Alright, I'll bite. It might not have been funny, although in parts I chuckled, but what exactly was dumb about it? The fact is that all he did was paraphrase each and every one of those individuals, except he applied their words to the Normandy invasion. If you believe the invasion of Iraq was a good and necessary thing to fight the war on the Islamicists who are at war with the U.S., then what's the difference, really? Please explain, because I am a little confused as to where Hanson went astray (besides the Dean line).
OK, I guess I should explain my first comment a little better. First off, I think it's stupid to take some statements or paraphrases from one time and transport them back 60 years to a whole other situation. I think my biggest problem was that most of the comments didn't make much sense because the context was totally wrong, even though I got the point Hanson was trying to make. Second, I think it's wrong to equate Normandy and Iraq the way Hanson does. While I supported (and still support) the current war, I don't think you can say that there are no differences between the two. The reasons for the invasion of Iraq were not as clear-cut as the Normandy invasion's were, and (at the risk of sounding morally equivalent) to treat Iraq as though it was another Normandy is silly, in my opinion. The situation in Iraq and the region was bad, yes, but not as bad or as urgent as the situation in France and Europe in 1944. This doesn't mean that the Allies shouldn't have gone to war last year (or even earlier), but it does leave the invasion more open to criticism than D-Day was. And some of that criticism is certainly valid, even if we may not like it. Finally, Hanson plays with time for his own convenience. The situation in Iraq in April 2003 (before the terrorist campaign really got going) was probably better for the Allies than was the situation in Normandy in July 1944 (in the middle of the hedgerows). However, the situation in July 1945 (ie. 13 months after D-Day) was better than the situation is today. Since most of the comments come from the past 8-10 months (I believe), I don't think there's a fair comparison made. Basically, I think Hanson does something similar to a bad counterfactual, stretching possibilities thinly to cover an argument that probably should not be made. While Normandy and Iraq share some similarities (fighting against evil, demonstrating strength and resolve, winning a war against those seeking to destroy your way of life, etc.), there are not enough to make the sorts of comparisons Hanson tries.
I disagree with you guys on several levels, but that's okay, I'm just really excited that this is the sixth comment on one post, a record for the Big Tent.
Make it 7 Tom, congratualtions. I agree that it is fruitless to "put contemporary thoughts into historical situations" and of course there are tremendous differences between the invasion of Normandy and the invasion of Iraq. But if you take into consideration the 5-7 million estimated Shiites that had been murdered under Sadaam's regime, I think the reasons for Iraq's invasion were as clearcut as Normandy's. A very large and key difference would be the fact that Sadaam and the Baathists were not actively pursuing expanding their 'Reich'. However, establishing a democratic, free government in place of an overwhelmingly violent, oppressive regime that was hospitable to groups that had attacked, and were actively planning to attack, civilians in the U.S. strikes me as similar to Normandy and of comparable importance.
5 comments:
One of the worst things Hanson has written recently. Dumb and not even funny, which you would hope for from that type of column.
-Mark
Alright, I'll bite. It might not have been funny, although in parts I chuckled, but what exactly was dumb about it? The fact is that all he did was paraphrase each and every one of those individuals, except he applied their words to the Normandy invasion. If you believe the invasion of Iraq was a good and necessary thing to fight the war on the Islamicists who are at war with the U.S., then what's the difference, really? Please explain, because I am a little confused as to where Hanson went astray (besides the Dean line).
OK, I guess I should explain my first comment a little better. First off, I think it's stupid to take some statements or paraphrases from one time and transport them back 60 years to a whole other situation. I think my biggest problem was that most of the comments didn't make much sense because the context was totally wrong, even though I got the point Hanson was trying to make. Second, I think it's wrong to equate Normandy and Iraq the way Hanson does. While I supported (and still support) the current war, I don't think you can say that there are no differences between the two. The reasons for the invasion of Iraq were not as clear-cut as the Normandy invasion's were, and (at the risk of sounding morally equivalent) to treat Iraq as though it was another Normandy is silly, in my opinion. The situation in Iraq and the region was bad, yes, but not as bad or as urgent as the situation in France and Europe in 1944. This doesn't mean that the Allies shouldn't have gone to war last year (or even earlier), but it does leave the invasion more open to criticism than D-Day was. And some of that criticism is certainly valid, even if we may not like it. Finally, Hanson plays with time for his own convenience. The situation in Iraq in April 2003 (before the terrorist campaign really got going) was probably better for the Allies than was the situation in Normandy in July 1944 (in the middle of the hedgerows). However, the situation in July 1945 (ie. 13 months after D-Day) was better than the situation is today. Since most of the comments come from the past 8-10 months (I believe), I don't think there's a fair comparison made.
Basically, I think Hanson does something similar to a bad counterfactual, stretching possibilities thinly to cover an argument that probably should not be made. While Normandy and Iraq share some similarities (fighting against evil, demonstrating strength and resolve, winning a war against those seeking to destroy your way of life, etc.), there are not enough to make the sorts of comparisons Hanson tries.
-Mark
I disagree with you guys on several levels, but that's okay, I'm just really excited that this is the sixth comment on one post, a record for the Big Tent.
Make it 7 Tom, congratualtions. I agree that it is fruitless to "put contemporary thoughts into historical situations" and of course there are tremendous differences between the invasion of Normandy and the invasion of Iraq. But if you take into consideration the 5-7 million estimated Shiites that had been murdered under Sadaam's regime, I think the reasons for Iraq's invasion were as clearcut as Normandy's. A very large and key difference would be the fact that Sadaam and the Baathists were not actively pursuing expanding their 'Reich'. However, establishing a democratic, free government in place of an overwhelmingly violent, oppressive regime that was hospitable to groups that had attacked, and were actively planning to attack, civilians in the U.S. strikes me as similar to Normandy and of comparable importance.
Post a Comment