War propheteering
“Whether this influential, snarling minority -- so prominent in the media, on campuses, in government, and in the arts -- succeeds in turning victory [in Iraq] into defeat is open to question.”
-Classics Professor V.D. Hanson
There you have it. What causes a state to lose a war? It isn't bad (or no) planning, poor logistics, wrong-headed deployment, rampant profiteering, insufficient troop levels, shoddy (or no) equipment, so stop being stupid. Actors lose wars. Not that this claim is exactly new, since the righties have long been shouting that any criticism of the war strategy is tantamount to picking up a gun and shooting American troops yourself. No, the scary part is that they're more than ready-- after refusing to give an inch of ground on their convictions that Iraq has been a massive success-- to start calling it an American loss. And it's all because of those who questioned, say, the admin's decision to halve the troop levels recommended by their own generals.
The article is from the American Prospect, and I highly recommend it. It's sort of a post mortem of right-wing pundits and their various (false) claims leading up to and throughout the Iraq War. Worst of the lot is Hanson, who undoubtedly knows better but would really, really miss the creme brulee in the White House. Mmmm.....
Some of his other stumpers, both from 2002:
“In the same way as the death of Hitler ended the Nazi Party and the ruin of the Third Reich finished the advance of fascist power in Europe, so the defeat of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi dictatorship will erode both clandestine support for terrorism and murderous tyranny well beyond Iraq.” Madrid? London? Lalalala-- I can't hear you!
“We are told an attack against Iraq will supposedly inflame the Muslim world. Toppling Saddam Hussein will cause irreparable rifts with Europeans and our moderate allies, and turn world opinion against America.”
Pffft-- yeah, what a load of crap that turned out to be, eh, Prof? You must be psychic. And while I'm giving Hanson the gasface, I'm patting myself on the back for that snappy title.
-Classics Professor V.D. Hanson
There you have it. What causes a state to lose a war? It isn't bad (or no) planning, poor logistics, wrong-headed deployment, rampant profiteering, insufficient troop levels, shoddy (or no) equipment, so stop being stupid. Actors lose wars. Not that this claim is exactly new, since the righties have long been shouting that any criticism of the war strategy is tantamount to picking up a gun and shooting American troops yourself. No, the scary part is that they're more than ready-- after refusing to give an inch of ground on their convictions that Iraq has been a massive success-- to start calling it an American loss. And it's all because of those who questioned, say, the admin's decision to halve the troop levels recommended by their own generals.
The article is from the American Prospect, and I highly recommend it. It's sort of a post mortem of right-wing pundits and their various (false) claims leading up to and throughout the Iraq War. Worst of the lot is Hanson, who undoubtedly knows better but would really, really miss the creme brulee in the White House. Mmmm.....
Some of his other stumpers, both from 2002:
“In the same way as the death of Hitler ended the Nazi Party and the ruin of the Third Reich finished the advance of fascist power in Europe, so the defeat of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi dictatorship will erode both clandestine support for terrorism and murderous tyranny well beyond Iraq.” Madrid? London? Lalalala-- I can't hear you!
“We are told an attack against Iraq will supposedly inflame the Muslim world. Toppling Saddam Hussein will cause irreparable rifts with Europeans and our moderate allies, and turn world opinion against America.”
Pffft-- yeah, what a load of crap that turned out to be, eh, Prof? You must be psychic. And while I'm giving Hanson the gasface, I'm patting myself on the back for that snappy title.
posted by Matt Sandwich | 12:58 PM
<< Home