Saturday, March 24, 2007
Watching Rome
As I viewed the penultimate episode of Rome on HBO, I was struck by Cleopatra VII's saying to Marcus Antonius about his desire for a war with Octavian--what does it matter how it starts as long as you win it, or words to that effect. Of course, we know that Anthony lost the war, on the sea at Actium to Agrippa, but that does not take away the wisdom of Cleopatra's words, a sort of 'history is written by the winners' comment.
Applying that to our recent history in the mid-east, it really won't matter how unpopular this war was (The Mexican War was the most unpopular war in American history ever--we still won). What was the source of so much discontent, on both sides of the political aisle, in recent months was that we seemed for a while there to be merely wasting lives while the Iraqi government did not step up to provide strong leadership to stem the Northern Ireland type stupid violence between slightly different religious factions and things were getting worse.
Things are definitely no longer getting worse and while they may not be getting better yet, as a result of our changed 'surge' tactics under General Petraeus, there is hope for the future, even the near future (even though fighting and casualties will continue for a long time--not as long as the Troubles, probably, but a long time). It has always been a mystery to me how the North in our civil war with a population of 20 million, couldn't just crush, in a few weeks, the South which had a population of only 6 million (with a third of that slaves or slave descendent and probably not too keen to support slavery), but no one dwells anymore on the series of ineffectual generals the North had for years because it eventually got good ones and crushed the South (about this time of year, 142 years ago). Only history fans know really how poorly the North waged the war for three of its four years, because its forces eventually won.
Fred Kagan and Bill Kristol have a good piece on how the Dems are dwelling in the past now in the stupid and ineffectual (and just barely passed) legislation they are supporting.
America rarely loses a war--we don't like to lose and we don't like the guys who want us to lose--or ultimately the guys who cause us to lose. Just as the Great Depression kicked out the Republicans from a sustained majority in Congress for 60 years, so too the Viet Nam war ultimately kicked out the Democrats from their former overwhelming majority in Congress (and certainly out of the White House except for southern exceptions from time to time). It is a dangerous game trying to sabotage a war politically, and the Democrats would do well to cease to play games in Congress and try actually to pass, through both houses, legislation which the President will sign. There is near zero probability that they will ever overcome a veto. The Dems haven't even gotten the minimum wage raised, have they? Most of the time in Congress has been spent 'protesting' the war with non-binding (and not passed in the Senate) resolutions and the recent emergency bill, a snafu which will probably not get through the Senate intact, much less be signed. Mere political theater during a time of war just seems wrong.
It seems like a loser's strategy.
Applying that to our recent history in the mid-east, it really won't matter how unpopular this war was (The Mexican War was the most unpopular war in American history ever--we still won). What was the source of so much discontent, on both sides of the political aisle, in recent months was that we seemed for a while there to be merely wasting lives while the Iraqi government did not step up to provide strong leadership to stem the Northern Ireland type stupid violence between slightly different religious factions and things were getting worse.
Things are definitely no longer getting worse and while they may not be getting better yet, as a result of our changed 'surge' tactics under General Petraeus, there is hope for the future, even the near future (even though fighting and casualties will continue for a long time--not as long as the Troubles, probably, but a long time). It has always been a mystery to me how the North in our civil war with a population of 20 million, couldn't just crush, in a few weeks, the South which had a population of only 6 million (with a third of that slaves or slave descendent and probably not too keen to support slavery), but no one dwells anymore on the series of ineffectual generals the North had for years because it eventually got good ones and crushed the South (about this time of year, 142 years ago). Only history fans know really how poorly the North waged the war for three of its four years, because its forces eventually won.
Fred Kagan and Bill Kristol have a good piece on how the Dems are dwelling in the past now in the stupid and ineffectual (and just barely passed) legislation they are supporting.
America rarely loses a war--we don't like to lose and we don't like the guys who want us to lose--or ultimately the guys who cause us to lose. Just as the Great Depression kicked out the Republicans from a sustained majority in Congress for 60 years, so too the Viet Nam war ultimately kicked out the Democrats from their former overwhelming majority in Congress (and certainly out of the White House except for southern exceptions from time to time). It is a dangerous game trying to sabotage a war politically, and the Democrats would do well to cease to play games in Congress and try actually to pass, through both houses, legislation which the President will sign. There is near zero probability that they will ever overcome a veto. The Dems haven't even gotten the minimum wage raised, have they? Most of the time in Congress has been spent 'protesting' the war with non-binding (and not passed in the Senate) resolutions and the recent emergency bill, a snafu which will probably not get through the Senate intact, much less be signed. Mere political theater during a time of war just seems wrong.
It seems like a loser's strategy.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:32 AM 
