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?"

[selfishgene]

'Note that none of the facts at issue changed between 2003 and 2008' - I don't think that is correct. Hussein would never have let AQ operate in his territory and he had the iron control to stop them. The US didn't have that control because they lacked local knowledge/language. So the fact did change in that case, although I admit US public opinion is not always affected by mere facts.

Ristin's LIES (by his own standard of "lie")

[jordan179]

Saddam opposed AQ ...

No, he didn't. He didn't allow Al Qaeda to operate on a major level in Iraq, but he did shelter Abdul Rahman Yasin and allow in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Sheltering Yasin, one of the architects of the 1993 WTC bombing, and allowing in al-Zarqawi (which occurred after our invasion of Afghanistan and thus after 9-11) were both acts of war against America.

... Saddam had no WMD ...

Probably correct, though practically everyone in the world believed that he did.

... Iraq did not sponsor terrorism ...

Untrue. Saddam paid cash bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers attacking Israel. I do not buy the notion that terroristic attacks on Israel somehow aren't "really" terrorism.

... had no hand in 9/11.

Probably true, but then we never claimed that he had.

What started out as a good and necessary act to prevent an imminent threat turned out to be...a totally unwarranted invasion of a sovereign nation.You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was in violation of pretty much every single term of the

[jordan179]

All the reasons for going were not merely wrong but were actual lies to trick America's population into supporting the war. That's hard to stomach.

It would be "hard to stomach" were it true. In fact, both of the clauses of your sentence are false.

First of all, "all the reasons for going were not merely wrong" ...

In fact, Bush listed a whole series of reasons for invading Iraq. He discussed Iraq's violation of the terms of the truce which ended the 1990-91 fighting, the need to liberate the Iraqis from Saddam's rule, Saddam's connections with Al Qaeda, and Saddam's construction of weapons of mass destruction. Of these reasons, the violation of the terms of the truce and the fact that Saddam was a tyrant happened to be completely true; Saddam had some Al Qaeda connections (so that was partially true). The only reason which turned out (as far as we know) to be completely false was Saddam's construction of WMD's

[selfishgene]

'The only reason which turned out (as far as we know) to be completely false was Saddam's construction of WMD's' That was the most important reason for most people.
Either Bush was lying or he was mistaken, either way he has no credibility. Either Clinton was lying about the Kosovo 'genocide' or he was mistaken.
Whichever of those explanations is true, a rational person has to regard future pronouncements by US Presidents with suspicion.

[madwriter]

>>to defeatism in the 1930's following the stock market crash and the successful aggressions of fascist and communist dictatorships in the 1930's<<

Yeah, those successful aggressions were born out of the terrible financial conditions following 1929. This is something we're going to need to watch out for if the American economy keeps spiraling downward as we close in on November. (Not that I'm expecting another Mussolini, but empty pockets can lead to radical changes in government leadership.)

[jordan179]

Yeah, those successful aggressions were born out of the terrible financial conditions following 1929. This is something we're going to need to watch out for if the American economy keeps spiraling downward as we close in on November. (Not that I'm expecting another Mussolini, but empty pockets can lead to radical changes in government leadership.)

It was more than merely the financial effects of the Crash, though. The malaise ran deeper -- intellectuals in the 1930's mostly assumed that the age of liberal democratic capitalism was over, and that some form of communism or fascism was the "wave of the future." They would have been very surprised by the combined outcome of World War II and the Cold War, which has resulted in liberal democratic capitalist Powers dominating the planet, and the few remnant communist and fascist Powers either forced to liberalize or relegated to backwater status.

You might find this interesting

[banner]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207486215610&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

assuming it is correct

Re: You might find this interesting

[jordan179]

If this is true, then I certainly hope that it gets some publicity. One of the worst things about Bush's lack of communication skills is that he often does not bother to repeat things which have once come out, even when he should know that a hostile mainstream media will try to drop them down the memory hole.