Victor Davis Hanson "Nothing Succeeds Like Success" on the Bandwagon Effect in War

[jordan179]

In my study of military and diplomatic history, I have noticed that one often-important factor, both in public perception and sometimes even in the reality of a conflict, is the "bandwagon effect," which is to say: "Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan

Comments

[last_servant]

Another thing to consider is the shift of goals for the Iraq War. First, we were looking for WMDs. Then toppling the regime. Then promoting democarcy.

The public, I think, is weary of what they percieve as continual goal shifts. I myself dislike that last goal, and wish we left after Saddam was found. It would have provoked Iran, which is needed.

[jordan179]

People feel tricked into the Iraq war, and as each reason given was revealed to be a deception.

When were "Iraq violating the truce terms" and "liberate the Iraqi people" revealed to even be false, let alone "deceptions?"

[jordan179]

Yes Iraq violated truce terms. No that's not what inspired America's people to go to war.

The "liberate the Iraqi people" goal got slipped in after the fact when other reasons didn't pan out. I don't recall "liberate the Iraqi people" being said much (let alone said frequently, or claimed to be important) before the war. The wind-up for the Iraq war was based on a sense of urgency and fear about the danger of WMD and terrorism.

The original motives given were (IIRC) Saddam's support for terrorism and punishment of Iraq for acts of war over the last 12 years. Liberation of the Iraqi people was mentioned but not emphasized. WMD grew from the truce terms, and were emphasized as we recruited other countries to join our coalition. It's quite true that the urgency of invading Iraq came from the fear of Iraqi WMD, but that is not the same thing as this being the only reason to invade Iraq: violation of the truce terms alone sufficed for the purposes of making this a just war. Which it still is -- a just war -- since nobody has even

False to facts

[carbonelle]

At the time Iraq was invaded, I knew a Marine on the Bujold List who, as a result of his deployment to fight (actually support the fighting, I think he's some kind of engineering corps fellah), writing to inform us that he'd be v. likely posting less.

He specifically SAID that, "this is why I joined up," rejoicing that he would be part of an Army of liberation.

There was an entire laundry list of reasons "why to invade." The only one that the left-wing opponants cared about was "WMD" because that was the rationale the Clinton team gave for its bombings.

It was also the primary rationale Colin Powell gave to the U.N. for why that body (not the U.S., not the U.S. people, the UNITED NATIONS) ought to support the U.S. invasion. Despite what the left may think, the U.S. is not the U.N.

People don't (or won't?) remember recent history. It's so scary...

[banner]

You know, it's funny but the whole WMD thing was the LEAST of the reason's to invade. It was also funny that pundits like yourself kept going down the list of 'well you never found/did/whatever this' for each of the items on the list of reasons, moving off of each item onto the next as it was proven until you came to the last one: WMD's.

Which were actually found in Iraq btw (along with programs to make more, some of which were on hold), so then you moved onto 'Mass Stockpiles of WMD's'.

BTW, ever wonder why Saddam had enough pesticides to take care of Iraq for the next 100 years? I keep wondering about that one myself...

[banner]

It's not a cowboy hat. That's not a cowboy outfit. Your powers of observation aren't exactly inspiring.

some links here to stuff that was found.
http://hollie-is-right.livejournal.com/680335.html