Showing posts with label Victor Davis Hanson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Victor Davis Hanson. Show all posts

Friday, September 28, 2012

Wisdom, not weakness

I hate to direct anybody to V.D. Hanson's stupid commentary on U.S. foreign policy, yet he represents the highest grade of right-wing garbage out there, so I might as well take him down.

It's hard to understand what he is criticizing Obama for, exactly.  For being too soft, certainly.  But on whom?  On Qaddafi?  Oops.  On Syria's Bashar Assad?  Well, they won't come out and say we should start a war with Syria, so what then?  Arm Assad's opponents?  Oops: blowback from angry students is one thing; blowback from armed militants is another.  So that leave us only with more finger-wagging in Assad's general direction.

Or is Obama being too soft on mobs of Arab street protesters?  If so, how could he "get tough" on them?  By bombing them?  By infiltrating them with our spies?  By arming police with tear gas and riot gear?  I'm sure that would calm them down; no blowback potential there, oops.  Then what should Obama do?  More finger-wagging again?

Or, take the recent brutal murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya.  Obama said he would track down the killers and bring them to justice, which sounds pretty tough to me.  (And this President actually tracks down killers.)  Hanson and others criticize Obama for an "absence of adequate military security" in Benghazi.  Fair enough.  But isn't that a technical, not a policy, issue?  The U.S. had no diplomatic presence in Libya for years, and so our embassy outposts there have not yet been well-developed.  Moreover, being a diplomat in a war-torn country is a dangerous job; that's what they signed up for. Just like serving in Afghanistan and Iraq is a dangerous job, to which 6,611 U.S. military fatalities there to-date somberly attest.  (V.D. Hanson can claim his share of intellectual credit for putting them there.)

Here's how Obama explained, before the UN on September 25, why he did what he did:

We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant. 

And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop and a new dawn can begin. 

We have taken these positions because we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. 

These are not simply American values or Western values; they are universal values. 

American values?  That kind of talk drives blood-and-guts neocons like Hanson to tears.  Values never gave anybody a hard-on.  

This is all child's play relative to deadly-serious nuclear tensions between the U.S. and Iran, yet Hanson and the Right's criticism of Obama is pretty much the same: Obama is too soft.  OK, what should Obama do then?  Start a third preemptive war in 10 years that would suck in the entire Middle East and send the price of gas sky-high?  Don't like that, you say?  OK, what then?  Yet more finger-wagging?  Oops, it sounds like Obama just did that at the UN:  

Make no mistake:  A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained.  It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy.  It risks triggering a nuclear arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

The simple truth is that Hanson and his fellow disgraced neocons have no new ideas, they blew their load in Iraq, and now they long for the good ole' days when our President was a gullible gorilla who liked to grunt and beat his chest, and who would ape whatever they whispered in his ear.  The days when a few craven and dependent dictators like Qaddafi and Mubarak might pay attention.

You see, America's super-muscular military might is only effective against regimes, not against oppressed people who have nothing to lose, and already live in privation and terror. U.S. military power cannot secure their health, their dignity, or a job.  Therefore, neocons like Hanson want America to maintain friendly but autocratic foreign regimes.  Without regimes to threaten or pay off, Hanson and Co. have nothing to offer. 

The more difficult truth is that there is nothing "weak" about America's reading the writing on the wall and adjusting.  Sooner or later, Qaddafi and Mubarak were going down.  Sooner or later, Assad will too.  Yes, these Devils We Knew provided some comfort and stability to us in a region we don't understand and don't really care to.  But as these devils come under attack by their own oppressed people, it would be stupid and pointless -- and contrary to our stated values -- for us to stand alone against a tide of self-determination.  Obama should be applauded for not standing behind dictators who were about to fall, vainly propping them up a bit longer.  That was not weakness on his part, it was wisdom.

Finally, the most difficult truth for some Americans is that we cannot direct world events like pieces on a chess board, especially and increasingly not by military means.  We can't (and don't want to, I hope) stop some moron for posting an amateurish film on YouTube; just like we can't stop street protests in more than 20 countries as a result of it.  We shouldn't try.  And we shouldn't wring our hands over our "powerlessness."  Only when all people enjoy liberty will the real work of U.S. diplomacy begin: then they, not their oppressors, will decide whether they stand with the United States.  Meanwhile, we must have faith that our cherished values will prevail, and speak with confidence and consistency about them to the ignorant and the skeptical.  The alternative has been tried... and failed.


By Victor Davis Hanson
September 25, 2012 | National Review

Thursday, September 13, 2012

What U.S. 'appeasement'?!

I can't believe anybody still publishes V.D. Hanson.  He should have been chased across the U.S. border by an angry mob years ago.

How in the world has Obama "appeased" radical Islamists?  By killing bin Laden and more Taliban fighters in four years than Dubya did in eight? By increasing drone strikes in sovereign Pakistan 6 times, not to mention Yemen and Somalia? By having not a single Islamist terrorist attack on U.S. soil?  By refusing to close Dubya's Guantanamo Bay detention camp?  By carrying out extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens suspected of Islamist terrorism?  VDH doesn't specify. It's all understood, I guess, if you too reside in his crazy alternate universe where Iraqis are still greeting us with flowers, and we are winning Afghans' hearts and minds as we kill them.

Look, folks, we don't control Egypt, Libya, or Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter. The difference between the first two and the last two countries is pretty significant though: the people of the former two countries decided to overthrow their leaders, and spilled their own blood to make it happen, whereas in the latter two countries, we did it for them and then stuck around way past our welcome as Occupiers.  In Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, the Arab Spring was their idea; it was their revolution, not ours.  Meanwhile, we have spent a few $ billion in Egypt and Libya on arms and aid, and a few $ trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Not to mention 4,486 U.S. troops killed in Iraq and 2114 in Afghanistan.

If Obama's way is "leading from behind," I'll opt for that any day.  Unworldly and ignorant Mitt Romney and the disgraced neocons whispering terrible advice in his ear are living in the illusions of 2002, not the realities of 2012. We're smarter and better than that now.  Forward, indeed!


By Victor Davis Hanson
September 12, 2012 | National Review

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Curious historical footnote: 'The war on terror'

Reading Victor Davis Hanson, the metaphor comes to mind of a lion in captivity proudly prowling some rich guy's fenced-in game preserve.

The women ooh and ahh, the kids point and snap photos, and the men say, "Yep, that's what a real lion looks like." Then they all drive back home, leaving that pathetic lion to rule his open-air zoo.

Hanson is a guy who takes himself way too seriouly because he doesn't realize he's just a zoo animal, a curious bare-toothed display of a bygone decade, a guy whom nobody in the real world takes seriously anymore, if they ever did at all.

Does anybody seriously believe in a "war on terror" anymore? The editors of NRO do, sure, and everybody at FOX and Clear Channel... but in the real world?

Does anybody seriously still think that we are up against a mortal enemy, our near-equal in strength, and that we may have met our match if we don't muster all our resolve and gather all our allies to defeat him?

Does anybody seriously still go for these hyperbolic WWII/Chamberlain/Churchill/Hitler analogies when discussing the dire threat from bearded loonies who hide in desert caves and communicate through messengers on donkeys about their diabolical plans for the destruction of the West?

Does anybody have a few spare acres with a nice high fence where we can let the Victor David Hansons of America roam "wild and free," under the illusion that they are proud, strong American warriors?

To be fair, Davis is right though: Obama is due all kinds of criticism for his utter hypocrisy on Iraq, G'itmo, illegal wiretapping, and renditions. But let's remember, unlike Clinton, who sought out the center because Dick Morris told him to, Obama is a guy who instinctively seeks out the middle of the road on every issue because he believes it's the right thing to do. Hence we have a senseless foreign policy that's somewhere on the left-right spectrum between Dubya and his favorite straw man, "some."


President Obama has not signed up for a serious effort against radical Islam.

By Victor Davis Hanson
January 15, 2010 | National Review

Friday, August 3, 2007

Pew poll: Not everybody likes us... Worms, anyone?


Popularity Contest
By Victor Davis Hanson
August 3, 2007 | National Review

The latest Pew poll of June 2007 purports to offer a comprehensive survey of what the world thinks of the United States. Polls, of course, can be unreliable; and much of the commonly expressed anti-Americanism seems to be a mere reflection of disdain shown by our own intellectuals and academics, Hollywood, and the media. While it is hard to separate what foreigners feel about Americans in general from their opinions about the United States government in particular, the results of this latest survey are both predictable and astonishing.

[I'm sorry, but that's just idiotic prose. How can anything be "both predictable and astonishing"? That's called covering yourself in any situation, rhetorically, which is nonsense. Not a good start for VDH. – J]

The nations of the Middle East and other Islamic countries, of course, poll anti-United States across the board, from Palestine to Morocco.

[Why "of course"? Why so fatalistic, VDH? Since when did we completely give up on the Arab-Muslim world? Or is this at last acknowledgment from one of Dick Cheney's foreign policy gurus that the Iraq occupation has only harmed America's standing in the Mideast? – J]

And therein arise some interesting paradoxes. Kuwait, once extinguished until the American military restored it, is the most pro-American nation of the Arab Middle East. Yet, even there, as many Kuwaitis have an unfavorable opinion of America as a favorable one.

[Seriously, if you're a 3-year-old, what does this fact tell you? That's right: America is deeply unpopular in the Mideast, even in the country whose ass we saved in 1991 (Kuwait). Shouldn't that tell us something?! – J]

Turkey is democratic, a NATO ally, and a recipient of substantial American military aid. Yet it reveals the highest level of anti-Americanism of any country polled — 83 percent express an unfavorable view of the U. S. Perhaps that enmity is due to our support for Kurdistan and the resentments of Ankara's own Islamist government.

[Yeah, Dr. Dipshit, America's support for a resurgent Iraqi Kurdistan just might have something to do with Turkey's resentment against the U.S. Where do "intellectuals" like this dipshit VDH come from?!

If I were President, my first overseas trip would be to Turkey to say, essentially, "I'm sorry," and "You guys rock." In terms of U.S. strategic interests, Iraqi Kurdistan has nothing to offer America beside PR on how well our occupation of Iraq is going. I feel sorry for the Kurds, but history has screwed them, not us. – J]

In any case, so much for the ballyhooed American efforts to bolster Turkey's bid to join the EU. In theory, if we opposed Turkish membership, or suggested that Ankara leave NATO, would our image then improve? Again, something is terribly wrong when four out of five "allied" Turks feel so unfavorably toward the United States.

[America is directly supporting Iraq's Kurds, who harbor anti-Turkish separatists ("i.e. terrarists," in Bush lingo), hence Turkey is predictably and justifiably P.O.'d at America. And since when should Turkey's candidacy for the EU depend on U.S. support? What the fuck!? I mean, I realize VDH is just being refreshingly candid, but since when has the EU admitted that decisions regarding EU enlargement depend on America's say-so? – J]

Egypt has received collectively well over $50 billion in American help, but only 21 percent of its population seems to like the United States. [That's called "poor return on investment." – J] In fact, whether we save countries like Kuwait, or lavish money on Palestine, Egypt, and Jordan (20-percent approval rating), or send billions to rebuild Afghanistan, or try to help Muslim Turkey get into the EU, or buck up Pakistan (15-percent approval), or feed poor Muslims in Somalia, or chastise the Russians about Chechnya, or bomb the Muslim-killing Serbians, or lead the effort to save Muslim Indonesians after the Tsunami, it all apparently matters very little. It may sound counterintuitive, but Russia (the country that leveled Grozny and exterminated Chechen Islamic rebels) seems to be better thought of in the Middle East than we are — or perhaps more feared, which in the region is apparently the same thing.

Apologists, of course, will cite our policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel as catalysts for Middle East hatred. [Um, yes. Count me among the "apologists." –J] But clearly there is some preexisting venom involved that makes the Muslim Street ignore all the good we have done, and focus only on what is considered bad. ["All the good"? I wish VDH would be more specific. What f-ing good have we done in the Mideast? – J] It is most likely modern Islam's inability to confront Western-inspired modernism, particularly the hypocritical desire for practices and things American, combined with the concomitant religious embarrassment over those only partially fulfilled appetites. The mindset of the Middle East is best summed up as something like "I deserve what you Americans have, but won't ever become like you to get it."

[This comment is petulant and stupid. Can we really say that this alleged sentiment of "Muslim envy" is what's driving the Iraqi insurgency, or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or the Taliban in Afghanistan? Of course not. VDH's point here is specious. It's a whiny cheap shot from the cheap seats of U.S. think-tank academia.. – J]

In turn, what enrages America about the petulant Islamic world's dislike is mostly the unwillingness of these nations to translate their popular anger into any concrete action. We would expect these belligerents to refuse U.S. aid, cease immigrating to the United States, keep their students from visiting the Great Satan, or kick the U.S. military out of the Persian Gulf.

[What a crock of shit this paragraph is! As if most citizens of the Mideast have any say in the matter of how much aid their respective countries accept, and for what in return! America's best Arab-Muslim allies are monarchies and dictatorships (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan). Turkey, to whom we've recently given the middle finger by invading Iraq, is the only secular, democratic country in the region who is a staunch U.S. ally – and look what we've done to them! Let's be honest: Mideast public opinion has no bearing on U.S.-Mideast relations. The Pew poll figures simply reflect this fact. – J]

In response, while the Arab masses seethe, thousands of American scientists are working overtime on remedies for their anger — namely how not to import any oil from this dysfunctional region that makes us vulnerable to its blackmail while enriching unstable regimes that do real harm to the world at large.

[If we're going to point the finger, we have to point first at the undemocratic regime of Saudi Arabia. Their petro-economy funds Sunni-Wahabist terror all over the world, even as they purport to be a U.S. ally. – J]

Even more perplexing are the attitudes voiced by some key European countries — France (60 percent unfavorable to the U.S.), Germany (66-percent unfavorable), and Spain (60 percent). Millions of Europeans in these countries express a much more negative view of the United States than do Hugo Chavez's Venezuelans. So much for the supposedly sweeping changes in France and Germany that brought the Sarkozy and Merkel governments to power.

[More petulance from VDH. What about democracy? Majorities in France, Germany, and Spain are all opposed to the Iraq war. Why is it so surprising then that they oppose the Iraq occupation and distrust American power? – J]

For this unspoken implosion of the Atlantic Alliance, we can fault the usual suspects — Iraq, the war on terror, George Bush's 2002 unilateralism, America's failure to ratify Kyoto, or the envy that these erstwhile imperial powers feel about being upstaged by a mongrel democracy.

[Yes, yes, yes, yes, and no. – J]

But who really cares to calibrate all the reasons why the Germans hated us when Ronald Reagan deployed Pershing missiles to protect them, or why the Greeks hated us when Madeline Albright tried to stop Balkan genocide, or why the French hated us for ending the once lucrative Baathist regime in Iraq? Instead, at some point Americans should ask themselves how they can continue to be allied militarily with countries whose populations have a more negative view of us than do our supposed rivals in Russia (48 percent unfavorable) and China (57 percent).

[Yeah, totally! Who needs allies? I mean, we're a hyperpower, right? We can do whatever we want, no matter what our traditional allies think of us. (Wrong.) – J]

Contrast all that dislike with those nations who appreciate the United States, which tells us something much different about America's role in the world. The Kenyans and Ghanaians, for example, reveal more admiration for the United States (87 and 80 percent, respectively) than do we Americans ourselves.

[Great. Super. Next time we're assembling a "coalition of the willing" to attack some country, I'm sure those Kenyan and Ghanaian troops and materiel will prove indispensable to achieving victory.. – J]

In fact, all of sub-Saharan Africa — poor and with a past of exploitation — has an unbelievably high regard for the U.S. Perhaps black Africans appreciate our support for democracy, realize that we were not colonialists, see that blacks are succeeding in the U.S. in a way unthinkable elsewhere, know that we spearhead the global effort to bring AIDS relief and stop the genocide in Darfur, and sympathize with their own long struggle against radical Islam.

Much of Eastern Europe is similarly well-inclined. Poland, for example (61 percent approval rating), does not trust Russia — and does not trust Europe to offer any help in a future hour of crisis.

Likewise, many countries of Latin America — Mexico, Chile, Peru — poll staunchly pro-American. We have tried to support these shaky Latin American democracies, welcomed their immigrants, and allowed billions of dollars to be sent back as worker remittances. And unlike a Spain, France, Germany, the Muslim Middle East, Russia, or China, such confident emerging nations also are not hung up on perceived past grandeur, blame-gaming the new superpower for their own subordinate roles.

["Welcomed their immigrants?" Has VDH been listening to his fellow conservatives, who advocate surrounding America with walls and alligator-filled moats?

"Allowed billions of dollars to be sent back as worker remittances"? I ask you, how would we stop Latin workers from sending their earnings back home? – J]

Indeed, how strange that these poor countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, and South America are more favorable to America than are oil-rich sheikdoms, rich European socialist republics, and Middle East recipients of massive U.S. aid.

Or perhaps it's not so strange at all.

The more confident a nation is, even when poor, the more likely it seems to admire America. Some of our best supporters turn out to be one-billion person India (59 percent favorable rating), Japan (61 percent), and South Korea (58 percent) — all democratic, capitalist juggernauts, and appreciative of liberal American trade policy and U.S. military support. Again, should we Americans value the friendship of such democracies — or that of a China that cheats on international trade accords and intimidates its neighbors?

So it is encouraging to be admired by idealistic populations in Africa and Eastern Europe, and shown friendship by India and Japan. But perhaps it is equally to our credit that a bullying China and Russia, a dictatorial and intolerant Middle East, and smug nations of Western Europe seem to resent us, especially our support for democratic change abroad.

No doubt when the Bush administration leaves office, and should a Democratic one replace it, our approval ratings will rise with our present detractors. But they may also decline among our friends who will learn that U.S. open markets, free trade, and reliable military support in times of crisis are now objects of left-wing criticism. Note in this regard that world opinion toward both China and Russia is turning unfavorable. That distrust will only increase as both begin to flex their muscles — the former gobbling up oil contracts from the most murderous regimes, the latter selling the same rogues anything they need to foment unrest.

A number of British diplomats have expressed weariness over the old special relationship with America. Likewise, the British public now barely expresses a favorable impression of the United States (51 percent). But given the emerging world landscape, such a change in attitude would be suicidal for the United Kingdom. History would instead counsel the British people that Europe has nearly destroyed them twice in the twentieth century, while America sought to save them — and would again in the twentieth-first.

Britain should tread carefully, since it is even more likely that a growing number of Americans is turned off by Europe, British anti-Americanism, NATO, and the Middle East. And in the long history of this country, isolationism, not intervention, has been the more natural American sentiment.

[In other words, Britain ought to fear, realistically, that jingoism and nationalism are the fall-back positions of most Americans in times of distress. Britain can either be America's lapdog, or be lumped in with our myriad of "enemies." – J]

If the British think their Tony Blair was George Bush's poodle, they may soon see a British prime minister reduced to a Chinese, Iranian, or Russian hamster — as we already have witnessed with the Russian assassination scandal and the even more embarrassing Iranian hijacking of a British boat.

Unfortunately, Russia and China will only grow wealthier from oil and trade surpluses, while the chances improve of a petrol-rich dictatorship in the Middle East gaining nuclear weapons within missile range of Europe. What will keep the U.S. engaged as a powerful ally of a Britain and Europe in their coming hour of need will not be brilliant statesmen or Atlantic-minded Presidents, but only American public opinion and goodwill that are predicated on some notion of reciprocal friendship.

[Yeah, dream on. Right now, the only major power worried about a Mideast country aiming its nukes at Europe is… America. If indeed Europe can't see what's in its best security interests, then f---- 'em. Seriously. If they're not scared for themselves, why should we be scared for them? – J]

In that regard, such polls continue to be mostly one-sided. What we need now are new comprehensive surveys of what Americans themselves think of the United Nations, the Islamic world, and Western Europe — so that they can try to square the results with our present foreign policy of aid, friendship, or military assistance to those who apparently don't want or appreciate what they receive.

[Nice try, VDH. But truthfully, Americans are so ignorant of institutions like the UN, EU, and NATO, that their opinion doesn't mean anything. Americans do know, however, what is best for America. Sooner or later, people cut through the MSM spin and government rhetoric and ask the most basic, important question: "How is this going to make America better?" When it comes to foreign relations, that's a pretty simple question, but it's also darn tough to answer. And asking this question of our democratically elected leaders often enough is all we've got to defend ourselves against military zealots, economic opportunists, and political ideologues in our midst. – J]