VDH Online Q&A

You should probably read this article first since it relates to the discussion.

I doubt I could ever do anything like this. I've seen Hanson take such questioning on television before from obviously antagonistic questioners. He does a great job in generally answering the questions of people that just aren't thinking or just don't read what is written.

Washington, D.C.: As a graduate student in history at the American University here in Washington, D.C., I wonder how you as a historian can rationalize your methodology which argues that Iraq is not analogous to Vietnam? How can you premise your entire argument for American involvement in Iraq on lies: Lies of weapons of mass destruction, and lies of links to Al Qaeda? Just as our involvement in Vietnam was based on the failed paradigm of the "Domino Theory," our involvement in Iraq is based on a failed oil based Middle East policy dating back to 1950's and the ouster of Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq by the CIA. The United States and this administration has abused its power, and it is showing in the streets of New Orleans.

Victor Davis Hanson: Let me address "lies" for a second. To believe that the U.S. deliberately lied about WMD rather than mistakenly privileged that casus belli over the other 27 writs for war passed by the U.S. Senate, one would have to believe that the Clinton administration and most Democratic senators were lying all during the 1980's and during the debate over their war resolution in October 2002, that European intelligence was lying, that Arab governments who warned about tactical use of WMD were lying, and that U.S. commanders in the field who ordered their soldiers to wear protective gear in unbearable heat were part of the lie as well as was their own independent military intelligence. So no, I think it is peril to keep chanting "lies" and leads nowhere. It reminds me of what they said about Lincoln when he signed the Emancipation Declaration and supposedly introduced a new reason for the war other than saving the Union.

I'm uncertain if there was any sifting of the questions, since this one was just such a waste of time. The whole lies argument usually makes me fume because of the complete failure to notice reality. Of course, that leads to a second question which continues in the crackpot theme.

Washington, D.C.: Your response to the question regarding "lies" is reminiscent of the Bush administration's calling those who disagree with the war "unpatriotic." Please address the poster's contention, namely, that a flawed methodology leads to flawed results, and in this case, a flawed policy. No Lincoln metaphors, please.

Victor Davis Hanson: Here we go again. I called no one unpatriotic at all. I did point out how the allegation that mistaken intelligence could hardly be deliberate lies, given the numerous foreign and domestic, friendly and hostile, states that came to the same independent conclusion. You did not read either what I wrote: there were 20 some reasons the Senate voted to authorize war with Saddam. Read what John Kerry and Hillary Clinton said on the floor of the Senate. All were legitimate. So the policy of removing a dictator with a long history of war with the U.S., attacking regional states, genocide, and state-sponsored terror was rational, not flawed in a post-September-11 world. And despite our lapses we are seeing the dividends in both the Middle East in general and inside Iraq.

Sigh. There are some decent questions in the end, though I'd say Hanson went to a lot of trouble to answer questions from people that didn't care about the answers, but just wanted to snipe.