Forgetting Pearl Harbor: the giant rolls over and goes back to sleep

The New Neo Posted on by

Sixty-five years ago today Pearl Harbor was attacked.

That’s long enough ago that only the elderly remember the day and its aftermath with any clarity. Several generations–including my own tiresome one, the baby boomers–have come up since then, and the world has indeed changed.

Prior to 9/11, the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941 was the closest thing America had to 9/11. The differences between the two were profound, however: at Pearl Harbor we knew the culprit. It was clearly and unequivocally an act of war by the nation of Japan, which was already at war in the Pacific. But it was, like 9/11, a sneak attack that killed roughly the same number of Americans–in the case of Pearl Harbor mostly (although not exclusively) those in the armed forces. And the Pearl Harbor attack, in the reported (but disputed) words of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, awakened the “sleeping giant” of the US and filled it with a “terrible resolve.” This was also true of 9/11–for a little while.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, that resolve lasted the duration of the war, an all-out conflagration that required far more sacrifice of the US (and the world) in money, comfort, and the all-important cost of human lives. The scale of such a loss is not even remotely comparable to that of our present conflict–at least, so far.

In addition, the first years of World War II featured many losses and much peril. It was a different world, however, and failure was not an option.

This Manchester Union Leader editorial in honor of Pearl Harbor makes the point that:

one does not win a war by fighting it with timidness and half-measures. We are on the verge of proving our attackers of five years ago right — if they kill enough of us, we will lose our will to win.

The important part of that quote is “timidness and half-measures.” Yes, our casualties in this war have been light compared to those of WWII. And yes, mistakes were made in both wars–and always will be. But it is impossible to remain politically correct and successfully wage an asymmetrical war against an enemy that uses terrorist tactics. If you’re going to try to do that, you may as well not try, because every single life sacrificed to that cause will have been as though it were wasted.

The tactics of World War II don’t fit today’s war. I’m not suggesting heavy bombardment of civilian populations, for example. I’ve already made it clear what I would have preferred–an occupation with more teeth and more direction, and a firmer and less-PC hand to control the chaos at the outset.

But tactics aren’t the issue. The issue is will. And, in that respect as in many others, current generations don’t compare to the one known as “The Greatest Generation.”

What will it take to fill us with the “terrible resolve” necessary? Because I sense this giant is only too happy to go back to sleep.

Helpful, so helpful

The New Neo Posted on by

The Washington Post headline: “Experts: Syria, Iran willing to aid USA.” Article by the AP, naturally.

What alternative universe do headline writers live in, I wonder? Reporting on the fact that the Iraq Study Group believes that Syria and Iran would be willing to help the needy US, as though this is some sort of newsworthy item, ought to be risible. But unfortunately, the AP is not the Onion. They are serious.

The Arab world, of course, is taking note of our breastbeating festival. Al Jazeera, according to the article, repeatedly aired Gates’s testimony that we’re not winning in Iraq.

Oh, perhaps al Jazeera’s viewers will watch and envy us for our ability to be humble, and to speak truth to power. And then again, their being an honor/shame culture and all, perhaps they’ll just take it as a sign that we are giving up, and they are winning. But we all get to feel good about ourselves in the meantime–isn’t that the important thing?

And if you detect more than a hint of sarcasm here, you’d be correct.

Iraq Study Group report: so, what else is new?

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m a bit underwhelmed by the Iraq Study Group report “The Way Forward: A New Approach” (see this and this). It reminds me of the usual recommendations by committee; you’re familiar with the genre, I’m sure.

“New approach?” Hardly.

I haven’t had time to read the full text, but the reports on the report are in line with the leaks on the report we’d gotten prior to the its official debut. The main recommendation seems to be more or less what the Administration has been saying all along–the goal is Iraqization, without an exact timetable. This is combined with the following “new” ideas, leaked prior to the issuance of the report: a temporary upsurge in troop involvement to get over the hump of Iraqization, talks with Iran and Syria (I’ve written about that idea before, here), and a new commitment to the old failed “peace process” approach to Israel/Palestine. No magic wands, nor were any expected.

I’m a bit perplexed by all the attention paid to the report prior to its release, and even now. Something like this–a public document about future military strategy–needs to be vague and general even if it does contain new and important information. At least, it should be that way if any of its proposals have any chance of being effective. Telegraphing exactly what we plan to do in great detail, and beaming it around the world for the enemy to see, would be counterproductive, to say the least. But many in this country and the MSM, although professing to be citizens of the world, act as though the only important thing is domestic political infighting, and a short-sighted “gotcha!” game.

And, of course, in line with this, some of the MSM articles on the subject (example here) emphasize the Group’s criticisms of the current approach. Imagine if, in the middle of the gloomiest days of the Civil War for the North, or World War II for the Allies (and they were pretty much all gloomy for the first couple of years), our own media had emphasized the demoralization of our forces, or the pessimism of our own people. But I digress…

I’m glad and not at all surprised at the seemingly general and rather bland nature of the recommendations. It’s really only the details of how Iraqization and the subsequent slow withdrawal of US troops will be carried out that matter on the end; all the rest is bluster.

However, bluster can be harmful, and I’m with Robert Kagan and William Kristol (oh yes, we evil scheming neocons stick together!) on the negative results that have already ensued from all the jaw-jaw about the Iraq Study Group, to wit:

It’s not as if the Baker commission has accomplished nothing, however. Although its recommendations will have no effect on American policy going forward, they have already had a very damaging effect throughout the world, and especially in the Middle East and in Iraq. For the Iraq Study Group, aided by supportive American media, has successfully conveyed the impression to everyone at home and abroad that the United States is about to withdraw from Iraq. This has weakened American allies and strengthened American enemies. It has exacerbated the problems in Iraq, as all the various factions in that country begin to prepare for the “inevitable” American retreat. Now it will require enormous efforts by the president and his advisers to dispel the disastrous impression that the Baker commission has quite deliberately created and will continue to foster in the weeks ahead. At home and abroad, people have been led to believe that Jim Baker and not the president was going to call the shots in Iraq from now on.

As yes, outside of the echo chamber that is Congress and the MSM the news gets around, and it has consequences. But we needn’t worry too much about any of those: we can always talk with the enemy about them.

[NOTE: re Iraqization vs Vietnamization, you might want to review this.]

Don’t feed the trolls

The New Neo Posted on by

Once again, I want to remind people to ignore trolls.

I plan soon to be getting enough time to redesign the blog in order to better deal with them. Till then, the best thing to do is ignore them rather than engage them. As a reminder, the following are banned trolls: loki, alphie, justaguy, and stevie. Of course, several of them do not stick to these names, so it’s only by IP and other details I’m privy to that I can identify them if they do so.

The new system should circumvent the present problems and make it far more difficult for trolls to get around the bans. Till then, I ask, once again, that people simply not respond to any troll comments, even those that seem like they invite a rational argument. It won’t stay rational or polite for long.

[ADDENDUM: Just for clarification, I want to state that once a troll has been banned, all comments by that troll will be deleted, including ones that seem reasonable and would otherwise be acceptable. Commenting here is a privilege, and once you’ve lost it, you’ve lost it.]

The many faces of democracy: Venezuela’s version

The New Neo Posted on by

I haven’t said anything much so far about Hugo Chavez, who recently won the Venezuelan election handily.

Take a look at what Fausta’s written about it for some perspective. It’s a sorry tale but not an unfamiliar one: demagoguery, Leftism, consolidation of power, shutting down of the opposition. Democracy in name only. And take a look at what Marc Cooper (definitely not a man of the Right), has to say about Chavez; apparently, Chavez is also a Leftist in name only.

But that’s the history of Leftism the world around, is it not? Ye shall always have the rich with you.

Also please read this sad elegy for a lost Venezuela by Daniel at Venezuela News and Views. An excerpt:

Today it was quite a hallucinating day. Oh, I was not surprised. My carefully documented predictions were giving Chavez a victory by 5 points. It might be by almost 20 points when all is counted. But with Chavez it does not matter, even with a single vote majority he would go ahead and try to do as he pleases. There is no brake for him. He is not a democrat. A democrat is always aware of the rights of the minority because a democrat knows that one day he might be that minority. Chavismo has made it clear long ago that all revolves around Chavez and that there is no other option for Venezuela. Elections are a necessary ritual that is extremely expensive but a necessity to justify all sorts of other different abuses. Unfortunate Rosales was not running against Chavez, he was running against a whole state whose complete resources were at the service of the autocrat who needs a regular plebiscite to boost his ego.

And thus today the amateur historian in me realizes that he has had the privilege to witness an historical day, the day that democracy completely left Venezuela. We have lost it.

I believe that democracy is in general a good thing. I’m with Churchill when he said it’s the worst form of government in the world except for all the others. However, democracy is fragile for a reason–it is susceptible to demagogues, relies on an informed citizenry, and can be undermined by tyranny if it doesn’t include strong and enforceable guarantees of civil liberties.

That’s why our form of government–which is actually a republic, not a true democracy –has been so stable and so unusual. Republicanism (and I’m not talking about the political party, I’m talking about the form of government: see this) is one of the greatest inventions of the human race. But that’s quite a bit different from simply allowing people to vote; Republicanism (or a free and well-functioning democracy) requires institutions that prevent a takeover by the forces of tyranny:

Democracies are free only if the people know what freedom is and are consistent in their application of it. If they don’t know this, or more appropriately, if a majority of the people don’t know this, then a democracy could be just as tyrannical as the worst dictator…As should be plain, there is a giant difference between the two systems of government. One of the main fears at the Constitutional Convention of the United States was that the government they created would be too democratic (causing Alexander Hamilton to suggest a restricted monarchy), because it was quite obvious, then and now, that any majority could vote itself anything it wanted, be it property or executions.

That’s why I always assumed that the Iraq War was going to have to include a fairly heavy-handed and lengthy occupation in order to set up the institutions that would foster the freedoms that go with democracy/republicanism. We did it in Japan; MacArthur and his staff wrote the Japanese Constitution, and it survives today without change; thirty-nine articles deal with basic human liberties. If that’s cultural imperialism, I’ll take it.

These guarantees are necessary, or democracy can–and most probably will–fail to be “the worst form of government except all the others;” it will merely take its place alongside all the others.

Freedom of speeches: the press takes some liberties

The New Neo Posted on by

One major element in my political change process was my loss of faith in the MSM based on something as simple, and easily checkable, as its reporting of the speeches of public figures.

I say “easily checkable,” because, with the advent of the internet, it is. As long as a person is willing to make a small effort and take a little extra time, most MSM reports of what a speaker says can be checked against the actual words he/she did say.

The majority of readers, of course, still don’t do that. But until recently, almost no one did; the effort and resources required, pre-web, were far greater. So it was less apparent then than it is now that the media regularly distorted the words of many public figures (and who knows? Maybe the practice was actually less common back then).

I first learned about the ubiquity of speech misrepresentation in the MSM through my post-9/11 online reading. At the time it shocked me. It no longer does (I’ve come to expect it), although it still angers me.

Now I tend to wonder about its causes: is it a reflection of poor reading comprehension, unconscious distortion, or purposeful and knowing misrepresentation, or some combination/alternation of them all?

Now here’s a review of a book by communications professor Jim A. Kuypers, detailing media bias in reporting Bush’s speeches. It’s entitled Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age, and presents an apparently nonpartisan and sobering look at just how incredibly distorted and biased the press has been in distorting Bush’s message:

What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror,” said Kuypers, who specializes in political communication and rhetoric. “Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president’s themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.”

This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view. “In short,” Kupyers explained, “if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.”

That’s a pretty powerful statement.

In my earlier post today, I spoke of the need for leadership. Part of leadership involves rhetoric, and Bush is obviously no Churchill. But could even Churchill get his message across in the face of such a concerted effort by his own press to distort it?

What now?: the necessity of leadership

The New Neo Posted on by

Michael Barone is one who doesn’t see Bush’s promise to persevere in Iraq as a joke and/or a travesty and/or an outrage.

Neither does John McCain, who disagrees with the details of Bush’s policy, but sees “staying the course” with more troops as both morally and tactically necessary, not fewer. When does McCain think we should leave Iraq?:

When I think we’ve exhausted every possibility to do what is necessary to succeed and not until then, because the consequences of failure are catastrophic. . . . We left Vietnam, it was over, we just had to heal the wounds of war. We leave this place, chaos in the region and they’ll follow us home. So there’s a great deal more at stake here in this conflict in my view.

And me? I’ve never written on the issue of more troops or less, because that subject seems to require a specialized sort of knowledge that I don’t have. I simply note that those with that knowledge have always differed widely on the question.

But I will state the following: right from the start, although I wasn’t writing a blog at the time, I was very disturbed by the hands-off attitude of those in charge of the occupation. I say “occupation” because that’s what it always was, or should have been. We defeated Iraq in war–although, granted, it was a short war their armed forces mainly chose not to fight. Afterwards, it was our duty to the Iraqis, as well as in our own interests, to be effective in reconstructing a country that had been shattered–not by our war, but by the preceding decades of horror, murder, and divisive brutality, and by a lack of any recent tradition of democracy or cooperation in that country.

The failure to shoot looters at the outset was a bad sign of an approach that was unrealistic on our part about the possibility of resultant chaos. It’s a bit like the first day of school, when a class takes the measure of a teacher, who has to establish his/her authority at the outset or be forever considered a wimp and possible victim. We didn’t want to be a heavy occupying force, and I understood that, but we had to acknowledge that we were there to control things for a while, and that message was not properly delivered. Another turning point–and a far more important one–was our failure to apply Draconian measures to al Sadr when he was just getting started, as well as our initial stalling in Fallujah and other similar areas of enemy control and influence.

You can’t go back–you can only go forward. At this point, I’m with Barone in looking at historical examples of war leadership when things looked dismal:

…remember that for Truman on Korea and for Churchill after Dunkirk, no promising military courses were immediately apparent. Truman, after firing Gen. Douglas MacArthur, had forsaken the threat — a nuclear attack — that his successor Dwight Eisenhower deployed to get the communists to agree to a truce.

But Truman’s perseverance despite his 22 percent job approval — much lower than Bush’s — was essential in preserving the independence of South Korea, which now has the world’s 14th-largest economy. Churchill, facing Hitler alone, could promise only “blood, toil, tears and sweat” until his enemies’ mistakes — Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union, the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor — gave him the allies that made victory possible…

Bush isn’t Churchill in the leadership/rhetoric department, not by a longshot. But then, who is? If we wait around for a Churchill, there’ll be a long wait coming.

Is Bush a Truman? Closer, perhaps–Truman was no orator, and his intelligence wasn’t highly respected. One difference, of course, was that Truman was not operating under the handicap of constant Vietnam comparisons.

Leadership is hard to quantify, difficult to describe. But we know it when we see it. Right now it’s necessary, although Bush, unfortunately, isn’t a natural at conveying it. But in the future, as in the past, actions will speak louder than words–although words are definitely an important part of the way a leader inspires.

Instant historians: an oxymoron?

The New Neo Posted on by

…(or–forgive the pun–perhaps “oxymorons?”)

Historian Vincent J. Cannato has an op-ed in the Washington Post rightly critical of historians’ tendency to make instant judgments of Presidencies, both of Bush and others.

I always thought historians were those who wrote about the past after the passage of a reasonable amount of time, and journalists and pundits were–well, there’s a lot of things I could call them, but we’ll stick with “chroniclers of the present, taking a snapshot in time.” Historians are distinguished by waiting, reflection, research, and analyzing the long-term consequences of actions taken. Not with predicting those consequences, but actually studying them, because they have occurred.

That’s not to say that history is infallible; surely not. I’ve written before about some of the problems inherent in writing history, especially history with an agenda–and everyone’s got an agenda, whether upfront about it or not.

Churchill is an interesting case in point. After the WWI debacle of his Admiralty decisions concerning the Dardanelles and Gallipoli (see this as well), the judgment of history would have been “Stupidity. Failure. Poor judgment.” During the thirties, Churchill was practically a laughingstock in Parliament, a man whose dire warnings about Hitler and Germany were widely considered almost demented and rather pathetic.

Of course, history has vindicated Churchill. Yes, he had flaws, but history calls him “great.” Of course in this, as in many other things, Churchill was both uncommonly prescient and uncommonly articulate; he said, “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”

That’s not the only reason history has been kind to Churchill. But shortly after WWII, when one would have thought he would have been a hero to all, the electorate voted him out of office. The judgments of the present are not the same as the viewpoint of history.

This is what Cannato cautions on Bush. Of course, we all need to make judgments in the present based on incomplete knowledge, and we all lack the ability to foretell the future. But that’s not the same as declaring we already know the judgment of history. Folks such as Michael Lind would do well to heed that caution (hat tip: Done With Mirrors).

Talking with Iran and divorce mediation: the naked emperor (shh, little child!)

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s not just that I disagree with the “we need to talk with Iran” folks. It’s that they actually seem demented and deluded. Their suggestion makes no sense–or about as much sense as “talk with Hitler” would have made in the middle of WWII.

Faith in the overwhelming power of talk has gone beyond the bounds of rationality into an irrational and yet strongly-held belief system. I read pundits and watch talking heads nodding in agreement that talking with Iran might just be the ticket, the get-out-of-jail-free (or relatively free) card needed for extricating us from a difficult situation in Iraq. And it seems patently absurd to me, actually laughable–if it didn’t have such potentially enormous consequences.

I usually manage to see some sort of reason in the proposals of the other side, however much I may disagree with them. But this proposal seems so dangerously divorced from reality as to be as absurd as the emperor prancing around nude when he thinks he has a fabulous suit of clothing on, while those on my side seem like the voices of the little child shouting “But wait! He’s naked. Don’t you see it?”

Iran is not only our enemy, it’s our overt and blatant enemy, and has been since 1979. Ever since its revolution, Iran has been boldly proclaiming its aim to destroy us–the Great Satan. We are so unacquainted with evil that, to many, the over-the-top nature of such charges sound almost comical; surely, they can’t be serious (in much the same way, many dismissed Hitler as ridiculous: the strutting, the rhetoric, the silly little mustache).

But, we cannot afford to not take Iran seriously, any more than we could with Hitler. And, although the turmoil in Iraq is multiply-determined, one of the proximate causes is the direct and intentional influence of Iran in that country.

Frank Gaffney says it well in the Daily News:

…the new talk-to-Iran conventional wisdom is irresponsible.

Why? Because Iran is, hands down, the main impediment to freedom and stability in Iraq. Together with its client state, Syria, Iran is directly implicated in murderous attacks on American forces in Iraq. Iran is arming and training Shiite militias. And it’s using violence, intelligence and money to dominate oil-rich southern Iraq.

If we have any hope of turning the tide in Iraq, our strategy must negate those threats. Diplomatic appeasement won’t work. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs who run the show in Tehran will only be emboldened and intensify their efforts to dominate the region and destroy those who stand in their way.

Instead, it’s time for a concerted effort to isolate, counter and help the Iranian people take down that regime from within.

To do so, we need to adapt theCold War strategy Ronald Reagan used to destroy the Soviet Union. It is an urban legend that Reagan brought down “the Evil Empire” by negotiating with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Nonsense. In fact, Reagan systematically cut off the USSR’s funding, empowered its opponents and thwarted its military programs. Similarly, we should use political, financial and intelligence tools to enable the mullahs’ domestic opponents to undermine their power.

An enemy is an enemy, and pretending it’s not is a self-destructive act. Munich and Chamberlain comparisons are, once again, very apt. Those who say that Iran can’t hurt us because they are militarily weak ignore the fact that they are already hurting us through asymmetrical warfare and propaganda, and that they are pursuing a path that will give them atomic weapons for blackmail or actual use.

I’ve written before about the futility of talking with this particular enemy. But now I’m curious to understand what motivates those who advocate such talk in the face of overwhelming evidence of its futility and its danger. My current hypothesis is that it’s another example of the progress we’ve made in the West (which I wrote about yesterday): our own society has become so relatively peaceful, benign, and cooperative that many have lost sight of the fact that reason is not always possible–and that tyranny and cruelty, and lust for power and control, exist on a scale (in other nations such as Iran) that would make any fears about BushHitler, the Patriot Act, wiretapping, Guantanamo, and all the other myriad charges the Left has against the Bush Administration (trumped up or otherwise) seem like a walk in the proverbial park.

Among other things I’ve done in my life, I was briefly a divorce mediator. It sounded like a great idea, and sometimes it is: get the warring parties to sit down , away from those lawyers who stir things up and often lead to an even more adversarial climate, and have the couple talk it out together. After all, these people are married, and once loved each other, right? Surely they would have the ability to agree to things that, after all, are in their best interests to solve by themselves?

And I quickly learned the first rule of divorce mediation. As far as I know I’m the person who originated it, so I’ll state it here: if divorce mediation works, the couple usually didn’t need a mediator in the first place; they could have done it themselves with only the help of a booklet explaining the laws of their state. Oh, it’s nice to have a little guidance to keep things on track, but it’s not really all that necessary in most cases, and it costs money.

But there are always a number of cases–and the number is not small–where divorce mediation not only does not work, but leads to greater turmoil and/or inequity. If the bitterness is too huge, it affords the couple the opportunity to engage in more and more vicious exchanges to no avail, whereas dealing with lawyers at least gets them out of each others’ faces. And in particular, if there’s a differential of power, or any sort of abusive situation (and sometimes that’s a thing the mediator cannot determine at the outset), mediation can lead to a far less equitable solution, one in which the weaker party gets a manifestly unjust settlement, despite the pretense of biparty acquiescence.

The divorce mediation situation, of course, is hardly analogous to talking with Iran. But it’s an example of the limits of conversation, despite a firm belief in its power. And talking with an enemy such as Iran, where there is no common ground for agreement and no common goals, is far far worse. At stake are not just the assets and children of a married couple–which, of course, are important–but the future of millions of people, of history.

Chamberlain had an excuse, he didn’t have the example of Munich before him. What’s ours?

[ADDENDUM: To those who mentioned the precedent of talking with the USSR, I replied in the comments section, and am reproducing my reply here:

The USSR and the US agreed on some common goals. They didn’t want to blow each other to kingdom come, for starters. The USSR was a secular government (not a religious one) interested in power in this world, not matyrdom in the next. They also cared at least somewhat about the welfare of their people, if only as a demonstration of the superiority of their system.

None of that is true of Iran. There is no common ground for a talk. If by “talk” you mean threats with a big stick to back them up, I’m all for talking. But that’s not what these particular talks would be about. The talks that are proposed right now are to elicit Iran’s cooperation in covering a planned retreat from Iraq, to “stabilize” the country. The only stabilization Iran is interested in there is stabilization under Iran’s thumb, and they will say anything and do anything to get it. Thus talks are inherently duplicitous and counterproductive.]