14 Replies to “VDH: Costly peace”

  1. Those who don’t learn history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe somebody should teach them just what a Pyrrhic victory is.

  2. Victor Hanson is mostly right. In my opinion WW II and Korea were good fights, WW I debatable as to who was to blame, Vietnam, and all the “nation building” in the ME not at all. There is now a total mess in the ME and the mess and killing has spilled over into Europe and N. America and both areas are in danger of becoming Islamic states.

  3. WW II was the direct result of WW I. WW I was European imperialism fighting over global resources and global sales. The German economy was more efficient and they were taking threatening British world dominance. Throw that layer of monarchy on top and I find it tough to study a more sleazy period. To this day the Euros call on NA to bail them out of their inability to run their affairs. Canada’s involvement in Libya was not defendable no matter the moral question. That effort was a simple appropriation of Libyan oil. If the Euros needed that they should have done the job.
    Canada still appears to have a colonial mentality no matter whether it is the eastern Canadians robbing money from western Canada, or Canada allowing the USA to set the economic agenda for Canada in the NA context, or Canada subjugating her national self interest to a bunch of sycophants and thieves at what is known as the United Nations.
    PM Harper was rightly viewed by OPEC, the USA, and Russia as a serious threat to their economic interests. The fact he could not communicate his vision will set Canada back for decades. The forces mentioned above now have what I consider their man, Turdeau Jr., in control.

  4. I disagree that bombing can’t fix things: after Lockerbie, Reagan lobbed two cruise missiles into Gadaffi’s house, killing one of his sons. Gadaffi started behaving after that. If they wanted to, the US could whack Kim Jong-Un and Rouhani as well, in the same way. They have this weird injunction against assassinating foreign officials (Clinton brought it back in). So North Korea and Iran suffer on, as does Lebanon and Gaza, all because putrid, stinking hippie boomers don’t like what the CIA got up to in the 60’s.
    Also, VDH underestimates the power and effectiveness of the punitive raid, which has a long and proud history. Afghanistan should have been a punitive raid. Spend three months bombing the place into the third century (use MOABs all over the place). Rinse and repeat as necessary.
    Moslems follow muhammet. I follow Vespasian and Marcus Aurelius.

  5. The disasters of Vietnam and now Iraq followed inevitably from US voters putting Democrats in charge. American failure is the goal of the Democrat Party, and they are experts at achieving it.

  6. On the other hand, the Americans won their campaigns in WW II….and Democrats were in charge.

  7. Let’s not forget that John F. Kennedy prevented a nuclear war in October 1962 and he was a Democrat.
    The Democratic Party of 50 years ago had credibility. The Democrats nowadays are bordering on communism and are too incompetent to even spit straight.

  10. The problem is the US was seen as a fixer but that was cover for being suckered to do the heavy lifting and act later as the scapegoat. Nice deal if you’re a SA prince; not so good in the American homeland. What can extended US military presence hope to achieve in the ME for instance? No contain the threat and deter it. When required, without consultation (think Abbottabad), go in and kill the bad guys and leave. This is not the best option, it’s the least bad. No mea culpas, no sailors at gunpoint on their knees in execution position; oh no, fix your shit or we’ll be back, again and again.
    Keep your oil. Yes Justin is PM, but we can still buy it from the Americans.
    We can argue back and forth whether or not GWB should have invaded Iraq. There is no argument Obama’s hasty withdrawal is primarily responsible for the present chaos, as the corrupt Shiite leadership would not have easily conducted sectarian violence against Sunnis, who then turned to ISIS/AQ.
    The worst thing the US can do is go in big but leave before the job is done, and that’s a tricky thing. Frankly each case needs to be looked at on its own merits/risks/utility. For the most part, a tactical approach is best, keeping the enemy under cover, but more robust than now.
    Large humanitarian forces with muscular combat arms backup could help, but there really is no such thing as a solution; therefore there’s lots of other things to consider. I’m disappointed VDH takes the view the idea “America can bomb a rogue regime, leave and expect something better is pure fantasy.” I see the shoe as on the other foot. The fantasy is Americans thinking they can transplant their political culture on other societies, especially with use of military forces, and they will become free but not vote for the Muslim Brotherhood.
    We can do just that. All of us. Leaving this to the slithering diplomacy of Iran, as they parlay nuclear weapons, & other tyrants, is men vrs boys with the John Kerry’s of the world on our side of the table. Leave that intrigue to the Byzantine masters who do not play the plus sum game of western diplomacy, while keeping your weapon cocked.

  11. NO, CT, WWI was not about foreign trade or imperialism. That’s Leninist bullshit. With one exception, every country that went to war in 1914 did so because their security was directly threatened and if they didn’t go to war they could expect to be attacked. It was that simple. The exception was France, which went to war because they were being attacked.

  12. In my international relations course in university many years ago, our prof had us write a critique of Lenin’s paper: “Capitalism, Imperialism & War.” Lenin’s “argument” is obvious if not simplistic – capitalists build empires by acquiring markets and war with others over market share. They only reason they do well is on the back of the noble savage, who of course lived in peaceful bliss and coexistence before the industrialists arrived and made them fight each other, which is supposed to be good for business.
    I pointed out that war has been around long before the industrial revolution or capitalism and few empires were ever capitalist. I further noted that war is bad for economies and thus business, except for arms dealers of course. I also mentioned imperialist colonization did not start or appreciably change local grievances and blood feuds.
    My prof noted these ideas didn’t fit his narrative so Lenin ignored them. I got a pretty good mark but am sure would have failed nowadays for challenging Leninist/progressive doctrine, since critical thought is anathema to false narratives.
    Censure (at least) and the aforementioned sin by omission tactic is well used by the neo Leninists, the statists. The media are particularly good at this: ignore a story, then it “didn’t happen.” Did I mention they too pray at the altar of statism?
    See how easy that is: to be stupid and right at the same time. All you need is a few gulags, mudslingers and lazy press to make it all work. Oh, did I mention banishments and executions? Yeah, some of that too.

  13. Americans are not efficient nor are they in it for the strategic long haul.
    There is your problem right there.
    At least the British colonised and civilised some of these places.

  14. The Korean War was entered into with the best of intention, but totally screwed up by Truman…Understanding why provides insight into the problems of today
    The state of the Democrat foreign policy is “Truman’s Doctrine” the cold war. The Korean war was the first war that a president failed to protect his troops. GEN Macarthur was given an nuclear option if China troops entered into the Korean war….The North Koreans were essentially defeated & US(UN) troops were at the China/North Korea border training for a “possible” ground counter attack after the full scale Nuclear bombing of china (they were to float across the river with 90 pound back packs) Truman visited UK/France and was informed that they did not want America to use any Nuclear bombs on China because they would not have enough for NATO defense against Russia. Truman refused Macarthur the Nuclear option & when china found out they crossed into Korea and trapped the US(UN) troops in North Korea.. They fought a retreating battle with heavy losses, extracted and reinserted in Pusan (furthest) southern port in Korea and they had to fight their way back up. When Eisenhower was elected China agreed to the DMZ & retreated, Guess why
    The “Truman Doctrine” has been the Democrat policies of JFK, LBJ (Vietnam) The paper Tiger that never pulls the trigger unless the UN/EU gives the approval. Huff & Puff BS
    The Republican Presidents don’t abandon the Troops, nor are they keen on UN/EU interests
    JMHO

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation