Discussion on Victor Hanson

[BonFiyah]

I am posting a discussion that two friends of mine have been having over an article that was written by Victor Hanson in the National Review. I am in agreement with John in his discussion. Andrew has kind of gone a little crazy in the past two years, John and I believe they are putting something in the water over there in Portland,OR :). I am just curious on what view you guys will agree with and how you would respond to them. Thanks.

(Andrew)
God, but I do love to read this guy. He's probably 1/2 the reason I'm on the Bush side of foreign policy. He's the main reason why I'm scared of a Kerry presidency, from the side of national/world security. I don't think Bush is doing everything he can to advance this policy, so it may not mean as much as it should. If Kerry at least spoke this way, he'd have all my enthusiastic support.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200403050842.asp

(John)

Ahh no, sorry I don't buy this at all, seeing that this guy all but outright dictates Bushite Foreign policy. I would be very upset if Kerry spoke this way. I am not one to jump up with enthusiasm because we have a war hero running for president. The enthusiasm I feel about Kerry having served in Vietnam as well as Clark when he was running was that they have both seen the face of war, they had both fought, and both have their scars. For this they have my respect and admiration and I trust them more than Bush and Mr. Hanson over here to ensure our security.
Hanson and Bush have never taken apart in any war. Of course I don't believe this should be a requirement for someone running for president, but for people like Hanson and Bush it might give them a little bit more perspective before they start sending other peoples children to die for their theories on spreading democracy. This guy is garbage, but of course if he empowers you with his views on foreign policy maybe you and him should pack your bags and head to Iraq, I guarantee you that you will have no trouble finding someone who would be more than happy to let the two of you relieve them.

(Andrew)
By what metric do you, personally, judge success in the War On Terror? (More specifically, the war against government-sponsored Islamofacism that seeks to destroy us and has tried/is trying to do so.) Of course if you think the whole concept of a war against such a thing is undoable and made on false assumptions, I'd like to hear about that, too.

(John)
I don’t know of any metric scale on to which you would be able to measure success in such a war. But if such a measure exists I absolutely doubt that the number of countries we invade and the number of evil regimes we over throw will ever tip this measure in our favor, if done in such a manner as was seen in Iraq. I personally do not believe that our interests are any safer than they were two years ago. I do believe that the deadly extremism ("Islamofacism that seeks to destroy us and has tried/is trying to do so.") and the number of people who follow this path of hate have increased considerably. I believe with such foreign policy we are polarizing an extremely volatile and unstable region in a unity of hate against us. We are worse off not better off than we were two years ago and I hope we will not have to feel the wrath of these mistakes. I think you should read up on the cold war and find what mistakes and what successes were made and what ultimately helped to bring about its end (put aside what Hanson says). There are similarities, in that at the time it was a new kind of war, a very different one than what the world was used to. This once again is a different kind of war, and we are not faring as well as our leaders are trying to convey. Keep praising such policies as pre-emptive(in actuality pre-ventive war) and Bush foreign policy and you only become as delusional as them(if in fact they are actually delusional or just trying to keep the many like you, ignorant of what they is really happening).

--to be continuted