Shows how un-widely read you are. VDH has many many military history books under his belt (just google his name or check out Amazon), so I trust his judgment way more than yours. (Frankly, based on the dim-wittedness of this blog, I wonder how the Navy let you behind the stick of anything.)

Remember, Stalin was our guy before he wasn't, too. Think how idiotic you're being. If it was bad to have Saddam as our guy, why are you dogging Bush for making him not our guy!? Besides, it was in 1998, under the Clinton administration, that it became official policy to effect regime change in Iraq. But Bush wasn't preoccupied getting blow jobs and actually had the balls to force the UN to enforce its own resolutions.

Oh, Hanson. Stanford military historian and member of the Hoover Foundation--the same outfit Tom Sowell belongs to.

Hanson is another neocon flack and Pavlov's Dog of War who hides his ideology under a thin veneer of academic credentials.

Hanson--and every son of a bitch like him--uses history to "prove" his assertions when, in fact, an unspun version of the very same history disproves them.

I guess as a historian, it would be too much to ask that VDH remember one simple, historical fact: Saddam was Our Guy, before He Wasn't.

There are, however, people in the world who -do- remember this fact, keenly.

The Kurds among them.

When the US proconsul in Iraq comes into a meeting and makes promises to the Kurds today, they nod and smile and say, "Of course." Those smiles don't last after the meeting ends.

Remember, Stalin was our guy before he wasn't, too.

I must have slept through the part where we invaded the Soviet Union and overthrew Stalin.

Just another idiot who thinks Tom Clancy novels are foreign policy guides.

I spent the summer of 1980 protecting Saddam's oil tankers from Iran. Ironic then, that Iran finally won that war.

The only relationship between the Iraq war and WW2 is that the perpetrators are extraordinarily similar.

If Hanson, (born 1953, so he's the right age to be a Chickenhawk) had ever spent one long night in a foxhole wondering what all those funny noises were out there in the dark, he'd be writing for The Nation, not NRO, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Same as Osama was our guy before he wasn't too, right? Reagan the Marine killing douchebag (newsflash: STILL DEAD) sent Rumsfailed to give him and Saddam money, arms and WMD's to help defeat the Russians.

Don't remember? Google is your friend.

Oh, Chester the Molester... it was your NeoDopeCons that shoved that policy up Clinton's ass in 1998, and hence was adopted.

How quickly your mind is boggled by reality.

Go back to assfucking your dog.

Hanson is another neocon flack and Pavlov's Dog of War who hides his ideology under a thin veneer of academic credentials.

Ha ha. If you could muster a substantive argument, you would, but you can't, so you resort to ad hominem attacks and name-calling. Hanson has a PhD in classics and reads the Greek historians in the original languages. Sowell also has a PhD, in economics, I believe. So much for "thin" academic credentials. Read Hanson and Sowell some time. Both muster impressive facts and arguments to their side. Significantly, neither one ever resorts to ad hominem attacks or name-calling.

I'll acknowledge as to having only a slight familiarity with Hanson and I have never read his works.
The first sentence of the quotation noted, however, provides an example of the constant vacillating tactic of argument employed by the administration and its apologists for the Iraq Debacle since its onset.
"We forget that once war breaks out ...". Really.
To begin with, the administration takes great pains to point out (now days) that this is NOT a war ... certainly NOT in the context with which Mr. Hanson (and others) attempt to make their points.
The administration steadfastly notes that the Iraq violence is perpetrated/perpetuated by terrorists - domestic and foreign, disgruntled Bathists/Sunni, and "dead-enders" (Rumsfeld, I believe).
The administration is adamant, furthermore, that their "involvement" in Iraq is part of the larger"War" on terror (thereby absolving them of dealing with the occupants of the Gitmo Gulag as prisoners of war).
The merits of employing WWII - the "Good War" as a backdrop in selling the Iraq Debacle were initially a flag-waving success. As conditions began to deteriorate following "Mission Accomplished" the comparisons were still apparently judged to be appropriate for an American public thirsting for some justice post 9/11 and trusting in the administration's promises of quick resolution (recall the Rumsfeld/Rice reminder of the Nazi Werewolves that lay waste to post-war Germany).
But once it became apparent that analogies to "War" as it is commonly understood in the standard historical/political context would not serve to reinforce the efforts that government planners realized would be necessary to establish a "Good" Iraq (they are our friends. They WANT Democracy) and a "Bad" Iraq (They hate us. They DON'T WANT Democracy) to reinforce American resolve the tactics changed. The "War" was then primarily discussed in terms of terrorists,insurgents, and ... oops ... "Dead-enders" is out.
The Iraq Debacle is not WWII. Other than the horrendous killing and maiming that is taking place the two events share no substantial comparitive points. Just saying they do does not make it so.
One final note on the first sentence as regards to employing the word "usually". This is a subtle technique in which the debater "softens" the opening statement, making it appear less rigid and more open to discussion.
Of course when the premise is invalid to begin with ...

I'll mount a substantive argument on my site when I get a chance, Chester.

Now, I don't believe I called either gentleman's academic credentials thin. I believe I called them a thin veneer disguising their political loyalties. Can you parse the difference?

Now, if they really wanted to use their academic credentials in an honest manner, they'd stick to the Greeks and economics.

Okay, so unlike Commander Huber... I don't use so much tact. That's why there are Marines in this world.

I can clearly distinguish that thinly disguised veneer. It's thinner than state toilet paper at a rest area.

Works about as well as a fishnet condom.
(I'll freely admit, I stole that line)

Semper FI

Hanson is a recently retired Classics professor at Fresno State. His father was a bomber crewman (perhaps a pilot---don't recall)in WW2. Hanson went to Stanford. Hanson's early work on Greek warfare is interesting and then he roamed over the historical landscape with a book analyzing the "western way of war" as practiced by military tyrants leading "democratic" armies and doing great violence in the name of liberation. He began in the 4th century B.C. liberation of Spartan helots and wandered into Sherman's march to the sea, and finally addressed Patton's race across Europe. So you can see that he is most likely projecting his thesis into the Iraq war.
At first it seemed he might have some interesting points, but he has most certainly morphed into a court apologist. He jumps into the culture war issues as well and feeds lines to the true believers (heard a bartender ranting about Hollywood types and their alleged influence on public opinion---knew she had read Hanson's piece)

You can plant Hanson in the Kagan/Huntington paranoia of the "clash of civilizations" thesis. I am sure he sees himself as some lonely Greek defending Western Civ from yet another "Persian" invasion. Unfortunately he is a regular columnist in the local paper. Once the paper juxtaposed--quite aptly--a column by Juan Cole with Hanson's. Anyone with the slightest ability to read critically could contrast the level of understanding evident in Cole as opposed to the rhetorical/propagandistic methods of Hanson writing out of his area of expertise. Academic credentials has never immunized anyone from making a fool of himself. Hanson likes to coopt liberal-left rhetoric to serve his new master---"Islamofascist" is a favorite of his. Perhaps Hanson has been seduced by the flattery of the courtiers and imperial advisors.

Most of the local letter writers take him apart quite easily, but he was most certainly a part of the veil that has covered the criminal acts of the bushies.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams