. But he continues to delude himself and the American people. Although he is on record admitting that al-Qaeda is not the problem in Iraq, he continues to drop comments making the terrorism connection. For instance, he claims that any attempts of Congress to tie funding to redeployment timetables will give the terrorists an incentive to wait it out. This is absurd---it's been more than four years (longer than the U.S. fought in World War II) and if the Iraqis cannot manage their country by now there is no reason to believe that more time will help. Meanwhile Americans are dying in a war that was originally started as a lie (remember yellow cake uranium and alumium tubes?). And, despite the administration's nonsensical claims that the "surge" is working, the violence has steadily increased---each the last 3 months have shown the highest number of attacks since Bush declared the fighting over in the "Mission Accomplished" photo event. Today there was a terrible car bombing that took the lives of ten more soldiers. The situation is as bad as it has ever been.

What possible basis can there be for thinking, after all this, that there is some way that victory will come for America in Iraq?

In World War II, the German generals realized that the war was lost after the success of the D-Day landings. But Hitler, much like Bush, refused to consider the facts, calling his generals defeatists. The German generals turned on Hitler and tried to assassinate him; he ended up killing hundreds of them in return (including the popular Rommel, whose murder was covered up with a huge state funeral). Bush doesn't kill his generals---he just fires them (Shinseki, Gardner, Abizaid) and replaces them with pliant ones willing to do his bidding (Myers, Pretraeus). This is what makes a mockery of Bush's claims to listen to his "Generals on the ground."

People like Harry Reid may be demonized by the administration as "defeatist" for their statements on Iraq. In light of all that has gone on, I would call him a "realist."

James Wolcott has some really funny articles on Victor Davis Hanson is a/k/a "The Pericles of Petticoat Junction".

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2005/12/the_pericles_of.html

Reid WAS wrong to say the US has lost the war. One does not lose until they pull out, or admit defeat.

He was not wrong in his idea, but wrong with his approach.

He should have stated, there is nothing more to gain and more to lose if the US stays in Iraq.

Then there wouldn't be this debate on what Reid stated, which is supported by a fanatical US left, and hated by a fantacal US right.

The Historian isn't wrong either. The biggest things which are working against the US soldier and the US people is the WILL of the people.

This is a similar problem to what occurred in previous wars, as MOST TO ANY historian would know. For example, in the Revolutionary war you had a huge number of colonists that actually supported the other side.

In WW2, though people don't see it in the "hollywood war movies" now, there WAS a great deal of resentment and dislike of having troops overseas, and many more who suffered from soldier's deaths.

Just like in Vietnam where the military wasn't supported by government (in this case the Bush administration is not really supportive of military, in fact they have been trying to cut down the military since he took office...and now is suceeding partially in that in the Navy and Air Force arms of the US military), nor was it supported by the people, it could not do the jobs that it was assigned by those very same groups.

A better thing to ask, is what the military thinks. Afterall, I would imagine they are in a MUCH BETTER situation to state how it really is, especially since the ones over there get to see it face to face every single day. I don't think anyone of them would say the war is lost, but they MIGHT say something similar and have OTHER ideas on how to handle it...if anyone would ever think to actually ASK and ALLOW the US military to do what it thinks it needs to do.

James Wolcott on Victor Davis Hanson

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2005/09/marlboro_man_ge.html

Victor Davis Hanson is the Marlboro Man of war apologists, a sun-bronzed rider of the purple sage whose stentorian words and battlefield vision have made many a chickenhawk less ashamed of himself as he shuffles around in his fuzzy slippers. The aria Hanson sings in article after article pays Wagnerian tribute to the Western Way of War, or why democracies are so admirably advanced when it comes to committing mass slaughter.

Even the Iraq debacle cannot keep him from his appointed rounds from op-ed page to NRO column to Commentary essay to Weekly Standard book review, peddling military aggression for any panadea that ails the godly US of A.

Finally, one man has has enough. A man who knows his military stuff. Whoever he is writes under the pseudonym Werther, and he torpedoes Hanson's pretentions at Counterpunch (with an essay) that will bring a smile to anyone who has endured Hanson's endless calls to arms. The title of the essasy -- "Victor Hanson, Bard of the Booboisie" -- pays homage to HL Mencken, and the essay itself does the master proud....

http://counterpunch.com/werther09072005.html

Let us stipulate straightaway: Victor Davis Hanson is the worst historian since Parson Weems. To picture anything remotely as bad as his pseudo-historical novels and propaganda tracts, one would have to imagine an account of the fiscal policies of the Bush administration authored by Paris Hilton.

Mr. Hanson, Cal State Fresno's contribution to human letters, is the favorite historian of the administration, the Naval War College, and other groves of disinterested research. His academic niche is to drag the Peloponnesian War into every contemporary foreign policy controversy and thereby justify whatever course of action our magistrates have taken. One suspects that if the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute were suddenly seized by the notion to invade Patagonia, Mr. Hanson would be quoting Pericles in support.

Once we strip away all the classical Greek fustian, it becomes clear that the name of his game is to take every erroneous conventional wisdom, cliche, faulty generalization, and common-man imbecility, and elevate them to a catechism. In this process, he showcases a technique beloved of pseudo-conservatives stuck at the Sean Hannity level of debate: he swallows whatever quasi-historical balderdash serves the interest of those in power, announces it with an air of surprised discovery, and then congratulates himself on his boldness in telling truth to power.

This is a surprising and rather hypocritical pose by someone who reportedly sups at the table of Vice President Cheney. For Mr. Hanson is one of a long and undistinguished line of personalities stretching back into the abysm of time: the tribal bard, the court historian, the academic recipient of the Lenin Prize. Compared to him, politically connected scribes such as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., resemble Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Like a Hellcat aviator at the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, one hardly knows where to fire first, so target-rich is the Hanson opus. But let us take, exempli gratia, a recent contribution to human understanding in the pseudo-conservatives' flagship publication, National Review. Mr. Hanson's philippic, "Remembering World War II: Revisionists Get It Wrong," [1] is an extended and unsourced whine obviously written from a deep sense of grievance that America's contribution to World War II is somehow underappreciated, if not deliberately slighted.

One blinks in disbelief at such a statement. World War II is the subject of an avalanche of more books and films than any other historical subject, most of them if anything overstating, mainly by implication, the precise American contribution to Allied victory. Has Mr. Hanson never heard, that far from being unheralded, General Patton was the laudatory subject of an Oscar-winning film that is a staple of Turner Classic Movies? Did the overwhelmingly favorable public response to Saving Private Ryan bounce off his consciousness like so many Swedish peas off a steel helmet? [2]. Was there no notice of the recent dedication of the World War II Memorial in Reader's Digest or other publications appropriate to Mr. Hanson's Rotarian tastes? The History Channel is All World War II, All The Time - largely from the American perspective; Mr. Hanson is apparently too busy watching Fox News to notice.

Perhaps Hollywood, otherwise a perennial target of America's moralizing jihadists, is not to blame so much as that bugbear of pseudo-conservative rage, the Liberal Education Establishment. Mr. Hanson believes that chalky pedagogues are inserting poison into innocent American youths' crania in the same manner that Claudius dispatched Hamlet's father. Only, rather than killing them, these pied pipers of Trotskyite academia endeavor to turn them into Old Glory-burning zombies.

We have before us at this moment our daughter's high school history textbook. Contra Hanson, there is no mention of the internment of Japanese-American civilians. Mr. Hanson's strange obsession with this subject invites speculation. Does his complaint about the alleged academic emphasis on this episode mean he would have opposed internment, or that it was merely a regrettable but necessary expedient best left unmentioned?

Naturally, he cannot restrain himself from commenting, as if we didn't know, that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Earl Warren were the instigators of the internment. Does that make it illicit? If Wendell Wilkie had been elected president and duly ordered internment would it have been unexceptionable? Or does Mr. Hanson's reasoning run along the lines of, "we were fully justified to imprison American citizens without due process as a wartime measure, and people shouldn't bring it up, but my political enemies ordered it, so I can have it both ways." Perhaps Mr. Hanson can resolve this conundrum of who was loyal by paying a visit to the office of the senior Senator of Hawaii: Japanese-American, winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, and infantry soldier who left a limb on the killing fields of World War II fighting for his country. [3]

On the other hand, the textbook contains a long extract from Reichsführer S.S. Heinrich Himmler's 4 October 1943 speech in Posen outlining the intent of the German government to undertake its Final Solution. Hanson, by contrast, suggests that the Liberal obsession with World War II revisionism and the alleged faults of the United States have resulted in the diminution of appreciation for the Axis' killing of innocent civilians. Really?

The number of books, articles, films, commemorations, and newly-opened museums having the holocaust as its subject is a veritable deluge. [4] Somehow, this fact has escaped Mr. Hanson's curiosity. And one doubts, again contra Mr. Hanson, that there are many editorials in American newspapers decrying the bombing of Hamburg. The sole example we can find is a piece by the British (not American) author Niall Ferguson, which is more ambivalent than denunciatory. [5]

Having disposed of Mr. Hanson's assorted red herrings and straw men, the gravamen of his argument is bosh. Seven-eighths of all Wehrmacht combat-division-months (i.e., one division spending one month in combat) during World War II occurred on the Russian Front.[6] It was the Red Army, as Churchill admitted, which "tore the guts out of the German Army." Without diminishing the courage of the assault troops of D-Day, the successful operation in Normandy would have been impossible in 1944 without Stalingrad and Kursk.

Can human imagination encompass the fact that there were 27 million Russian deaths in World War II? That fact was a demographic catastrophe from which Russia has never recovered. Yes, Stalin was a swine, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an act of treachery. But that does not entitle comfortable court historians to simulate outrage at how the American role in World War II has allegedly been belittled by (uncited) Marxist scribblers. Equally, the memoirs of German veterans of the Russian Front generally regarded a posting to the West as virtual salvation compared to the relentless meat grinder of the East. Their testimony has more credibility regarding the Russian contribution to World War II than the jeremiad of a shallow intellect.

For supporting evidence (nowhere seen in Hanson's diatribe), we cite Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett. These establishment military historians, whose musings ordinarily would not ruffle the serenity of Bohemian Grove or the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, aver that the Soviets' little-known Operation Bagration of June 1944 was an operational triumph that the Western allies did not replicate. [7]

Yes, the Red Army was horribly profligate with human life. But was the United States so daintily economical with its own sons because of its wise policies and whiz-bang technology, as Mr. Hanson says? Read Belton Y. Cooper's Death Traps, or Paul Fussell's Wartime. Both books are tours de force about the wartime experience, and both defy summary in the space allotted here. And both gentlemen were junior officers in the killing time of 1944-45, a qualification conspicuously absent from the resumes of many a publicity agent who would send other mens' sons into mortal combat.

As for Mr. Hansen's other distortions and examples of suggestio falsi, the History Channel has already reprised for the umpteeth time that the capture of Iwo Jima potentially saved the lives of more B-29 aircrews than were lost in the amphibious assault, contrary to the asseverations of the Cal State Fresno Thucydides. Are putatively failed strategy and tactics at Iwo really a subject of current Left-wing historiography that Mr. Hanson feels impelled to refute? That may be true, but one is entitled to entertain a healthy skepticism.

To tap the last nail into the Mr. Hanson's reputational sarcophagus, we cite a little-known but seminal work which demonstrates that victory in the Second World War was largely a matter of geology. In Oil And War: How The Deadly Struggle For Oil in World War II Meant Victory Or Defeat, co-authors Robert Goralski and Russell W. Freeburg argue that World War II was not only won by the allies through possession of oil, it was, to an extent far greater than received history admits, about oil.

Mustering a huge, oil-hungry army, the Germans' oil production was always less than a tenth of that of the United States. Japan was in even worse straits, and Italy could not even send its fleet to sea for much of the war for lack of fuel. Pearl Harbor, however large it looms in American iconography, was an important but basically a subsidiary operation to help secure the main thrust towards the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies and Burma. The Germans' Fall Blau of 1942 was largely an oil offensive to reach the fields beyond the Caucasus. Many German operations in North Africa were predicated on capturing British stocks of oil.

Given that 95.9 percent of oil refining capacity lay outside Axis control [8], victory in a war characterized by corps-sized tank thrusts and thousand-bomber raids was a very long shot for the Axis. Mr. Hanson, however, argues without evidence that the inherent virtue of the ordinary American was what turned the tide for the Allies. While by no means discounting the tremendous heroism of the GI, other factors may loom even larger in the correlation of forces: the Allies' huge industrial capacity, a sea of oil, and the self-sacrifice of the Russian Muzhik.

Turning from Mr. Hanson's preposterous history to his political agenda, it appears that his labored apologia to United States government policy 60 years ago serves as a defense of United States government policy now, anno 2005. [9] Don't let those ungrateful foreigners criticize us, he seems to say, after all, didn't we win World War II? Aren't all our wars just? What are all those Krauts and Frogs bitching about? How convenient when the invasion of Iraq (which Mr. Hanson fervently supports) has manifestly faltered and requires rhetorical support from an alleged man of learning, a species otherwise nowhere in evidence in the administration's camp. How convenient, given that the Bush administration sought to rain on Russia's 9 May 2005 victory parade and excoriate Yalta, in a manner not seen in official circles since the gin-fueled diatribes of Senator Joseph McCarthy. [10]

We briefly pass over Mr. Hanson's other non-sequiturs and illogicalities: his seeming dismissal of the Chinese contribution (the implication that the PRC's butchering its citizens after the war somehow negates the Chinese role in winning it) ignores the fact that the bulk of the Japanese Army was tied up in China throughout the war. Likewise, most American advisors stated it was Mao's guerrillas, not Henry Luce's darling, Chiang Kai-shek, who put up the stoutest resistance to the Japanese.

>>We pass over these matters with no more than an embarrassed cough, and lurch into what really peeves Mr. Hanson. Here is the summation of his bill of indictment:

>>" . . . the beneficiaries of those who sacrificed now ankle-bite their dead betters. Even more strangely, they have somehow convinced us that in their politically-correct hindsight, they could have done much better in World War II.

>>"Yet from every indication of their own behavior over the last 30 years, we suspect that the generation who came of age in the 1960s would have not just have done far worse but failed entirely." [italics in original]

The reader seeks specificity. To whom is he referring, when he talks of the generation which came of age in the 1960s? The 57,000 names on the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial, who had little say in the matter, but who suited up and went into combat as bravely as the World War II generation? Or is he writing them off as failures? Or perhaps Vice President Richard B. Cheney, dining companion of Mr. Hanson and owner of four Vietnam War deferments? The author fails to explain.

This essay has barely covered Mr. Hanson's historical fatuity. His errors in interpreting his purported specialty, ancient Greece, are so legion as require an extended treatise. Suffice it to say that he does not praise the Greeks for philosophy, geometry, or literature remotely as much as he whoops it up for their war-making, conveniently ignoring the manifold disasters of the Peloponnesian War. A revealing Freudian slip is his approving and oxymoronic reference to Greece as an "imperial democracy,"[11] no doubt reflecting how his administration benefactors would conceive of our own form of government.

A leitmotiv of pseudo-conservatives is the allegation that public education has gone to hell in a handbasket. As Victor Davis Hanson demonstrates, they may be right.

PS -- That "Werther" pseudonymous character writes an awful lot like James Wolcott himself, don't you think? Hmm...

V.D. Hansen was rooting for the NSDAP and the movement of Golden Aryans towards the light of one party government free of racial and genetic defects. What's a few years of scrabbling about when you are pondering a thousand year reich?

"For example, in the Revolutionary war you had a huge number of colonists that actually supported the other side."

Uhm...that's because in the Revolutionary War, the terrorists won. "The other side" was the only legally constituted government in the fray, by today's standards.

yo, chuck, you're almost as bad as VDH

we had THREE carrier groups at midway (Enterprise, Hornet [???] and Yorktown [damaged during the battle and sunk after the battle by a submarine])

and the reason the carrier groups were NOT at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 had NOTHING to do with any pre-warning or redeployment of the fleet

I could give you the names of the carriers (but I'd have to walk down stairs and find the book). Instead, I'll just let you know that the Aircraft Carriers were delivering aircraft to our Pacific Island bases on December 7, 1941, and therefore avoided being sunk

This is just the same old spew. These three supported the invasion and have always supported the occupation. American soldier and Marine deaths could be double what they are now and these three would STILL be cheering. They truly live in an alternative universe.

Well, there you have it. Incontrovertible proof that Bush can win this war, provided by esteemed experts Eva Braun, Dr. Strangelove and Colonel Klink.

Well, I read about half of the commments and no one seems to have understood what I found obvious in Clap Hanson's reference.... and you guys claim you read Weekly Standard--ha! Well, remember that the consistent comparison between Iraq and WWII has been to the period AFTER WWII when bands of Nazis were still fighting and killing people.
I don't know the exact numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if 100,000 deaths were associated with these groups ("wolves"?) between May and December 1945 [Well, I won't let myself get surprised by the facts, being a neocon, and if it turns out there weren't 100,000, I did say "associated with". You calling me a liar?].

Its hard for us on the outside to understand the con mentality, but I know it to some degree.
A LOT of these people KNOW that we found WMD in Iraq. In fact, many of them believe that we found nuclear weapons in Iraq, but the Bush administration covered it up. This is based on a single article appearing in a local newspaper in Iraq---an article that was never followed up and never corroborated.
Glenn Greenwald has done a great job exposing the "factual" underpinnings of con. politics.
Anyway, I'm sure that Hanson is assuming his readers will know he's talking about the post-war marauding bands---and if you don't, well, you're just stoopid!

This "war" was lost the day we let Baghdad be pillaged and ransacked, the day we left greedy incompetents lead "re-construction" efforts and Blackwater run rampant. It was lost when we shattered the infrastructure and failed to rebuild it and the rule of law became sectarian. It was lost when we refused to bring enough troops to begin with for the occupation and we lost billions in cash we sent and could not account for. It was lost when we read the sign on that ship which read "Mission Accomplished". It was lost by the incompetents who planned it.

You people are debating about 'dates' etc.? The article was the best the WaPo could muster-up to attempt to defend Broder after he was chastised and embarrassed so badly criticizing Reid's comments, by the Democratic Senate's response. The paper got mad and so went looking for anyone to stand up for what got Broder slapped down(making up facts as if Democratic Senators were upset with Reid 'cause he knew 1st hand...ha-ha-ha) How you likin' that huh, how you likin' that, Broder?
code word: screw

I think a number of people don't know the history of the American Revolution that well. The writer is NOT referring to Valley Forge. Things were indeed bleak in the winter of 1776. Washington had recently lost New York city to the British and 25% of the city was burned in a related fire as they retreated. Washington was then chased across New Jersey and lost a large number of his men. Plus, his forces that were left were in terrible condition. Had the British followed up harder, the war would have been over that winter.

There was a huge morale boost and psychological turning point when Washington assaulted Trenton and forced out the Hessians. He then went on to capture Princeton by the beginning of the new year 1777. While both towns were eventually recaptured, and while they weren't huge victories, strategically speaking, these battles were seen as turning points. They helped convince congress that Washington should be retained as the overall general and also brought many men to the revolutionary cause.

Just thought this should be added to the conversation for the sake of accuracy.

"I hate to correct the distinguished 'military historian', Victor David Hanson but in December 1945 World War II both the European and Asian fronts had been over for months."

Ah, but the last "long war" (i.e. the Cold War against Godless Communism) had already started, and we were losing it -- although we didn't know it at the time because we didn't know it had started.

That, no doubt, is what the distinguished and only slightly senile Victor Davis Hanson meant to say.

Not only was WWII won, but the outcome was fully certain a fully year earlier in December 1944. Even in December 1943 the outcome was fairly certain. The low point in WWII was the Battle of Britain in Europe and the Bombing of Pearl Harbor in the Pacific. In June 1942 the Japanese were resoundingly defeated at Midway, and a few months later, the Germans suffered twin defeats at Al Alamien and Stallingrad. So from December 1942, allies had reason for growing optimism.

Just like we have growing optimism from November 1946.

I meant growing optimism from November 2006.

Such a "search" has to be "cherry picked" for responses. Any resposible person "on line" can affirm or deny the question.Where was the question asked? I spend a good part of everyday on line reading and responding to articles which interest me. I don't recall reading an invitation to answer that question.I would suggest that the oportunity to adress the question be reopened in an inviroment which ALL can see and be given that opportunity.
Please pursue this.
Thank you

Swede Nelson

Read it this morning and laughed... it was obvious that they had to dig to find a few who took this view. Wonder what the ratio was between "Yea/Nay"? and the weak attempt to throw in a couple - nuetral views "Not yet"...

The Post used to mean something. But hey, money talks, eh?

WRT Mr. Hanson's predilection with the Peloponnesian War, which of the parties in that war was suckered into a foreign civil war under false pretenses, squandered their vast wealth in the aformentioned civil war and pushed their over-extended military to collapse in the civil war until their real enemy sailed in and took over the home front without a fight?
Could it possibly be Athens' misguided attempt to bring 'democracy' by force to Syracuse that appears as a parallel here?
Aside from that, this "war" is not really a war at all, and since we are simply "referees" in a civil war, we cannot "win" any more than an umpire can "win" a baseball game.

"No. The war is not lost -- no more than it was in winter 1776, July 1864, December 1945 or November 1950. "

Okay, leaving aside the obvious factual errors, does he think we WON the Korean war? Last I looked, the country was partitioned off and half is still ruled by an insane dictator....

Why nothing from Doug Feith?

Also, anybody out there have any insight on why Tenet didn't name Cheney on 60 Minutes as the source of the dishonor? Is that reserve for the Morning Show or for the book? Or is he afraid to call out Cheney?

Oops, I forgot that the meat puppet prostitutes on the Wall Street Journal show on Fox all saw things are wonderful in Iraq thanks to the surge. Who is that young guy who is like an automaton? Why isn't he in a Stryker Brigade like my friend's brother?

Am I mistaken, but didn't Reid say that he believed that leaders in the administration knew the war was "lost"? That's a lot different from saying the war is lost. I don't believe Senator Reid said what has been attributed to him. It is like when everyone debated whether Gore "invented the internet"--which is not at all what he said. Will someone go back to the original transcript?

What war is Victor Davis Hanson talking about when he references "December 1945"?

What a dope Victor Davis Hanson is!
What's truly funny is that by December of 1945 the US had won WWII.
Or maybe I'm wrong? Wasn't Hitler dead by then? Hadn't we accepted Japan's surrender?
Wasn't that 1945? Maybe it was 1955?
Victor David Hanson, the idiot who still thinks the South won the Civil War. They did, didn't they?
This ignorant bastard doesn't know squat...

RE: the war in Iraq: Who is the enemy?

interesting that the historian got the 12/45 date wrong, assuming he, in fact, did. things, paraphrasing forrest gump, happen; typos, errors in transmission, freudian slips (half off during the january white sale), etc.
mac in manhattan

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/world/middleeast/29ramadi.html?ex=1335585600&en=56f686052b572dac&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

"I still remember how everyone was saying the neocons wouldn't get away with scapegoating the CIA and we were all waiting for Tenet to stand up. He had his chance to demonstrate honor and he passed." -- Riesz Fischer

"Listen to me, you deaf f**k. I offered you a chance when we could have done something, I offered you a chance to be a cop and you blew it! You blew it." -- Robert DeNiro, "Copland"

Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Hell no!

But seriously.

"The war is not lost -- no more than it was in winter 1776, July 1864, December 1945 or November 1950...."

The prominent military histerian confusing December 1945 with December 1941 aside, it's curious that VDH chooses to use (except for the American Civil War) analogies of conflict that are only months (July 4, 1776 v. "winter 1776" and June 25, 1950 v. "November 1950") or even days old (assuming he's refering to the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor) to justify his support for a conflict that has now lasted longer than WWII.

As for the American Civil War (translation for neocons: The War of Northern Aggression), I wouldn't have considered July 1864 a particularly depressing time for the pro-Union, anti-slavery North. Gettysburg, the northernmost advance of the South, occured in July 1863 and would have been my thought for the most challenging period to the North.

But what do I know? I still think VDH's target audience would actually still be mourning The Southern Nation's surrender at Appomattox in 1865.

Incontrovertible proof that Bush can win this war, provided by esteemed experts Eva Braun, Dr. Strangelove and Colonel Klink.

ha ha! Thanks for that, Kevin!

The other thing worth noting is that at least two of them are lying in their responses and the Hanson response is rah-rah, not fact-based (although I would imagine that the WWII date issue raised above would be rather damaging for his credibility).

Nice comparison with how the NYT referred to Fred Kagan in their recent article on NSA Hadley:

As Fred Kagan, a military historian who is considered the co-author of the troop buildup strategy, said, “I get the sense of a guy who is trying to do his job at a very difficult time and is actually being allowed to do it for the first time.”

Very good website you have here. I found it very interesting. http://boot-dr-scholls.thesouthplace.info >boot dr scholls
http://bath-celestial-towel.thesouthplace.info >bath celestial towel
Thank you.

Very good website you have here. I found it very interesting. http://hentai-apron.thesouthplace.info >hentai apron
http://titanium-navel-ring.thesouthplace.info >titanium navel ring
Thank you.

Very good website you have here. I found it very interesting. http://link-http-all-prague-hotels-wz-cz.livereal.info >link http all prague hotels wz cz
http://indianapollis-hotels.livereal.info >indianapollis hotels
Thank you.