Ah. Springtime on Capitol Hill. Congress' latest community based reality cluster f#%&^ is in full swing. General Petraeus got grilled, but Ryan Crocker (who used to be ambassador to Pakistan) got forked, and the defeat-o-crats basked in the after glow of their perceived Biden-gasm.
So.... while that esteemed body on the Hill continues to prove Will Rogers true, I found this little gem from Victor Davis Hanson. In it, he expertly dissects the distinct change in U.S. public opinion of the Iraq war.
...But we appear to have entered lately into still another cycle of re-interpretation, clearly the result of a new array of converging developments. Among these, the successful “surge” of U.S. troops, the appointment of General David Petraeus as senior theater commander, and the tactical switch from counter-terrorism to counter-insurgency are no doubt the most salient. These days, although there is no great public elation at our improved prospects, or appreciation that al Qaeda by its own admission is in disarray in Iraq, we see or hear very little of antiwar groups like Code Pink or the Cindy Sheehan brigades, and none of Hollywood’s recent antiwar movies — Lions for Lambs, Redacted, Rendition, Valley of Elah — has made a dent at the box office. At the very least, many Americans seem tired of being told that the United States is the culpable party in the war.
VDH goes on to add:
As of December 2007, enlistments in the four services have exceeded manpower goals, and entirely new combat brigades are being created. Our officers and their troops, however weary they may be from repeated tours, are now acknowledged to be the world’s most sophisticated practitioners of counter-insurgency warfare. Their competence is on display not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan, where American veterans of the Iraq war have proved far more adroit against the Taliban than their unseasoned NATO allies. Like the emergence of Sherman’s Army of the West in the autumn of 1864, which renewed the North’s faith in its military prowess and in the wisdom of Lincoln’s war planners, the Petraeus command in Iraq has prompted a new appreciation of our military’s talents.
He concludes:
It would be folly to think, however, that one can sit by and wait for history to deliver a smiling verdict. Shifting judgments about the causes, conduct, and consequences of American conflicts are indeed the norm in American history. These ongoing swings depend in large part on whether the United States is thought to be winning or losing, and are finally codified only at war’s end or well afterward. But for the cycle to play out, there must be a persistence of spirit and a willingness to see a war through to the end, as well as a bedrock confidence in both the capabilities of America’s armed forces and the righteousness of the American cause.
An awesome read.
