June 2006

Response to Readership

What worries me about illegal immigration is the likelihood that they will get the vote and so affect our election results.  Above and beyond the instances already heavily reported by John Fund in his "Stealing Elections" — B-1 Bob Dornan, Loretta Sanchez, Mary Landrieu, Tim Johnson — and the natural aggressiveness of the Democratic Party in voting early and often, and voting by the dead or the fictitious, we have the "in your face" aggressiveness of the La Raza-like organizations.  Media coverage of the recent pro-immigration marches showed placards reading "Today We March, Tomorrow We Vote."  This is a true scandal and as dangerous to our continued national existence as an enemy division on the border or armada off our shores.

Hanson: Your fears were realized recently when a California Democratic congressional candidate advised those in an audience without papers that they needed no such documentation to vote. It is a philosophical issue: those on the left believe in two dangerous tenets. First, that the ends must justify the means; that is, that the power of the wealthy entrenched can be challenged by extra-legal means as moral methods of restoring "fairness" in a biased system that is inherently unfair; and, second, that voting in particular reflects not legality but residency, or the notion that anyone who happens to live in a particular area is as equal as anyone else, and that legality, citizenship, proper documentation, all these are mere "details" often used to thwart popular expression. And finally, we have a generation of baby-boomers who came of age when it was popular on campuses to deride authority and the rule of law; many in their formative years, in the dorm, in the classroom, out in the free speech area, simply did not think that rules should or did apply to themselves, given their infinite wisdom and superior morality.

Are there similarities between the decline of the Roman Empire and the state of America given unpopularity over the war in Iraq ? Roman society became soft, morally and militarily, unwilling to face and maintain a strong approach to the heathen forces without and overcome the decay occurring within?

Hanson: This is a common parallel and often arises since it is hard to imagine Rome in the 5th century, with a much larger territory, more population, and greater wealth than its Republican days, falling to enemies less impressive than they had defeated centuries earlier when far poorer. And of course the answer is that by late imperial times, there was an absence of cohesiveness, of knowing what it was to be Roman. So when the Danube and Rhine heated up, there were no longer the mechanisms to galvanize those in the Mediterranean to rush northward to save their shared culture.

Why was this? Hundreds of reasons have been adduced from the fanciful lead in the water pipes of the elite to high taxation to Christian pacifism. The best explanation remains, however, that an elite entrusted to offer leadership by example, was increasingly self-absorbed, irrelevant, and worried more about the maintenance of leisure and affluence. We need to watch the growth of privatism, or the notion that one can still do very well when his country is doing very poorly.

Signs to watch? How the U.S. handles its spiraling budget deficit, its trade deficit, and oil bill. These are not so much economic litmus tests as moral and spiritual symptoms, and send strong messages that the present generation would not consume more than it produces or borrow against the future for present enjoyment.

Striking similarities can be drawn between the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts regarding media distortions.  How can we as consumers of daily news identify news of substance from antiwar media?

Hanson: It is hard. The main opposition politicians have called U.S actions Nazi-like, or continuing Saddam's horror, or even worse. Newsweek has promulgated distortions about flushed Korans, CBS about forged memos, and the public has lost all confidence in Reuters, AP, the New York Times and the Washington Post, assuming a baby-boomer, Vietnam-era generation has now gained managerial control, and, as in their youth, sees partisanship as necessary to offset the power of the corporations, Republicans, the military, etc. But all is not lost, the Internet, talk radio, cable news, all these and more offer near instantaneous refutations to the biased stories of the day, and, oddly enough, appear in a more populist fashion. Yes, the great irony of the day is the left-wing media is elitist, traditional, and hierarchical, and its conservative counterpart populist and blue-collar.

Now Bush is talking about "isolating" Iran and building interceptor missiles in Europe .  Bush has lost his nerve and will let the Iranian mullahs get their nukes. Perhaps, the Israelis will decide to act on their own?

Hanson: Not so fast. I think instead that he wants the "other" approaches to play out, and show the world that he tried diplomacy, and that the timidity of the Europeans, the self-interest of the Russians and the Chinese, and the triangulation of the U.N. only empowered the Iranians — a reminder that all this was true of Iraq as well. At some point we hope all this works, or the Iranian dissidents materialize, or the Iraqi democracy stabilizes and then destabilizes the autocracy next door; but at the eleventh hour if the mullahs' missiles are ready to be armed, I don't think George Bush, or any American president, can let that happen.

Scholars can have all the conferences on the horrors of "preemption" they want, but no serious student of diplomacy can wish to repeat the disaster in North Korea or chance that a man who promised the second holocaust (cf. Ahmadinejad's promise to "wipe" Israel off the map) should be allowed the tools to do so. So to answer your question, we are in a sort of death dance with the Iranians; we know they are lying and will try to get nukes, and we cannot let that happen. So in between those parameters of they want them and we won't let that happen we talk, and hope for a while.

It seems that oil profits are pocketed by the politicians in Mexico and little if any of the monies go to improve the welfare of the average Mexican citizen.  Can you clarify this for me?

Hanson: Well, empirically we know that the state oil company of Mexico is a monopoly, with too many workers hired on tribal and kin connections, and too little productivity. But in a larger sense, examine the rich agricultural potential of Mexico , its tourist industry, its mineral wealth, and its favorable climate — and then ask "what went wrong?" We know there are several billionaires, a weak middle class, and over half the population polling a desire to leave for the United States .

So, the answer, I think is to open up the financial system, create a truly autonomous judiciary, root out corruption, ensure the sanctity of property rights, and inculcate to the average Mexican that problems are self-induced and not due to "Yankee" imperialism of a century ago. The greatest obstacle to improvement is victimization and the need to blame others for failing to solve problems.

You suggest that the CIA should be silenced and go along with the rants of the President. No sir. I want to know and have a voice in policy setting — it has been slated pro-Israel far too long which is why we are in these wars. Congress likes “status quo” and in this case I favor the whistleblowers.

Hanson: Where did I write that? So you start out poorly by stating an untruth. What I wrote was that freelancing individual operatives are lionized by the Left in the way such mavericks used to be demonized when their Cold War message was that we are too soft on communism rather than the welcomed mantra "George Bush is an idiot"

I'm surprised it took you three sentences to get to blaming Israel, a common bogeyman with the current crop of former CIA analysts who grab headlines. Yes, you must be a genius to have figured the secret plan of the Middle East, and we are supposed to think something like the following?  Democratic Israel is behind the Iranian bomb; Israel's system of the rule of law is behind the al Qaeda killing in Iraq; Israel and its independent judiciary put Syria into Lebanon; Israel and its free press stop poor Hamas from getting international support; and loyal and supportive Israel caused 9/11.  Yes, the first and best democracy in the Middle East is the real problem.

Is there a quote suggesting that Hannibal felt his campaign in Rome had become a "quagmire"? It rings true for the situation today, with the disloyal opposition working to thwart the war effort and then crying about its “failure.” I have been unable to find a source. Do you know of one?

Hanson: I don’t recall in either Livy or Polybius a Greek or Latin word used that would translate as “quagmire.” However, Hannibal’s problem was simply that he had to destroy the nerve center of the enemy and ultimately that meant Rome, the city and its infrastructure. I discussed his dilemma in Carnage and Culture; Rome’s inviolate DNA meant that as long as the Senate and its organization survived, legions could be reconstituted even after losing perhaps between 100-150,000 in the years 218-216 B.C. Yet by 212 Rome’s landed forces were larger than Hannibal’s and on the offensive.

If you could list the top ten generals in American history, who would you select and why? Is there anyone in the current "War on Terror" that might make the list?

Hanson: How about the top 15? Picked not just for tactical skill and strategic insight, but also for their administrative ability and political sense. In this regard, Sherman and Patton tower above the rest. And I omit the great admirals such as John Paul Jones, Chester Nimitz, along with Raymond Spruance and Bull Halsey, and of course noted air commanders like Hap Arnold and Carl Spaatz. (in chronological order)

George Washington
Andrew Jackson
Winfield Scott
Ulysses S. Grant
Robert E. Lee
Stonewall Jackson
Nathan Bedford Forrest
William Tecumseh Sherman
John Pershing
Dwight D. Eisenhower
George Marshall
George Patton
Curtis LeMay
Douglas MacArthur
Matthew Ridgeway

Note that most of our heroes came out of the great existential struggles of the Civil War and World War II, where we, the public, were riveted to the operations and our very lives hung in the balance. I have no doubt that there are Pattons and Shermans right now in Iraq, but the nature of those wars makes it almost impossible for generals to exercise the sort of command, and to receive the sort of attention, that a Sherman or Grant enjoyed.

It seems that our Congress has become populated with career politicians who have been trained to succeed by focusing on raising money, campaigning, reading polls, and televised appearances to win elections. Once they get to Congress, there is little evidence they have the necessary skills for effective governance and leadership. Those who do show promise seem to get frustrated and leave. I am concerned because most politicians seem to put their career before the “good of the nation.” Do you agree? Is there any historical precedent for this phenomenon and what could be the consequences?

Hanson: It reminds me sometimes of the last generation of the Roman Republic, when the Senatorial class descended into anarchy and the culture was carried on by a new equestrian middling group. So too our politicians have become irrelevant in comparison to our commercialists.

We have two pathological profiles in Washington: on the right, the hyper-capitalist go-getter who thinks governance is to be run like his law firm or business, and who sees raising money as his reason to be. And on the left now we are seeing old fashioned tribunes and demagogues, who slur and slander knowing that their gerrymandered districts appreciate such blood sport. I find those from California, Florida, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey the worst offenders, and representatives from the Midwest generally more professional.

It doesn’t seem a partisan problem, but something gone wrong with our culture. The worst dimension is that these people simply cannot speak or write intelligently, but rely on bombast, buzz words and clichés.

Can you explain the political pathologies of South America? It seems that every twenty years they turn from accepting free markets to electing either right-wing or left-wing dictatorships. And now twenty years after Reagan and Thatcher, and market economies springing up everywhere, they are now producing militant Marxists with lots of oil cash.  Why don't we have better neighbors?

Hanson: The entire question is caught up in political correctness that for years blamed self-inflicted miseries on Yankee greed. The fact is that Latin American miseries start long ago. Spain’s hegemony ensured that non-Spaniards could not colonize its domains; the result was that very few Protestants or diverse peoples settled Latin America. Most who did originally were of the Hidalgo class — a leisured and entrenched Spanish nobility — who did not come to farm or escape religious persecution, and lacked the sense of homesteading permanence and the desire for the acquisition and protection of private property and agrarian communities. Like the plague of modern-day oil, there were precious metals in 16th- and 17th-century Latin America — unlike the north — that warped and inflated the economy.

All that and more ensured a different paradigm of colonization and development from English-speaking Canada and the U.S. 15th- and 16th -century Spain was a reactionary society, recovering from the Reconquista and the Inquisition and the challenge of Luther, and much of that fanaticism spilled over into the new world of South America, where Montesquieu, Locke, Adam Smith, and David Hume had little sway. I realize that the above would be dubbed 19th-century Anglo-American chauvinism, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and millions of North Americans are not heading southward for the opportunities of Bolivia, Peru, or Ecuador.

In S.L.A. Marshall's works, he found only 20 percent of soldiers in wars up to and including WWII ever fired their weapons at all or effectively. Yet the many stayed "in the line" and were supported by the few with effective fire power. Would you comment on this aspect of Marshall's work, and how it might relate to your concept of the western way of war?

Hanson: I read Men Against Fire and quoted it in The Western Way of War, in the context that most of the phalanx, though due to tactical organization rather than training or individual will, never were able to spear the enemy. Many of his conclusions and data have come under fire; and his theories may apply more to conscript armies than to professional ones. I doubt seriously whether Marshall’s putative only 1 of 5 soldiers, say in Fallujah, was a serious shooter, but imagine more like 90 percent were.

But his larger point is perhaps well taken: that in war, like anything else, there is always a small minority of leaders that makes all the difference. Reading E.B. Sledge’s With The Old Breed about Okinawa reminds me of that; in that campaign about 20% did the real fighting. The 1st and 6th Marine Divisions were almost superhuman in what they accomplished; and reading about their ordeal is almost surreal — how could humans endure such adversity and survive?

In "Three Pillars of Wisdom," you say that much of Cyprus was gobbled up by Turkey.  The Turkish side is now some 31 percent of the island and, in fact, last year the Turkish Cypriots voted for the Annan plan to reunify the island. The Greeks refused. Be careful with what you claim against the Turks, the only democratic friend of the U.S. in the region, and a people many in the West like to blame for the ills of recent history.

Hanson: You make some good points. But remember, Turkey invaded Cyprus, Greece did not. And there is another problem as well. By any objective standard both before and after 1974, the Greek side created a far more prosperous and stable society than did the Turkish Islamic sector. The Turks voted for unification because at last this anomaly became apparent even to them, and they thought they could keep and expand upon their gains from 1974 — the demography of the island has shifted due both to higher Muslim fertility rates and immigration from Turkey — and thus exercise political power while enjoying the Hellenic-generated wealth in their midst.

Second, be careful about assuming Turkey is such a staunch ally of the U.S. We support their democracy and appreciate their NATO membership, and have urged the E.U. to accept their application. But their media and government are very anti-American, and slur the United States constantly, well beyond the 2003 fiasco on Iraq’s northern front. I think it might be wise to downsize our bases there considerably, in a quiet diplomatic fashion. We need to tell them that they are free to elect any government they wish, but when Islamists come to power on a platform of anti-Americanism, then Turkey is more a neutral than an ally. And there is of course nothing wrong with neutrals, as we see with Greece, which also is only a de jure ally, but de facto scarcely a neutral.

Sixty years pursuing failed plans aimed at a "two-state" solution has resulted in thousands of needless Jewish casualties and the rise of Hamas on the doorsteps of Jerusalem. How many more diplomatic failures, and dead and wounded would you recommend Israel endure before Israel and America begin seriously considering the idea of a "one-state solution"? That is, Israeli sovereignty from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and the status of Arabs living therein determined by the democratically expressed will of the Israeli people

Hanson: Demography, demography, demography…

The more Israel expands beyond the so-called green-line, the more it must worry about a fifth column to its rear; as a humane state, it will treat all Arabs well, but if they are not assimilated, then problems arise. What does "democratically expressed will of the Israeli people" mean with 3-4 million unassimilated Palestinians in such a mythical state? Apartheid? Israel won't do that, so your suggestions are mere nonsense. 

As it is, Palestinians would rather destroy themselves and everything Israel tried to do on the West Bank, rather than concede they were in need of emulation of the Jewish State's approach to economics and politics. Sharon saw that, and decided to circle the wagons around what was feasible to keep, leaving Gaza and most of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority.