11-06-2006, 08:43 AM
Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq (Paperback)
by Victor Davis Hanson "September 11 changed our world
Hanson (An Autumn of War), who has been compared to John Keegan as a historian of war, doesn't display the objectivity of a scholar here. These 39 previously published essays (35 from National Review Online) assessing the U.S. war on terrorism mostly focus on broad-brush denunciations of Europeans, Arabs, the U.N. and Muslims, reserving praise for the U.S. and Israel as beacons of democracy. America's pre-emptive war in Iraq is applauded and, Hanson says, Syria should be next. Saudi Arabia should be seen more as an enemy than an ally and actively subverted. His targets are mostly caricaturesââ¬"he portrays Europeans, for instance, as reactionaries in their anti-Americanism. Hanson, a scholar of the ancient Greek military, does not appeal to research or direct experience in the Arab world, but merely to what one can infer from mass media accounts. He professes faith that U.S. arms and good intentions will bring secular democracy to Iraq, and then beyond, but his dark portrayal of Arab culture gives little cause for optimism. The volume might have been more interesting if Hanson had confronted the difficult issue of just how less corrupt secular democracies might take root in the Middle East, including the problems of previous democratic experiments in the Arab world (in Lebanon, Algeria and Iraq itself before Saddam). What went wrong? Will the presence of U.S. soldiers insure that things go right this time? Hanson thinks so, but his reasons are not spelled out.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
"Between War and Peace" is a remarkable book which discusses many serious political and cultural issues, mainly associated with recent events in the Middle East and Iraq. Hanson has written a few books dealing with the combination of military and cultural issues (I think that the best one is "The Soul of Battle").
The best explanation that I have ever read for the strange fact that so many American and European "intellectuals" prefer dictators like Arafat and Castro (And, in the past, Stalin and Mao) to the democratically elected George Bush and Ariel Sharon, is Dr. Hanson's chapter in this book "Anti-Americanism".
Dr. Hanson discusses the fundamental misunderstanding of Western and American culture by the Arab world in "Occidentalism" (A counterweight to Said's "Orientalism" nonsense that dominates the thinking of the Middle East Studies faculties).
Feeling apologetic about America's role in the Middle East? Dr. Hanson's book will help expunge these feelings.
I have never read a better explanation of the world's reaction to Israel's barrier (It is a fence, and not, as frequently portrayed, a wall) than Dr. Hanson's "Fortress Israel". Why is Ariel Sharon so reviled by the left? Please read "Israel's Ajax: The Tragedy of Mr. Sharon".
I have always found it ironic that the left despises Israel, by the far the strongest country in the Middle East in terms of minority rights (Arab members of Knesset), gay rights, an independent judiciary, women's rights etc.. (Supposedly issues of concern to the left). To find out why, read "On Hating Israel" and "Flunking With Flying Colors".
I am not American, but if you are worried about America not contributing enough to foreign aid? Please read "Misunderstanding America": "Just how much foreign aid is a multibillion-dollar carrier battle group worth, when it patrols...ensuring that Koreans do not blow each other up".
Contrary to some opinions, Dr. Hanson does not always support American policy (For example, he took issue with the leadership of Jimmy Carter).
I highly recommend this book, as well as the author's columns on National Review online.
This is a strange, but ultimately good, book in two ways: First it is not so much a single book but a collection of essays arranged into topics and then arranged chronologically within each topic, and second it is a work of modern history and thus lacks the 20/20 vision of hindsight. This second quality however is what makes it so interesting, especially the further we get away from the time when each essay was written.
Hanson is a classics scholar and an outstandingly good military historian who views the world through a Thucydidean paradigm, namely, human nature is the same throughout all time and anything we're experiencing has basically been seen before in the history of warfare. This gives him a perspective unique from most of the scholars and pundits we see or hear on TV, as he makes frequent and salient comparison with modern events to similar events in ancient Greece.
The main argument of this book is that America and the West are not at fault for Arab and Islamic terrorism -their own internal forces cause terrorism-, that we must fight terrorism with resolve, and that we may only be victorious if we belive in our cause, and may only be defeated if we doubt ourselves. Unfortunately he showcases just how much Westerners, particularly the Left, do doubt oursevles and our civilization, and how this makes us vulnerable to the tactics of the terrorists.
Hanson tackles a lot of issues with a harsh clarity of thought and unapologetic conclusions, including: Anti-Americanism, Who are friends really are and who are enemies really are and why we don't treat them as such, The amount of duplicity and irrelevant -if not dangerous- ritual and senseless tradition in how we conduct our foreign policy and how we should do it differently, the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and similar such topics. He has some very interesting prescriptions for reshaping the American military and re-directing our foreign policy. Yet even should we follow his suggestions it seems implicit that so long as there is so much self-loathing and reluctance for the West to act in any manner the Left sees as slightly objectionable we are still doomed to never truly defeating terrorism, since defeat and victory are more intangible mental states than tangible physical realities.
Being a work of modern history however the book is replete with predictions that have failed to come true (as well as many that have), showing the difficulty of making sense of a situation in real-time, the effects a paradigm have on what you believe the situation is and what will happen, and the limits of a thorough knowledge of history. In the end you have to act however, in spite of the knowledge that you don't know what the consequences of your actions will be. Hanson is a historian unafraid to make decisions about what should be done, and by publishing his essays in a book format like this he shows he is also unafraid of exposing when events ultimately prove him wrong. An admirable trait in a world so enamored with self-image, delaying any decision or action with the blanket excuse of trying to add nuance, and rationalizing away any dirty laundry.
by Victor Davis Hanson "September 11 changed our world
Hanson (An Autumn of War), who has been compared to John Keegan as a historian of war, doesn't display the objectivity of a scholar here. These 39 previously published essays (35 from National Review Online) assessing the U.S. war on terrorism mostly focus on broad-brush denunciations of Europeans, Arabs, the U.N. and Muslims, reserving praise for the U.S. and Israel as beacons of democracy. America's pre-emptive war in Iraq is applauded and, Hanson says, Syria should be next. Saudi Arabia should be seen more as an enemy than an ally and actively subverted. His targets are mostly caricaturesââ¬"he portrays Europeans, for instance, as reactionaries in their anti-Americanism. Hanson, a scholar of the ancient Greek military, does not appeal to research or direct experience in the Arab world, but merely to what one can infer from mass media accounts. He professes faith that U.S. arms and good intentions will bring secular democracy to Iraq, and then beyond, but his dark portrayal of Arab culture gives little cause for optimism. The volume might have been more interesting if Hanson had confronted the difficult issue of just how less corrupt secular democracies might take root in the Middle East, including the problems of previous democratic experiments in the Arab world (in Lebanon, Algeria and Iraq itself before Saddam). What went wrong? Will the presence of U.S. soldiers insure that things go right this time? Hanson thinks so, but his reasons are not spelled out.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
"Between War and Peace" is a remarkable book which discusses many serious political and cultural issues, mainly associated with recent events in the Middle East and Iraq. Hanson has written a few books dealing with the combination of military and cultural issues (I think that the best one is "The Soul of Battle").
The best explanation that I have ever read for the strange fact that so many American and European "intellectuals" prefer dictators like Arafat and Castro (And, in the past, Stalin and Mao) to the democratically elected George Bush and Ariel Sharon, is Dr. Hanson's chapter in this book "Anti-Americanism".
Dr. Hanson discusses the fundamental misunderstanding of Western and American culture by the Arab world in "Occidentalism" (A counterweight to Said's "Orientalism" nonsense that dominates the thinking of the Middle East Studies faculties).
Feeling apologetic about America's role in the Middle East? Dr. Hanson's book will help expunge these feelings.
I have never read a better explanation of the world's reaction to Israel's barrier (It is a fence, and not, as frequently portrayed, a wall) than Dr. Hanson's "Fortress Israel". Why is Ariel Sharon so reviled by the left? Please read "Israel's Ajax: The Tragedy of Mr. Sharon".
I have always found it ironic that the left despises Israel, by the far the strongest country in the Middle East in terms of minority rights (Arab members of Knesset), gay rights, an independent judiciary, women's rights etc.. (Supposedly issues of concern to the left). To find out why, read "On Hating Israel" and "Flunking With Flying Colors".
I am not American, but if you are worried about America not contributing enough to foreign aid? Please read "Misunderstanding America": "Just how much foreign aid is a multibillion-dollar carrier battle group worth, when it patrols...ensuring that Koreans do not blow each other up".
Contrary to some opinions, Dr. Hanson does not always support American policy (For example, he took issue with the leadership of Jimmy Carter).
I highly recommend this book, as well as the author's columns on National Review online.
This is a strange, but ultimately good, book in two ways: First it is not so much a single book but a collection of essays arranged into topics and then arranged chronologically within each topic, and second it is a work of modern history and thus lacks the 20/20 vision of hindsight. This second quality however is what makes it so interesting, especially the further we get away from the time when each essay was written.
Hanson is a classics scholar and an outstandingly good military historian who views the world through a Thucydidean paradigm, namely, human nature is the same throughout all time and anything we're experiencing has basically been seen before in the history of warfare. This gives him a perspective unique from most of the scholars and pundits we see or hear on TV, as he makes frequent and salient comparison with modern events to similar events in ancient Greece.
The main argument of this book is that America and the West are not at fault for Arab and Islamic terrorism -their own internal forces cause terrorism-, that we must fight terrorism with resolve, and that we may only be victorious if we belive in our cause, and may only be defeated if we doubt ourselves. Unfortunately he showcases just how much Westerners, particularly the Left, do doubt oursevles and our civilization, and how this makes us vulnerable to the tactics of the terrorists.
Hanson tackles a lot of issues with a harsh clarity of thought and unapologetic conclusions, including: Anti-Americanism, Who are friends really are and who are enemies really are and why we don't treat them as such, The amount of duplicity and irrelevant -if not dangerous- ritual and senseless tradition in how we conduct our foreign policy and how we should do it differently, the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and similar such topics. He has some very interesting prescriptions for reshaping the American military and re-directing our foreign policy. Yet even should we follow his suggestions it seems implicit that so long as there is so much self-loathing and reluctance for the West to act in any manner the Left sees as slightly objectionable we are still doomed to never truly defeating terrorism, since defeat and victory are more intangible mental states than tangible physical realities.
Being a work of modern history however the book is replete with predictions that have failed to come true (as well as many that have), showing the difficulty of making sense of a situation in real-time, the effects a paradigm have on what you believe the situation is and what will happen, and the limits of a thorough knowledge of history. In the end you have to act however, in spite of the knowledge that you don't know what the consequences of your actions will be. Hanson is a historian unafraid to make decisions about what should be done, and by publishing his essays in a book format like this he shows he is also unafraid of exposing when events ultimately prove him wrong. An admirable trait in a world so enamored with self-image, delaying any decision or action with the blanket excuse of trying to add nuance, and rationalizing away any dirty laundry.