Books & Things

August 28, 2007

I thought the Mission had been Accomplished, that major combat operations have ended, and the U.S. and its allies have prevailed. No WMD. Greeted as liberators. Stuff happens. Insurgency in its last throws. As they stand up, we will stand down. The "Plan for Victory in Iraq," that one is still on the White House website. Guess they are too ashamed to remove it, or maybe Barney the dog is in charge of the White House website. That would make perfect sense given the track record of this administration.

Wait, here is an oldy, but a goody. Remember when Wolfowitz said the Iraqis will pay for the reconstruction, and fairly soon. Thats a good one!

Why, oh why, do all you right wing Bush apologists live in a delusional world. You cannot talk about Iraq, and victory, and all that other nonsense without mentioning that the same people who brought you all those bogus claims are also the same ones who you claim will be bringing us this victory.

I am not sure what War in Iraq you have been watching, but this is the most incompetent group of people ever to run a war in our nations history. I dont know if you have noticed, but we have been making "progress" since 2003.

At long last sir, how can you defend that?

Hanson: The mission against Iraq in 1991 to eject it from Kuwait ended in only partial success, given that Saddam still butchered and stayed in power. Then Iraq II went on with 12 years of no-fly-zones and bombing attacks (5,000 Iraqis claimed killed?) like Operation Desert Fox. Then Iraq III ended with the fall of Saddam and his Baathists. Now we are in Iraq IV, the most ambitious of all the four wars to foster a constitutional replacement for Saddam's genocidal regime. So I'm afraid the war has been going on for 16 years through three administrations.

As far as WMD, the administration erred in privileging that casus belli — since a majority of Senate Democrats voted for 22 others reasons to go to war in Iraq, from violations of the 1991 accords, to genocide, to sponsoring suicide bombing and harboring terrorists. They saw the same intelligence that the administration did. A review of Clinton-Kerry-Feinstein, etc statements concerning WMD do not differ much from those of Bush-Cheney.

So far a majority of Iraqis prefers Iraq of today to that of Saddam's, and still wish us to stay on to help train them to take over. Gen Petraeus's surge is not intended for perpetual occupation, but to provide a window of opportunity for Iraqis to gain the upper hand against the jihadists. We all wish we had avoided errors and mistakes, but I can't remember a war yet in which there were not lapses, most of which cost far more American lives that we have seen in Iraq.

Unfortunately you know nothing of history and so like most on the Left think that your age, your circumstances, your views are always unique and transcend some 231 years of our America past. Do you know anything about the winter of 1776? Or the summer of 1864, or Spring 1917? Or the Pacific in 1944, or the Bulge, or November 1950? There an "incompetent group of people" did not manage a war that lost 3,000, but almost 100,000 dead and wounded alone in 2 months in the Ardennes, or 50,000 casualties in 6 weeks on Okinawa.

We can imagine your sarcastic letters after the hedgerows, or the 1942 B-17 attacks, or Tarawa, or Choisun, but fortunately until this generation yours was always a minority view. Unfortunately wars do not work like your i-Pod.

* * *

April 2, 2007

Dear Mr.Hanson,

Your thesis of freedom inspiring armies has always had a personal resonance with me. I was particularly inspired by your research on Epaminondas, which played a major influence in my college admissions essay and which, in turn, played a role in my admission to Virginia Military Institute in 2006. When the movie The 300 came out I was horrified that the Spartans were being glorified as heroes of democracy in large part because of your excellent work that depicted them as the precursors to totalitarianism and fascism.

If I'm not mistaken, however, you referred to the Spartans in a recent interview as heroic farmers who defended freedom. I was horrified that you were transferring the values of freedom-loving Thebes onto Sparta. Sparta has long enjoyed a strong reputation in the free world. In my opinion however the fact that philosophers enjoying the freedom and democracy of Athens praise Sparta is no different than modern intellectuals who praised the Soviet Union while living in the West. In conclusion, I would like an explanation on why you have recanted the ideas that made you such a powerful historian.

Hanson: I am afraid that you are sorely mistaken on all counts. I did not refer to Spartans as "heroic farmers" who defended freedom, but rather to the Greek defenses as consisting of many Greek city-states, composed of agrarians, fighting for freedom, and helped by the strange oligarchy at Sparta. If you had read carefully what I wrote about The 300, you would note one of my few regrets was the failure to amplify the cause of Thespiae, a small Boeotian town that sent 700 to Thermopylae who all died with Leonidas.

Like most historians, I am impressed with Spartan military prowess and the culture's adherence to the rule of law, and the radial equality of all the some 10,000 Homoioi inside the select circle of Spartiates — but not to the extent of a Plato or Xenophon who did not care much that the entire system was predicated on the exploitation of 250,000 serfs in Messenia, unusual even for a chattel-holding Greece. Remember also, that all of Greece, both democratic and not, gave homage to the 300 whose sacrifice galvanized the Greeks to continue to resist Xerxes. I can give due to the individual soldiers of the Red Army that bled white the murderous Wehrmacht in the mistaken belief that they were fighting only for the survival of Mother Russia without condoning the murderous communist regime of Stalin.

In fact, I have written extensively of my preference for Athens over Sparta, and for 4th-century Democratic Thebes over both of them. That is not changed. I am finishing a novel about the great march of the Theban Epaminondas to free the Spartan helots of Messenia; the only difficulty I'm having as I finish the last few chapters is avoiding the demonization the Spartans too much, which comes natural to me I'm afraid.

Finally, as for as Thermopylae, it was not a matter of a constitutional oligarchy fighting with elected democracies, as was true in the Peloponnesian War. But rather a coalition of constitutional city-states, both democratic and oligarchic, fighting to preserve Greek freedom from the imposition of a foreign autocracy — along the lines of what had stifled and then snuffed out the 6th-century Greek Enlightenment in Ionia across the Aegean.

So, sorry, I didn't find anything of merit in your writ at all.

* * *

March 15, 2007

Once again you miss the point. Gore and Edwards and Pelozzi may be leading the good life, but they earned it the hard way. They worked for it. That is the American Dream. Given the OPPORTUNITY, they have succeeded. The Tom Delays, Duke Cunninghams, Mark Foleys and Ted Haggards used their power to break the law or act in a manner none of us would say they were entitled to. Please do not equate the two.

There's nothing wrong with being successful. Democrats and liberals don't sign on to vows of poverty. They just want to give all Americans the OPPORTUNITY to be similarly successful. They don't fear the success of others and they don't try to stifle others. And yes, sometimes they do the wrong thing or act unethically or immorally, too, but don't compare the ownership of large or even oversized homes with men who prey on children or their followers. They're not even close.

Hanson: No, you missed the point which wasn't about the good life at all, but rather about those who preach about the unfairness of American life, or the wasteful habits of Americans, or some sort of pathology, while themselves living lives of the French royal court. Why can't Al Gore fly first class if he thinks planes heat up the environment, rather than a wasteful, fuel-burning private jet? Or better yet, let him take the train.

Second, the entire point of the essay was to distinguish the two types of hypocrisy, the Left enjoying the good life that they claim is a product of exploitation of some sort, the Right indulging in sordid behavior while posing as moralists. You only confirmed my point that their falsity is different.

And by the way, George Soros, mentioned in the essay, has caused a great deal of harm, from trying to undermine the Bank of England to driving currencies up and down. And I resent the expense of a full-size airliner to fly Pelosi around, and think as well that Edwards does a great deal of damage by preaching a sort of class warfare while living in the largest house in his county.

The American people agree. That is why they rejected Kerryism in the last election: talking blue-collar and living in mansions, or preaching green and riding in private jets and SUVs.

* * *

February13, 2007

The Left — for whatever multicultural and hate-Bush reasons — cannot bring itself to face up to the Islamic challenge and more often than not becomes an apologist for it. So if the Left won't do it then maybe conservatives should be seeking common ground with moderate Muslims (is there not one?). Wasn't this to be the outcome of the Iraq war: to nurture a democratic example in the heart of the Muslim world?

It's not that the radicals and their leaders put forth a coherent case against America. The question is whether there are moderates in the Muslim world who will be lost to the bad guys or won over to our side, which depends on the image of America presented to them. D'Souza lays out very well the Left's radical agenda now being pushed on traditional societies via the U.N. and NGOs and complicity with totalitarian regimes. Is it wrong for conservatives to recognize this and mount their own campaign to seek out allies within the Muslim world by promoting conservative American values? Should we not also decry the trash and insults heaped upon them by our own cultural left?

D'Souza's second point is that this war has two fronts where a huge section of the West's secular left (especially represented in academia and the mainstream media) really does want us to lose — not because they want to live under radical Islam, but because they see George Bush as the number one enemy and because they see Vietnam as their finest hour. Again and again, D'Souza concedes that these people love America — they are not traitors to their America — and they do despise the religious intolerance of Islam. It's just that their vision of America is radically opposed to the traditional vision and they see conservatives as a nearer and greater threat to their America than al Qaeda (which they would consign to police work).

For most of us, real murder and mayhem are obviously "more offensive than rap music or Brokeback Mountain." But as we are telling the Islamic world that we are adamantly opposed to their violence and religious intolerance should we not also say that our violent rap lyrics and celebration of sodomy are not a good reflection of our nation?

Hanson: Yes, of course, we must distance ourselves from the bastardization of our culture and the moral ambiguity of the Left. But that is a very different proposition — despite the qualifiers in the book — from naming prominent Americans, and then, without proof, accusing them of being 'domestic insurgents' and wishing for bin Laden to defeat the United States.

And it is a different proposition as well from qualifying terrorists attacks, such as emphasizing that the USS Cole was a warship, as if the cowardly act of terrorism against its crew was somehow not terrorist in nature, or to suggest that the murder of thousands of Americans in New York and on the planes on 9/11 was somehow incidental, and not the real intent of al-Qaeda. A problem with the entire book is that after saying something outrageous, D'Souza almost automatically on the same page or next backtracks by saying that he is not saying quite what he has just implied or is about to imply. (e.g., "Although 9/11 is routinely described as a terrorist attack, can anyone seriously maintain that the Pentagon was not a military target? versus "So I am not objecting to the characterization of 9/11 as terrorism." or "Yes, there were civilians on the planes but the purpose of hijacking planes was not to kill civilians on board but to use the winged juggernauts as flaming projectiles to destroy the intended symbolic targets." versus "I do not deny that bin Laden wanted to kill noncombatants.")

* * *

February 8, 2007

Hanson needs to realize that the 1950s are gone!! And no amount of lies designed to spur hatred will bring them back!!

I was a marcher, I am NOT illegal. I was born here Hanson, as were both my parents and 3 of my 4 grandparents! Hanson, you don't know what you are talking about or you are deliberately lying to stir up hate — frankly, it seems the latter is more likely! You say the marches provoked a backlash. I seriously doubt that. The people who say this ALREADY hated us from the word go. NOTHING we can do or say will EVER change that, so why bother trying?

On the other hand, the marches brought UNITY and a sense of PURPOSE to our communities! The continued attacks on ALL things Mexican and "Latino" in general, will only serve to unify us!

Hanson and the Buchanan/Tancredo types are upset that whites are losing their majority status in the U. S. so they lash out at us. But, the real culprit for this is the collapse in white birthrates all over the world — whites have birth rates that will soon see them experience more deaths than births which is already happening in Germany. No amount of Mexican bashing will change this!!

As a 28-year-old man witnessing the lies, half-truths, screed and HATRED spewed at us by sophisticated HATE-MONGERS like Hanson, the day when we indeed are the majority in the Southwest will be all the sweeter. Hanson, Buchanan, Tancredo, Dobbs, Brimelow, what you all have in common is that you are all old white curmudgeons! You will ALL be dead and gone within 25 years. God willing!

Meanwhile, we are the YOUTH!! The Washington Post wrote recently that 22 percent of ALL births in the U.S. is now Hispanic!! The day is not far off when our people, united and spurred by the HATRED of the likes of Hanson, will become the Mayors, County Supervisors, Sheriffs, Police, etc! No more hate mongers like Joe Arpaio, a son of dirty immigrants to boot!

Just think Hanson; California alone has 54 Congressional Representatives. How long until the lions share are in OUR hands? There are at least 100 Congressional Representatives in the southwestern states and 14 U.S. Senators, and WHEN we capture the lions share haters like Hanson will be marginalized for good!

Finally, why would anyone listen to Hanson anyway? Hanson is one of the war-mongering CHICKENHAWKS that promised us a "cakewalk" in Iraq. Why should we take you seriously NOW? Especially when you straight out lie — just as you neo-cons did to get your Iraq war! Unlike Hanson, I actually served a stint in the Army!

Hanson, I look forward to reading your obituary. It will signal the end of an era and the start of a new one where brown people like me are no longer scapegoated for things like below replacement white birthrates! And that day is coming...soon...

Hanson: I am sorry you are so angry to the point of incoherence — especially since the essay in this issue of City Journal on a look back at the book Mexifornia was pretty tame and measured. Unlike you, I've never seen myself as a particular race, or defined by a tribal identity. I wrote that I still agreed that many of the 11 million here illegally, once screened for the newly arrived and felons, should be allowed to stay to apply for earned citizenship — in a bargain of sorts for closing the border, returning to a melting-pot approach of assimilation, and sharing a common language.

The tragedy of your outburst is that it only confirms the suspicions of many that Americans like yourself simply do not wish to embrace a legal process that might have the effect of cutting down drastically those coming here illegally to a lawful number that would allow easy integration and assimilation. So what would be the objection?

Presently, there are somewhere between 160,000-200,000 lawful Mexican immigrants admitted which is more than allowed for all other immigrants combined. In contrast, when we talk about immigration reform, we are looking at the one million or so we think are crossing illegally.

And lost in your harangue is any curiosity why in effect so many brave people risk their lives to get as far away from Mexico as possible — what are the economic and political conditions unique to the United States that results in such a vastly more prosperous and stable society, and how could Mexico duplicate them at home to ensure 1 of 10 of its own would not have to flee their homes?

Consequently, the effect of your letter is something like: 'No matter the law or the present legal immigration concessions given Mexico — we demand not only more legal immigrants than all other countries, but a million more in addition outside the law, because our agenda is to change realities on the ground through demography'.

I get many hate-filled letters such as your own that give the game away by always mentioning "brown" and race, suggesting you, not I, do not seek a color-blind society, but instead some sort of mythical Aztlan north, nursed on racialist myths.

With its bombast, infantile capital letters, and the use of a mythical Aztec-name signature, your letter is sad — and sadly not unique.

* * *

January 30, 2007

Dr. Hanson: what you are saying is that a lot of the enemy live among us. Since families of these high ranking Muslim leaders are here, it means others have the excuse of traveling to and from to visit, attend birthday parties, etc. What it sounds like to me is the enemy has plenty of opportunities for espionage. It would seem that while our present "enemy" enjoys our freedoms, liberties and security they wouldn't bat an eye at blowing one of our cities to hell. Even if they did kill some of their own relatives, wouldn't those relatives be guaranteed paradise since they died in jihad?

Hanson: In the column you refer to, I was talking more about the irony of tyrants, autocrats, and extremists, whether Musharraf, Saudi royals, Amal's head in Lebanon, or Assad's minister of information all having their families living here. The assumption is that for all the rhetoric, they would want their loved ones in places other than those under their own control. The list could be expanded to include those educated in the U.S. who are sons and daughters of Iranian theocrats, Gulf mullahs, and other sorted pro-jihadists. To be consistent, they should all willingly not wish their offspring to be exposed to the sins of the Great Satan or the globalized corrupter.

All this is a different question from the more serious matter of jihadists in our midst as we witnessed on September 11. I have no illusions that they would willingly cause mass death for themselves and their kin here, while in the U.S. if it at least came at real hurt to America. So strange, this subtext of American life today: we argue and bicker over Iraq and Bush, but privately all expect something still to happen no matter how much we profess disdain for those who call wolf.

* * *

January 8, 2007

Mr. Hanson. Iraq is and always was lost. Give it up, and admit your mistake like the rest of the neocons who got us into this mess. All that remains is you to blame the Democrats who will finally put an end to the killing.

Hanson: Iraq is not and never was "lost." I hope you were not Commander in Chief on the first day of the Bulge when you would have asked for an armistice when two American divisions were wrecked in 24 hours, or on Okinawa when the killing in 3 weeks exceeded that of 5 years in this war.

I don't think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, or Powell were neocons or hypnotized by them. Rather as old-time realists, they felt that after 9/11 such cynicism wasn't working anymore and wanted to offer something other than playing one thug off another.

What we are witnessing is a long metamorphosis in this war in Iraq: 1991, Saddam invades Kuwait and is forced back; 1991-2003, twelve years and 350,000 sorties in the no-fly zones; 2003, a 3-week victory over Saddam; 2003-5, a war against Baathists and al Qaedists; 2006-7, Shiite versus Sunni militias. Anytime we washed ourselves from the area, there was trouble, as one would expect with vast oil reserves put at the service of dictatorship.

The final policy of fostering democratic government is the only one that offers a shred of hope in allowing some choice other than dictatorship or theocracy. We are close to achieving that, but won't if we give up now. Let me remind you that a majority of Democratic Senators and Representatives voted to authorize President Bush to remove Saddam in October 2002, following the earlier resolutions for "regime change" sponsored by the Clinton Administration. After the statue fell, such politicians fell all over each other taking credit for the 3-week victory. All that changed is that, over three years later, Iraq has turned messy, and someone's else's three-year occupation ruined their perfect three-week war.

I doubt the Democrats will cut off funds. Why? They know that Iraq is not lost. And they know we have killed thousands of terrorists over there. I doubt too they will close Guantanamo or stop wiretaps, since they fear they have had some positive role in stopping another 9/11.

* * *

December 8, 2006

Mr. Hanson, have you ever written anything positive about Muslims or Islam, or is it always going to be Israel and the U.S. right, Islam always wrong?

Hanson: How odd to suggest that when the now demonized policy, which I supported, of staying on after the removal of Saddam Hussein to allow elections for the Iraqis was most certainly based on the utopian idea that Muslims themselves were quite capable of consensual government as we see in Turkey or Indonesia.

So it is up to Arab Muslims to prove that ideal was also true of the Arab Middle East, and show that Palestine and Iraq can stabilize and conduct democracy under the rule of law.

Another piece of advise to you, as a moderate Muslim in the West: the present U.S. policy was about as good as the Middle East was going to get, this engagement that saw billions spent in Afghanistan and Iraq for democracy, and real American pressure exerted on behalf on the people of Lebanon, Egypt, and the Gulf States to have a say in their governments.

So we are at a great crossroads: when the world's only superpower puts its money and lives behind the idea of consensual government for Arab Muslims, will they tweak and fidget about the infidel's hubris, or use the opening for their own purposes of reform?

And a word of warning as well: if Iraq should fail, and if there should be another 9/11 traced to a terrorist-sponsoring Arab nation, and celebrated once more by the proverbial Arab Street, then for the next half century the United States will write off all notion of reform and liberalization and just deal, as we see with the return of the realists, with the Middle East as it is. A