Funny how times change

National Review’s Victor Davis Hanson is dismayed by the criticism of the war in Iraq from congressional Democrats. (via Steve M.)

[I]t is hard to recall of any war in our history — the Vietnam hysteria aside — that a sitting Senate majority leader declared it lost in the middle of hostilities. We have not previously witnessed senior opposition senators alleging that their own American servicemen were analogous to Nazis, Stalinists, Cambodian mass murders, Saddam’s Baathist killers, or engaging in habitual terrorizing and killing of innocent civilians.

Now, I suspect Hanson is taking a few liberties when he suggests senior Senate Dems have said U.S. troops are comparable to Nazis, but Hanson may be surprised to go back and look at what senior congressional Republicans were saying as recently as 1999 when then-President Clinton sent American servicemen into Kosovo.

William Saletan noted one specific weekend in May 1999.

Every time the United States goes into battle, anti-war activists blame the causes and casualties of the conflict on the U.S. government. They excuse the enemy regime’s aggression and insist that it can be trusted to negotiate and honor a fair resolution. While doing everything they can to hamstring the American administration’s ability to wage the war, they argue that the war can never be won, that the administration’s claims to the contrary are lies, and that the United States should trim its absurd demands and bug out with whatever face-saving deal it can get. In past wars, Republicans accused these domestic opponents of sabotaging American morale and aiding the enemy. But in this war, Republicans aren’t bashing the anti-war movement. They’re leading it.

Specifically, Saletan highlighted comments from then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, then-Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas, who, over the course of a few days, said Milosevic’s atrocities are America’s fault; the failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America’s fault; Congress should oppose the war while troops are in harm’s way; Congress should micromanage war policy instead of the Commander in Chief; and the mission is doomed to failure. If memory serves, Dems didn’t question their patriotism, label them “traitors,” accuse them of undermining the military, or condemn them for aiding and abetting the enemy.

I have a hunch Hanson’s forgotten about the whole period of time. Come to think of it, current congressional Republicans probably have, too.

If they are unable to indulge in selective memory, they tend to flatly lie about what happened.

But, of course, 9/11 changed everything.

  • We need to change the dynamic on this issue. From now on, maybe we should stop calling it “THE Iraq War,” and start calling it “THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S Iraq War.”

    It is also important to remember that the wealthy ultraconservative elite—one Mr. Prescott Bush and his heroic little band of buck-passing thugs in particular comes to mind—bemoaned the lost profits from the seemingly-deep pockets of then-Axis-partners Japan and Germany. Many of that era who would fit quite nicely the exact mold that produced such “cognitively-intellectual geniuses” (*cough*gag*wretch*) as Manny-boy Coulter and that pompous, shrill little man-cub over at FraudNews were openly defining the entire American involvement in WW2 as “Mr. Roosevelt’s War.”

  • IMO – he has every right to be dismayed. For Reid to even suggest that
    our troops have lost, will lose, might lose, or could conceivably lose was plain stupid.

    This is a war that the American people have lost the will to win and they’ve lost it
    because the Iraqi people don’t want to do their part to ensure victory.

    When we train the Iraqi army and they refuse to kill insurgents, because they
    are Iraqi’s, even though they, the insurgents, are killing innocent Iraqi’s then
    the situation becomes hopeless.

    The Bush morons clearly didn’t think this fiasco through before they got us into
    it and someone in the Administration should be held accountable for the war
    crimes that have resulted.

  • Reid never hinted the troops would lose anything. He was discussing the overall effort, which is a political loss. It has never been a sense that we have some sort of combat loss. Yet Ron , and others, seem to think the accusation is that troops have lost it when the administration and its feeble execution in the face of insurmountable partisan differences in Iraq are responsible. Ron’s response is a typical Conservative reaction..”He’s blaming the troops”..

    Bullshit.

  • [I]t is hard to recall of any war in our history — the Vietnam hysteria aside — that a sitting Senate majority leader declared it lost in the middle of hostilities.

    It’s also hard to recall any war in our history — Vietnam aside — that really was lost in the middle of hostilities. It’s also hard to recall any war in our history — Vietnam aside — that was launched for reasons diametrically at odds with the stated reasons for launching the war. It’s also hard to recall any war in our history where the profits reaped by contractors took precedent over the military aims of the war. It’s also hard —

    — you get the idea…

  • Why VDH has any sort of platform to talk about war and the middle east is beyond my ken. The man is senile and prone to rambling. He tries to be a mouth piece for the Hoover Inst. but has this problem.

  • I wonder what Hanson thinks about Lincoln accusing President Polk of having falsified the reasons for the Mexican-American War. My guess is that there is nothing unique about the political back-and-forth regarding the Iraq War — it’s very likely been just like this throughout our history.

  • I have a hunch Hanson’s forgotten about the whole period of time. Come to think of it, current congressional Republicans probably have, too. — CB

    The Grand Old Patriarchs are a true “Daddy party” — do as I tell you, not as I do.

    […] maybe we should stop calling it “THE Iraq War,” and start calling it “THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S Iraq War.” — Steve, 2

    Bush/Cheney’s Vainglorious Occupation would fit even better.

    Ron, @3,
    It’s hard to know where to begin, with you…

    1) For Reid to even suggest that
    our troops have lost, will lose, might lose, or could conceivably lose was plain stupid.

    Politically imprudent, perhaps, but stupid? I don’t think so. Seems extremely clear-eyed and representative of the majority population to me.

    2)This is a war that the American people have lost the will to win and they’ve lost it
    because the Iraqi people don’t want to do their part to ensure victory.

    Why should we expect the Iraqis to give a damn about *American* victory? Getting us to stop screwing their lives further is the only victory they want. Besides, what would you consider a “victory”? Their signing off on 80% of their oil resources, so that Halliburton can get profit-bloated some more?

    As for the Americans… Not all of us wanted to invade in the first place. And the rest “lost the will to win” not because Iraqis proved to be less of a pushover than we’d been led to believe, but because more and more of us have learnt that the whole misadventure had been built on a thin tissue of lies. IOW, we’ve been *had*, and we don’t like it. And we’ll be paying for it for decades to come, even if we stop this abomination tomorrow — something we’re not looking forward to, either.

    3) When we train the Iraqi army and they refuse to kill insurgents, because they
    are Iraqi’s, even though they, the insurgents, are killing innocent Iraqi’s then
    the situation becomes hopeless

    Careful, careful, here… What you’re saying is that Reid was right (there’s no difference between your “situation is hopeless” and his “war is lost”). But, if Reid was right — yet stupid (see above) — what does it say about you and your statement?

    And regarding the Iraqi army that we’re training, we’re weaving our own hangman’s rope … That they’d refuse to kill fellow Iraqis is not surprising. A lot of them are only interested in joining the army for the training and for the weapons they receive — the better to repel the invaders. And the better to even out the odds in their own internecine religious war.

  • Mudge, you really ought to get your facts straight. First off I said, “for Reid to even suggest the troops have lost” and, finesse it all you want, that’s exactly what his comments amounted to. Here are a couple of links to prove the point while also proving you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about:

    Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18227928/
    WASHINGTON – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is “lost,” triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops. The bleak assessment – the most pointed yet from Reid – came as the House voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year.

    Link:http://mediamatters.org/items/200704200012
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had said that “the [Iraq] war is lost” during a press conference discussing Congress’ standoff with President Bush over emergency funding for the war.

    Beyond that I’m not a Republican and if you weren’t so quick to say something stupid you’d have picked up on that fact. Especially when you got to the part where I said:

    “The Bush morons clearly didn’t think this fiasco through before they got us into it and someone in the Administration should be held accountable for the war crimes that have resulted.”

  • #8 Libra, you’re condescending attitude is a a little wearying. You don’t come off nearly smart enough to be looking down your nose at anybody so perhaps you ought to reconsider your approach as well as your faulty logic.

    1) Libra wrote: Politically imprudent, perhaps, but stupid? I don’t think so. Seems extremely clear-eyed and representative of the majority population to me.

    Yep, I said, stupid, and I meant stupid. It may be clear-eyed and representative of the majority of the population – but it doesn’t come close to reflecting reality. Our military absolutely can WIN but the will to win on the part of the American people isn’t there. Two totally different sides of the same coin.

    2)Libra wrote: As for the Americans… Not all of us wanted to invade in the first place.

    Well don’t feel like the Lone Ranger, dude. Neither did I. We should have focused on Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda and never in a million years gotten involved in Iraq. But – we did and the amazing part of it is we could have won if we’d gone in with a large enough presence and once we took control of Baghdad if a few totally inexplicable events hadn’t been allowed to occur.

    And lest not minimize the fact that a vast majority of our representatives voted for this war and a large part of the American population at the time was behind it as well. True – we need to get out, yesterday if that were possible, but getting out obviously isn’t going to happen for a while. But to say our military is losing or can be beaten by a loosely organized bunch of nuts is not only an insult to our troops it’s ridiculous in the extreme. This war is only where it is because of the utter incompetence of the people running it.

    3)Libra wrote; Careful, careful, here… What you’re saying is that Reid was right (there’s no difference between your “situation is hopeless” and his “war is lost”). But, if Reid was right — yet stupid (see above) — what does it say about you and your statement

    Like hell I am. If the Iraqi military won’t help, and in large part they apparently won’t it doesn’t even come close to meaning we can’t win. If the American people were willing to slog it out and accept the collateral damage that would inevitably ensue there’s absolutely nothing the Iraqi people could possibly do to stop us and if you don’t agree your living in a dream world.

    There’s a heck of a difference between losing and not having the will to win. And we don’t have the will to win – so lets get out ASAP.

  • Ron, Reid never said that our troops lost the war; even according to the links you’ve supplied (@9), what he did say was that *the war* was lost. It was the Repubs who re-interpreted his comment as a slur on our *troops*.

    He was right — the war is lost; has been, before it started. It shouldn’t have happened at all and wouldn’ have had, if the malAdministration had put all the facts in front of the people and the Congresscritters.

    The Repubs’ spin is just so much hokey; *troops* don’t win or loose wars, and nobody on the Dem side is saying they are. Troops go where they’re sent and do what they’re told to do; as Tennyson so eloquently said: “theirs not to reason why; theirs but to do and die”. A group of them may win/loose a skirmish with another (enemy) group, but that’s all *they* are responsible for. It’s the Deciders who win (or lose) wars. The ones who send the troops to the killing grounds. The ones who ride into traps, on the backs of the soldiers, as it were, in search of some second-hand glory.

    It wasn’t the troops’ fault that France’s Army was decimated after the misbegotten attack on Moscow in 1812 — it was Napoleon’s. It wasn’t the troops’ fault that the Charge of the Light Brigade failed so disastrously at Balaclava in 1854 — it was the fault of the moron, Lord Cardigan. It wasn’t Wermacht that lost in Stalingrad — it was Hitler.

    You say (@9): I’m not a Republican and if you weren’t so quick to say something stupid

    And if you weren’t so quick to repeat the fRightwing’s BS that Reid was assaulting the troops with his “the war is lost”, people might not have made such an assumption about your political leanings. Where you said:

    “The Bush morons clearly didn’t think this fiasco through before they got us into it and someone in the Administration should be held accountable for the war crimes that have resulted.”

    I figured it was for protective cover — a kind of a “political cammo”. Especially since it’s both vague and not to the point. People here, when they attack Bush, they attack him for *specific* reasons. And the malAdmin should be made accountable not “for the war crimes that have resulted” but for the primary crime, the original sin — of invading in the first place.

  • I question this meme that we could have “won” the Iraq war if we had brought in enough troops at the beginning. It might have taken a little longer for the situtation to get out of hand, but why should we believe that the civil war would not have happened any way? I suspect that even if the war had been fought with honesty, competence and the support of the majority that it would have succeeded in turning Iraq into a nice little democracy. It was unwinnable in any meaningful way from the very beginning.

  • Victor Davis Hanson has what a lot of people have: selective memory, and opinions that are based in partisan politics. We expect those in the opposition party to push back, and we see that push-back from Republicans when the administration is Democratic and we see it from Democrats when the administration is Republican. It’s their job to push back – and I think it is especially important to have vocal and visible pushback against this administration, where we have seen such over-reaching of executive branch power that the other branches have been weakened as a result.

    That push-back is to be expected doesn’t mean that it is always just political, and it doesn’t mean that it isn’t justified.

    Over and over and over again, I hear the comment that we have the finest and best and best-equipped military in the world – and while I believe that the troops we have in Iraq are doing the job to the best of their ability, it’s not enough, and it’s not working. It makes me angry that we were taken to war on false pretenses to begin with, and then we failed to send a force large enough and equipped enough to do the job. We failed to take advantage of the resources we had at our disposal, squandered lives, lost the support we had after 9/11, and made life worse for those whom we purported to be helping. Do you have any idea how angry you would be if you had one hour of electricity – if that – a day, no running water, no air conditioning, were afraid to venture outdoors, it was 130 degrees and you lived like this all the time? This is not how you win hearts and minds, and however much fault you can find with the Iraqi people themselves, we had an opportunity to do this right, and we failed.

    So, Harry Reid speaks for me when he says the war is lost, because it is. What we are doing now is trying to hold the status quo long enough for Bush to get out of DC for good. We don’t have the force to maintain current troop levels, we have spent billions and billions of dollars and have nothing to show for it. A lot of companies and contractors have grown fat with cash over the last 5 years – my cash and your cash and there is nothing but rubble to show for it.

    It isn’t Harry Reid who imperils the war effort – the ones who imperiled it were those who believed they could invent reasons to go to war, and then ignore the caveats and warnings about their plans – that they want to get all indignant about the patriotism of those who warned them, those who opposed them, and that they want to continue to ignore the advice of those who disagree in favor of those who just keep saying “of course, you’re right, Mr. President,” is chutzpah on steroids.

    Yes, Republicans have forgotten their opposition to anything Bill Clinton did in his 8 years, but our involvement in Kosovo was nothing compared to what is going on in Iraq. Nothing.

    In my mind, this is not tit-for-tat: Clinton had a war so you have to let us have one, too; you said bad things about Kosovo, so we can say bad things about Iraq. No. This is about the wrong war for the wrong reasons, and it wouldn’t matter to me what the political affiliation was of the people behind it – it would be no less a travesty, and no less criminal if it were Democrats behind it.

    Wrong is wrong, and I wish people would realize that if everything has to be filtered through politics, we will never be able to work for what is right, and come together to fight against what is wrong. Iraq is wrong. Torture is wrong. Warrantless wiretapping is wrong. Tearing the government apart piece by pice is wrong. Using the DOJ as an arm of the West Wing is wrong. “Caging” is wrong.

    Wrong.

  • I don’t believe that the American public has lost the will to win, nor do I believe Americans are particularly casualty adverse or necessarily impatient when it comes to war. The problem begins when our so-called leaders lie about why we’re fighting or how the fighting is going. Once credibility is lost, leaders lose the public, and rightfully so. After all the lies and deception, who can reasonably believe Bush could suddenly come up with a “winning” formula now? The guy has had 4.5 years and all that’s happened is things got worse while the happy talk continued.

    As to the question of whether more troops early on would have helped, I think the would have — if they had been used to secure Iraqi weapons stockpiles and establish something resembling civil order. Lawlessness combined with access to weapons and explosives gave the insurgents a chance to organize and the means to disrupt both Iraqi and American efforts.

  • Well, what d’ya know? 7 of our troops, at the end of their 15months worth of deployment, have pooled their observations and penned an op-ed for NYT — very timely for our discussion here. About our chances of winning and what it is that we can — and cannot — win in Iraq.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html

    Ron, do you figure they’re stupid also?

  • The unfortunate thing is that, if you get your news from sources other than the Mainstream Propaganda Machine and listen to what guys from IVAW are talking about, you will come to the conclusion that our current military is NOT operating in the American tradition. The current American military is like the Wehrmacht, and not just in the fact that the cut of their utilities and battledress and the shape of their helmets are so reminiscent of the 1944-era Wehrmacht combat uniform (and there is a difference between “the Nazis” and the Wehrmacht), hell the Army green uniform that was adopted in 1959 is cut exactly like that of the German Army uniform circa 1938, the first time I believe that the winner adopted the loser’s tailor.

    Face facts, folks, we’re about as much on the side of the angels in Iraq as Hitler was when he invaded Poland. I’ve had the privilege of knowing several fine members of the World War 2 Luftwaffe, not a Nazi among them, “fine young German boys” every one of them at the time, and the truth is it “machts nicht.” They served the regime they served in the war they fought for the goals that were there and the stain never goes away. The regime that has sent our friends, relatives and children to war has “invaded Poland” just as certainly as did the world’s most famous failed paper-hanger.

    It’s what I mean when I talk about “Georgie’s invasion of Poland.” That’s not hyperbole. It’s historical fact.

  • Benen wrote: “If memory serves, Dems didn’t question their patriotism, label them “traitors,” accuse them of undermining the military, or condemn them for aiding and abetting the enemy.”

    ….yet the VERY ARTICLE BENEN REFERENCES: http://www.slate.com/id/27730/

    ends thusly: “Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments UNPATRIOTIC. Republicans reply that they’re serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time.”

    I GUESS YOU SIMPLY COULDN’T BE BOTHERED TO READ SALETAN’S ARTICLE TO THE END, HUH BENEN? Typical….. 😎

  • “Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments UNPATRIOTIC.”

    Well if that’s what some said, it wasn’t nearly on the scale of what the Republicans have been doing re: the Iraq war.

  • Comments are closed.