Customer Reviews

Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

For those unfamiliar, Victor Hanson is a military historian that specializes in Greek History and teaches classical history. This work is very much a continuation of his other excellent book An Autumn of war and has the same format; they both are a collection of his biweekly essays from the National Review written over the course of the official war. As he states in his introduction, the essays are not changed because of the conditions on the ground; thus, the reader gets a view into the accuracy of Hanson and can judge for themselves how his analysis shaped up.

Throughout, Hanson developed his thesis that Saddam needed to be removed on much more than WMDs and gets to the core issues; how the US could not allow Hussein to violate the deal of the armistice (as even Hans Blixs confirms), fire daily on US warplanes, harbor and support terrorists (Hussein paid money to suicide bombers, tried to establish a relationship with Al Qaeda and harbored Zarqawi and other terrorists) and be allowed to commit mass murder and starvation while we had the power to stop him.

He also takes to task the failure of some of the European community for their lack of support; how the French view themselves as the counterbalance to US power, how the destruction of the Soviet Union and reliance on the US for protection, and the decline in Europe's faith in the nation state (as Margaret Thatcher eloquently covers in her book Statecraft) and rise of the European community that largely exists in name only.

While bolstering the justifications of the war, Hanson also addresses the critics. Because the essays were written in real time, Hanson is able to effectively show how the media was deadest against the war from the start, promising quagmire after quagmire; who could forget how the media claimed that the war effort had broken down when the 3rd infantry hit a sand storm, or the abysmal cries of blood for oil as our troops were removing the apparatuses of terror used to enslave and murder in the most brutal regime in the Middle East. As the book (and time) progress Hanson shows how the press viewed the war as another Vietnam, to a chaotic and unjust endeavor that was cooked up in Crawford Texas.

Although written before Abu Ghraib and the rise in casualties, Hanson's thesis remains valid; America waged a just war to end a dictatorship that sought to defy the world, gain WMDs, aid terror, slaughter its own people and bred further hatred of the US and the tactical mistakes made and atrocities of individualizes does not and never will detract from that. As he put it, the Greeks were right; war was the mill of Ares (the god of war) and thus is a contest of wills won only by those that stay the course.

Feeling confused about America's current conflict in the world? Then you need to read Victor Hanson's "Between War and Peace". But I warn you, be prepared for a down to earth, unapologetic, crystal clear analysis of who we are, who our friends are, and of course, who our enemies are. Hanson's backround as a scholar of ancient history gives him a depth of understanding lacking in most of today's pundits who seem to be lost in too much "noise and chatter". A classic!!

Go back and read both of Hanson's books that sprung from 9/11. You will see how deeply this man understands historical trends. Read them and understand that no one knew how things were going to turn out. Some of his predictions and observations are almost exactly what wound up actually happening.

A man of such deep and broad learning has a lot to offer how we conduct our affairs in the current struggle. This volume serves as a valuable aid to understanding events and their consequences as they actually unfolded at the time.

This is a collection of short essays about our foreign policy. Hanson discusses the war against terror, the Middle East, American support for Israel, Anti-Americanism, changes in Europe, the war against Iraq, and a few other topics.

In many cases, the author's observations are controversial. And I often disagree with him. On the other hand, some of what Hanson says is clearly true. And most of what he writes is worth thinking about.

I find Hanson's ideas about NATO and the United Nations intriguing. He asks why we should house NATO in Brussels, given Belgium's "anti-American rhetoric." He says that Warsaw or Rome would be better. And he thinks France ought to be forced to decide whether it is in NATO or out of NATO: it ought not be both.

As for the UN, he has a number of ideas that might help reform it. First, he would expel the tyrannies from it: these nations could form their own "United Tyrannies." And he would include India, Japan, and Brazil as permanent members of the Security Council. He would also "quit allowing functionaries like Kofi Annan or Boutros Boutros-Ghali" to have leadership roles in the UN and instead pick "real statesmen and moralists of free countries, like Vaclav Havel or Elie Wiesel."

Hanson is also at his best when he discusses the media in wartime. As he puts it, "would NPR reporters have visited Hitler's Germany, paid bribes to Mr. Goebbels, and then broadcasted allied shortcomings at the Bulge, oblivious to the Nazi machinery of death and their own complicity in it?"

I have to agree with Hanson about this. Yes, we want the media to tell us the truth. And that certainly does not mean blindly accepting the propaganda our government comes up with. But even less does it mean blindly accepting the propaganda tyrannical enemies come up with. The easiest way for journalists to lose freedom of the press is to cede it by allying themselves with our enemies.

On the topic of Israel, the author shows the inanity of anti-Israeli arguments as they are presented today. The main arguments against Israel are that it is "occupying" Arab land (actually, it is doing no such thing: the West Bank and Gaza are disputed territories), that it has displaced and even killed Arabs in wartime (as if other wars never displace or kill anyone), and that it is racist (as if the Arabs were not much more so). These arguments are so absurd that Hanson rightfully takes them as taunts, not as serious propositions. Hanson then ascribes support for Arab anti-Zionists as due to "realpolitik," oil, fear of Arab terrorism, antisemitism, and "aristocratic guilt."

As I said, Hanson is simply picking low-hanging fruit by saying this. It is like pointing out that an emperor is undressed. But I still have to give him some credit for doing so.

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.

Hanson is one of the best columnists America has. I know books of columns don't sell, and most people believe that they are yesterday's newspaper, but I love jumping through such collections. If the writer is good as Hanson is there are always observations that enrich understanding. Hanson is a great American patriot someone who believes in America's political, military and moral leadership of mankind. His criticisms of the Europeans in this book come out of the sense that they are not for the most part being loyal allies in the common democratic cause. These columns were published before the first democratic election in Iraq and before we see how the United States is going to deal with state supporters of terror Syria and Iran. Hanson seems to think that Syria is the next likely target of US sponsored regime change. He also unlike many other American conservatives does understand the damage being done to the United States by its support of a corrupt and anti- American Saudi Arabia. Hanson has a tremendous knowledge of military affairs and his historical understanding enrich these columns.
If one wants a clearer picture of the world situation, and one which supports an active role for the United States in the world, then this is the collection.

I enjoy reading virtually anything written by Victor Davis Hanson.

In this collection of essays, Hanson rails against the left and their constant harping on the USA. He is so good at ripping people apart with words that you may start rooting for the other guy because you feel bad for them.

Personally, I'll continue to read his essays (they are REALLY good) but will avoid such a concentrated dose in the future.

A great book, but probably should be spread out over time to avoid exahaustion.

A series of articles written in the early `00s, one might be tempted to think the pieces in BETWEEN WAR AND PEACE have been rendered outdated by subsequent events in Iraq and Afghanistan. That would, however, be reading the book too narrowly. Victor Davis Hanson, whatever you may think of his policy suggestions, is a well respected military historian who has taught at some of the U.S.' premiere universities, including the Naval Academy. Although the essays relate to this nation's present struggles, it approaches those struggles from the perspective of a long, long history. That is what makes the book worthwhile.

Yes, reading these essays today, it is easy to nitpick where VDH got it wrong. Like many commentators, he was right about the facility with which the American military took out Saddam Hussein, but missed the mark as to the difficult nature of the Islamic insurgency attempting to thwart the establishment of democratic values. And he seemed to underestimate just how far into the national psyche the raw sewage of pessimistic anti-Americanism, originating within the academy and broadcast to us via the media, would creep. I suppose some degree of realism prevents one from really recognizing, not how badly the elites want America to fail, but just how tenaciously they will try to achieve that failure through the fomentation of cultural and political decay.

Yet for the misses, there are more hits, broader in scope and of more lasting importance. VDH's analysis of European anti-Americanism and hypocrisy produces those `a-ha' moments, in which someone else puts into words that which you kind of knew but could not really articulate. The U.S. does, in fact, need to seriously re-evaluate its relationship with a culturally decayed Europe, remove its military bases there, and establish closer ties to those nations whose values more closely parallel our own. "Polite friendship - but no alliances," is a solid guide for whatever administration is soon to be elected and VDH's projections of America's best path forward, making U.S. power more flexible, would likely make us both more effective in reaching our goals while also removing the excuses for the petty resentments that so many others around the globe feel towards us, often as a way to evade their own problems.

VDH's take on the Middle East, and his moral support of Israel, is indeed a breath of fresh air compared to the nauseating anti-Semitism or, slightly more or less pathetic depending on one's perspective, the moral equivalency all to frequently heard from so-called intellectuals. The issues playing out in the Middle Eastern stage are the same ones Americans now face, they are just more easily recognizable due to the proximity of the actors.

Again, VDH is a military historian of some note. That makes this book more than just a period piece. In fact, I found this book not in the current events section of the bookstore, but in the history section. There is a reason for that. VDH brings history to the present and applies it to modern day conflicts. That approach will make BETWEEN WAR AND PEACE valuable long after the current struggles are over and won.

I think I'm gettting to the saturation point with Victor Davis Hanson. He's intelligent, and he makes his points well with regards to the war and those who oppose it, but he's somewhat more argumentative than seems reasonable, at times, and his predictions aren't always on the mark. In this series of essays, written in the lead-up to and the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq a few years ago. The essays this time are more straightforward than in An Autumn of War, where some of them were somewhat more humorous or at least oblique than here: these are rather confrontational editorials insisting that President Bush is doing right in attacking Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Like most essay collections, this one has weaknesses. In Hanson's case, the largest problem is that he tends to repeat his arguments here, because many of the editorials are making the same points over and over again. After a while the repetition gets to be a bit tiring. While sometimes the points themselves make some sense, it's a bit jarring to read something at this point repeatedly stating confidently that Weapons of Mass Destruction will certainly be found in Iraq. I would imagine that opponents of President Bush (and Hanson) will focus on this and insist that it makes his arguments that much weaker.

I enjoyed this book at some level, but at times it took a while to get through the various editorials. Recommended for those interested in the subject.

Hanson's Between War and Peace is a collection of essays written between 2002 and 2003 about 9/11, the Afghanistan campaign, and the Iraq campaign. Most of these essays were written for the National Review Online and are now reprinted here in book form. These are excellent essays, carefully crafted, wonderfully written, logical, opinionated, often profound. The terrorist assault of 9/11 changed our world, and Hanson well understands this. He correctly rips apart the shallow, biased reasoning of the old world order, of the elitist media, of the boutique commentators and of the shrill leftist professors. Hanson looks fresh at basic, critical strategies and tactics. He calls for radical repositioning for America, but supports his arguments with carefully construed facts. His is a conservative view, but with no apologies. This is a must read.