Because more and more, he's looking like a blathering idiot. Sure, the guy can still cobble together a pretty decent sentence, but what about this in his latest? There are too many intellectually offensive claims to hit them all, but here are some highlights:
[L]eaving unilaterally from Iraq would be a tragic mistake. We have already done something like that before — many times. What rippled out afterwards was not pretty. American helicopters flying off the embassy roof in Saigon in 1975 gave us the climate for the Soviets in Afghanistan, Communists in Central America, and embassy hostage-taking in Tehran. Ignoring murders in Lebanon, New York, East Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, or lobbing an occasional cruise missile as tit-for-tat payback when terrorists harvested one too many expendable Americans abroad, ensured us September 11.
Okay, so we went in multilaterally, but we'd be leaving unilaterally? Hmm, seems a straw man. But at least he's clear -- we should have stayed in Vietnam. Somebody tell me that's an unfair reading. This is the kind of lunatic we're dealing with. Then, he throws in another straw man at the end, which says leaving Iraq is calling off the war on terrorism. Until we've killed the last insurgent in Iraq, according to Hanson, leaving would be appeasement.
In contrast, on those occasions when we have shown the patience to stay engaged after victory — in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Panama, or the Balkans — there was less chance that Americans would be left with either perpetual autocratic enemies or terrorist sanctuaries.
Yeah, that's it. Iraq is like Germany and Japan. Forget that Germany and Japan were coherent nation states, forget that they were populaces who (with some exception in Germany particularly) accepted that they had been defeated in a war in which they participated (the insurgents in Iraq did not fight a conventional war alongside the Iraqi state), forget that we were willing to firebomb them into submission by inflicting hundreds of thousands of casualties a day. But really, Iraq is like Germany and Japan.
We also have a moral stake in Iraq, whose people have suffered from 30 years of Baathist state terror and terrible fatalities in three losing wars. Our defeat of Iraq in 1991, our subsequent abandonment of the Kurds and Shiites to a wounded Saddam Hussein, twelve years of occupying Iraqi airspace, the corrupt U.N. embargo, and the recent final defeat of the Baathists brought untold misery to the Iraqi people.
This is partly a fair claim, as I have conceded. We particularly have an obligation to those who - rather madly - agreed to help the Americans try to assemble a decent state in Iraq. Frankly, though, by most accounts there aren't that many of them, and they could be dealt with in different ways, such as brokering deals for them to seek asylum in neighboring countries or in the United States. The way Hanson's passage reads, though, we're responsible for the terror of Saddam's rule, we're responsible for the misery wrought by the embargo, and on and on. Sorry Vic, that ain't my problem.
Finally, for all the media-inspired pessimism, progress continues in Iraq. Despite all the killing, a logic of freedom persists, one that is slowly becoming a way of life for millions and that cannot be derailed by media-savvy murderers. Scheduled elections are on track. A culture of personal liberty is sprouting up, from Internet cafes to secular schools. Kurdistan is emerging as a federated republic. Indeed, Kurdish good will is proof that America wants no one's oil, promotes democracy, and is becoming once again a dependable friend. When the United States has chosen to confront the militias, it has won handily. It can do so again in Fallujah and Najaf should the interim government wish a final victory — and our political leadership at last allows the Marines to eradicate terrorist killers who have turned the city of Fallujah into a murderous sewer.
Mmmkay, say it with me, Vic, IT'S NOT THE MEDIA'S FAULT. This is the grossest canard of all, coming from a man on his bully pulpit at Stanford and Hillsdale. Things are awful in Iraq -- he should listen to the reporters that hawks used to shower with praise because they reported good news, like John Burns of the New York Times. Have a look at this post from Christopher Albritton, who's actually in Iraq and says that, "I don’t know if I can really put into words just how bad it is here some days. Yesterday was horrible — just horrible. While most reports show Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra as “no-go” areas, practically the entire Western part of the country is controlled by insurgents, with pockets of U.S. power formed by the garrisons outside the towns. Insurgents move freely throughout the country and the violence continues to grow." I know, I know, he probably just hates America.
The reason there's no good news coming out of Iraq is because there's so precious little good news IN Iraq. The elections are a joke, even Allawi's officials are saying there's no way in hell they're going to get off, and unless we're willing to raze Fallujah and Najaf, cities with hundreds of thousands of innocents, the De Gaulle-like victory parade Hanson so desperately seeks ain't forthcoming. Even then, there'd be nothing but corpses to greet us. Yeah, and Kurdistan's really going to help us save Iraq.
For all these reasons and more, something like "See ya, wouldn't want to be ya" is the absolute worst prescription for Iraq — both for America and those Iraqis who are counting on us in their historic efforts to reclaim their country from barbarism. Amid the daily car bombings in Iraq, murder in Russia, and slaughter in the Middle East, we cannot see much hope — but it is there, and we are winning on a variety of fronts as the world continues to shrink for the Islamic fascist and those who would abet him.
Aside from the heroic prose, this is crap. First, "See ya, wouldn't want to be ya" is another gross straw man. Frankly, I wouldn't want to "be ya" right now, and I'd be quite open to the proposition that your getting the hell out of my country might just make things better. Hanson seems willfully ignorant that we are losing on the only important fronts, and that meanwhile our philanderings in Iraq are generating hordes more crazies who now believe bin Laden's validated claims.
National Review should start reading Hanson's articles before publishing them. Even thoughtful hawks will recognize this sort of polemic as bullshit.
Comments