http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...st_iraq_1.html


"Above all, Americans should accept that the entire nation has, to one degree or another, failed in Iraq. Facing up to this fact and drawing the necessary lessons is the only way to ensure that it does not similarly fail again."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...t_history.html


"Unenlightening as Bush's analogies may be, they do serve as an interesting sign of the times. For years, war-supporters derided any efforts to draw parallels between Iraq and Vietnam as unwarranted, now they're eager to draw them. The reason, most likely, is that while the hawks lost the war in Vietnam and eventually even lost the debate over the war, they believe themselves to have eventually won the larger political battle as Ronald Reagan embraced Bush-style revisionist accounts of the war in southeast Asia as part of his march to the White House in 1980.

For months now, many conservatives have been fundamentally positioning themselves for the post-war era, readying the arguments that will blame the failure of the venture in Iraq on its opponents rather than its architects.That Bush himself has chosen to join them is, perhaps, on some level the clearest reflection of the reality that the president knows perfectly well that the war is unwinnable, and blame-shifting now the best hope for saving his historical legacy."

(bolding mine)

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

"For months now, many conservatives have been fundamentally positioning themselves for the post-war era, readying the arguments that will blame the failure of the venture in Iraq on its opponents rather than its architects.That Bush himself has chosen to join them is, perhaps, on some level the clearest reflection of the reality that the president knows perfectly well that the war is unwinnable, and blame-shifting now the best hope for saving his historical legacy."

(bolding mine)

Andrew Sullivan has been pointing the trend out for months, too. He calls it "Weimar Watch". When the Democrats were criticized for starting the Vietnam War, it was somewhat appropriate. All the critical escalation events did indeed occur on the Democrats' watch. But the Republicans owned this war, lock, stock, and barrel -- and yet some of them are still going to try to blame Democrats. At least the neocon theorists that started all this -- Perle, Wolfowitz, you know the list -- are admitting that, well, you know, this isn't exactly what we meant, you know, Plan A didn't work and Plan B is pretty crummy, um, we had the best of intentions... But the President, the leading GOP candidates, the political operatives, the GOP pundits, and the noise machine seem to still be ready to go yet another round in '08, telling everyone that more militarism and surveillance are needed -- not just a good idea, but needed -- and expect everyone to sign on meekly.

One of the things that mystifies me is how the Republican Party went from the isolationist-peace party -- which it had been for well over a century -- to a warmongering party. Was this another effect of the Southern Strategy shift, just as the Republicans went from the Party of Lincoln that Freed the Slaves to a party that semi-embraced racists? The two shifts came simultaneously, in the 1970's, and were complete with the Reagan Revolution in 1980. The Democratic and Republican party platforms in my non-updated Mississippi history textbooks in the early 1990's did not at all match the actual behaviors of the candidates on TV.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

One of the things that mystifies me is how the Republican Party went from the isolationist-peace party -- which it had been for well over a century -- to a warmongering party. Was this another effect of the Southern Strategy shift, just as the Republicans went from the Party of Lincoln that Freed the Slaves to a party that semi-embraced racists? The two shifts came simultaneously, in the 1970's, and were complete with the Reagan Revolution in 1980. The Democratic and Republican party platforms in my non-updated Mississippi history textbooks in the early 1990's did not at all match the actual behaviors of the candidates on TV.

There are lots of elements in the polarity shift. Prior to Goldwater, both parties had liberal and conservative wings. Both presidents Roosevelt were progressive, but they were members of different parties. Pre-Goldwater, the distinction was that the Democrats were the southern party, while the Republicans were northern. The remnant hostilities from the Civil War were in many ways more significant than the liberal - conservative divide.

FDR's base was rural and southern, but his politics were progressive and international. He left the Democrats with a strong tradition of safety nets and government intervention in the economy for the sake of the lower and middle classes. He also pulled the US away from the isolationist stance which was Conservative but also American. No more shunning of Europe's balance of power wars. The US had become the world's policeman, the lynchpin of treaty organizations around the world.

But the Republicans jumped that bandwagon. When China went Communist under Truman and a Democratic government, the Republicans matched FDR's stance on international intervention, and raised it. From that time on, they denounced Communism more loudly than the Democrats, and started building a reputation as the hawk party. The Democrats were in power to start Korea and Vietnam, but by the time Vietnam went sour, in spite of the Democrats starting two wars of containment, the Republicans had a hawk reputation, while the Democrats sided with the doves by the end of the Vietnam protests, and from that time onward.

Then too, in the 60s and 70s and Goldwater shifted the polarities. The Democrats leaned towards the new Blue Awakening values, anti war, pro civil rights, pro human, pro environmental... The Republicans fought rearguard, waved the flag, walked with evangelists, professed law and order in opposition to the dirty rioting hippies, and cried out militaristic anti communist talk. At the same time, the 'southern strategy' started coming into play. The alignments shifted from a Democratic south and Republican north to an Democratic urban pattern and Republican rural. Thus, the south and west became Red.

The conservatives in any given American crisis end up defending the status quo created by the progressives of the prior crisis. The radical New Englanders started a revolution against Britain, but four score and seven years later it was the southern aristocrats that wanted the Constitution and society created out of that revolution to remain unchanged. There were no royalists left in the Civil War era, or pro-slavery advocates in the depression. In each case the conservative faction maintained what the old radicals had built, while the new radicals tried to move the country on.

Thus, I expect polarity shift. Todays Republicans embrace FDR's world power interventionism and active management of the economy. They just reject FDR's concern for safety nets. They believe in trickle down, while FDR wanted a solid foundation underneath.

But the process of the Republicans embracing "That Man's" policies aren't much spoken of.

Though Reagan did speak of it. He claimed he never left the Democratic party. He claimed they left him. There is not a little truth in that.

Apparently they're targeting certain markets, which include Philadelphia. "Sickening" doesn't begin to describe how I feel about them.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/aug.../230807ads.htm

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Apparently they're targeting certain markets, which include Philadelphia. "Sickening" doesn't begin to describe how I feel about them.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/aug.../230807ads.htm

Why be surprised? They would rather 'double down' more than admit they have sacrificed thousands of lives for a failed idea. Iraq = al-Qaeda was Rumsfeld's initial idea, within hours of the attack.

I do not want to leave Iraq entirely, because there really are still al-Qaeda cells present. Their latest POS attack was the multiple bombings in Kurdistan -- which the rest of the Iraqis deliberately leave alone. I want us to drop "Iraqi stability" as a military goal (since it's unachievable), order our armed forces to concentrate on al-Qaeda, and send mass rushes of diplomats to try and head off or at least mitigate the "civil war"/power struggle. It's all that can be done now, so it should be done.

However, that would mean calling off the Cheney War On Iran (TM), and both Bush and Cheney think diplomats are only for wimps.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Uh, yeah, that's kinda my point.

Back in the 1980's and more recently there was no choice because who would rule us was foreordained.

2008 feels different. For the first time in my voting lifetime there may be an opportunity to take down the House of GOP w/o the intercession of an eccentric millionaire.

The GOP have failed to annoint a successor. It is likely that we commoners will have an opportunity to choose the next emperor.

I disagree with your and Justin's assessments that there is no difference between the choices. Ruling dynasties get tired. Just as the Camelot dynasty grew tired by 1980, so has the Reagan dynasty.

Years after the observations of Yo. Ob. Sv., yet another places the Buonaparte Bicorne on Bush's brow.

Originally Posted by the Michigander, Mr. Juan Cole

The French general and the American president do not much resemble one another – except perhaps in the way the prospect of conquest in the Middle East appears to have put fire in their veins and in their unappealing tendency to believe their own propaganda (or at least to keep repeating it long after it became completely implausible). Both leaders invaded and occupied a major Arabic-speaking Muslim country; both harbored dreams of a "Greater Middle East"; both were surprised to find themselves enmeshed in long, bitter, debilitating guerrilla wars. Neither genuinely cared about grassroots democracy, but both found its symbols easy to invoke for gullible domestic publics. Substantial numbers of their new subjects quickly saw, however, that they faced occupations, not liberations.

Romantic Idealism is ever with us, as is the man who would wear the bicorne of Progress.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

FDR's base was rural and southern, but his politics were progressive and international.

One of the Democratic bases was rural, southern and protestant. Another was northern, urban and Catholic.

But the Republicans jumped on that bandwagon. When China went Communist under Truman and a Democratic government, the Republicans matched FDR's stance on international intervention, and raised it. From that time on, they denounced Communism more loudly than the Democrats, and started building a reputation as the hawk party.

Yes. Republicans needed their own version of big government to counter the Democratic welfare state. They chose the national security state because military men had long tended to be Republicans and the spy agencies were largely filled with Republican bluebloods recruited by conservative Republican "Wild Bill" Donovan and his successors.

The GOP was easily able to "out-hawk" the Democrats because they were perfectly willing to squeeze domestic welfare programs benefitting the opposition's constituents in favor of national security programs that benefitted theirs.

The Democrats were in power to start Korea and Vietnam,

When Korea started "Mr. Republican" Robert A Taft hadn't come around to embracing the hawk role yet. So at that time the Dems were still the hawks.

...but by the time Vietnam went sour, in spite of the Democrats starting two wars of containment, the Republicans had a hawk reputation...

The GOP was already the hawk party by 1960. They proved it by their willingness to pay for a big stick as illustrated by the slogan "peace through strength". The Democrats would talk tough just like Republicans, of course, but, for the reasons I gave above, they could not afford to back their words with their pocketbook as much as the GOP. Thus, they had to back their words with action and this brought them Vietnam.

while the Democrats sided with the doves by the end of the Vietnam protests, and from that time onward

You don't say why this happened. The American people don't like protracted wars for dubious purposes and they took it out on the Democrats in 1966 and 1968. Thus, both hawkish action (starting wars to look tough) and hawkish spending (spending billions on wasteful programs to look tough) were ruled out. Democrats had nothing with which to back their words. If they continued to to use the language of toughness, they would just be playing on the GOP home court and could expect to get drubbed most of the time. They tried to resurrect the oldtime isolationist religion in 1972, but that went over like a lead ballon. Failure in Vietnam began a 40 year period when Democrats were forced to operate at a strategic disadvantage to the GOP on national security issues. As long as the Cold War lasted the GOP had a lock on the presidency, with a single exception because of backlash against Nixon's corruption.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

When China went Communist under Truman and a Democratic government, the Republicans matched FDR's stance on international intervention, and raised it. From that time on, they denounced Communism more loudly than the Democrats, and started building a reputation as the hawk party.

Wait, wait, wait. So the entire identification of the GOP with hawkish policies is an effort to out-hawk FDR?

Given how much their rhetoric vilifies FDR.... this is Just. Too. Rich.

The conservatives in any given American crisis end up defending the status quo created by the progressives of the prior crisis.

This means I will enjoy watching the GOP (assuming it survives) start defending environmentalism and national energy policies in 2040. Oh, yes...

But the process of the Republicans embracing "That Man's" policies aren't much spoken of.

To say the least!

Originally Posted by Mikebert

One of the Democratic bases was rural, southern and protestant. Another was northern, urban and Catholic.

So the shift away from sectionalism began even in the 1930's...

Republicans needed their own version of big government to counter the Democratic welfare state. They chose the national security state because military men had long tended to be Republicans and the spy agencies were largely filled with Republican bluebloods recruited by conservative Republican "Wild Bill" Donovan and his successors.

That explains they are so paranoid about Democrats in the intelligence community. CIA, NSA, and so forth were supposed to be "their agencies", as opposed to those n****-loving pinko commies over at State and Justice...

When Korea started "Mr. Republican" Robert A Taft hadn't come around to embracing the hawk role yet. So at that time the Dems were still the hawks.

This implies that the shift was primarily associated with Eisenhower?

You don't say why this happened. The American people don't like protracted wars for dubious purposes and they took it out on the Democrats in 1966 and 1968.

Hey, Justin! Did you hear that?

As long as the Cold War lasted the GOP had a lock on the presidency, with a single exception because of backlash against Nixon's corruption.

And as soon as Carter failed to be sufficiently hawkish -- or, to be more specific, competently hawkish -- they turned on him. While I didn't actually observe any elections until 1992, what I've seen from video archives suggests you're right.

Hmm. Well, if 'competent hawk' is really the formula for winning the Presidency, I suggest practicing the phrase 'Madam President'...

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Wait, wait, wait. So the entire identification of the GOP with hawkish policies is an effort to out-hawk FDR?

Given how much their rhetoric vilifies FDR.... this is Just. Too. Rich.

Well, it might be more accurate to say they were out hawking Truman. They blamed Truman for losing China to Mao and his Communists. I don't think the Republicans were pushing for a greater war effort during World War II.

Shortly after World War II ended, a GOP politico declared 'Politics ends at the water's edge." I don't hold that to be a universal truth. I hold that to be a brief snapshot of the early First Turning, when both parties are accepting without question the lessons learned from the prior Fourth. At that point, both parties were strong into containment, and beginning to flow into what became the Domino Theory doctrine.

But that unity and agreement fell apart as soon as the Republicans saw an opportunity to blame Truman.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes. Republicans needed...

I think it would be safe to say Democrats are great and Republicans suck, man. Uh, and even long before sucky Dubya ever walked the earth, too.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Shortly after World War II ended, a GOP politico declared 'Politics ends at the water's edge." I don't hold that to be a universal truth.

It was a frigging miracle, that's what it was... if it was even true then. It certainly did not hold for any length of time in any previous saeculum since American independence; before that, politics beyond the water's edge was the King's and Parliament's problem, not ours. It did sometimes hold true in Britain -- but only when emergency unity governments were convened, which doesn't really count as the debates were simply moved into the Cabinet. No other example of a free republic or constitutional monarchy embracing democratic centralism on foreign policy comes to mind.

It's very easy in a tyranny, of course.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Shortly after World War II ended, a GOP politico declared 'Politics ends at the water's edge.'

It was a frigging miracle, that's what it was...

Ah, ya shoulda seen those rabid protestin' GOPers during WWII! They drove Dr. Win-the war, FDR, absolutely nuts, they did.

Sheesh, the Republican Right even tried to levitate the dang Pentagon building during the Battle of the Bulge! Good grief, the American boys and girls "over there," spilling their bloody guts to defeat Hitler and Tojo, had to gasp in utter bewilderment at the sight of Robert "Mr. Republican" Taft demanding that FDR "cut and run" after the bloody 1943 Tarawa beach debacle.

Gee whiz, but those Nazis and Japs sure were inspired to fight on and on by "The surge has already failed" GOPers here at home. Heck, it actually took a couple of nuclear bombs to finally shut those crazy Jap "gooks" and Republicans up, for crying out loud!

Dang those GOPers, how many American boys spilt their blood so Republicans could finally learn...

... "Politics ends at the water's edge" shortly "after World War II ended." Well, oh sigh, such is life in the USA...

Originally Posted by sean '90

Your use of the term Russian Empire to refer to the Soviet Union is wrong. There has been no Russian Empire since March 1917. It should be restored, to its original boundaries of course.

The Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Ukrainians, Moldovans, Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, and some central Asians would likely disagree.

Alaska? Forget about it.

As for 1960, didn't the Sino-Soviet split happen at about that time.

The PRC and the USSR rarely had a firm alliance. Stalin backed the Kuomintang surprisingly long... and considering disputes on the 'genuineness' of each others' ideology and authority as an intellectual leader of the 'socialist' world, they were sure to split over something.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...printable=true

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Shortly after World War II ended, a GOP politico declared 'Politics ends at the water's edge." I don't hold that to be a universal truth. I hold that to be a brief snapshot of the early First Turning, when both parties are accepting without question the lessons learned from the prior Fourth.

I disagree. World War II was the last great power coalition war. The next great power coalition war will be the end of civilization. It is no longer possible to win great power coalition wars. This means it is no longer for great powers to resolve really serious differences using warfare. Non-serious differences can still be resolved by killing large numbers of people--just not serious ones.

When one is seriously at war politics stops at the water edge. But when it's not serious, then war is nothing but politics.

Consider the phenomenon of the chicken hawk. Imagine the son of a plantation owner considering whether to enlist in the war effort or the pursue the education necessary for a career in Confederate politics. This is exactly the choice Dick Cheney faced wrt to Vietnam. Should he enlist or pursue the education for a career in United States politics.

For the young man in 1861, it was clear that if the South lost the war there would be no career in Confederate politics. Thus he had no better thing to do than join up. The vast majority of Confederate elites came to the same conclusion. They clearly saw that losing the war meant the end of their way of life and that there was no better thing to do than preventing that from happening.

In contrast, Dick Cheney correctly saw that even if the US lost the Vietnam war, a career in politics remained viable. So he didn't enlist. In fact, for the vast majority of American elites is was clear that losing the war would have no effect on their future options and that they were many "better things to do" than enlist, and so they didn't.

All great power wars since WW II are going to feature the "chicken hawk" phenomenon in that elites will be under represented.

One might ask, if since 1945 elites have better things to do than fight great power wars, is it possible that perhaps great power wars aren't really worth fighting in the first place? Could this be the reason why so many great powers have shrunk their war-making capabilities to the levels they have?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

One might ask, if since 1945 elites have better things to do than fight great power wars, is it possible that perhaps great power wars aren't really worth fighting in the first place? Could this be the reason why so many great powers have shrunk their war-making capabilities to the levels they have?

I have oft said on these pages that great power wars have not been cost effective. This has been true at least since World War I. I agree that Europe has figured this out, and at a values level, rather than a logical level. One will have great difficulty convincing the Europeans to go head on against other powers of significant power.

But the US learned different lessons after World War II. Europe saw all the bloodshed first hand. The US came out convinced they should have gotten involved earlier, should have prevent Germany from rearming, and thus bought into the containment and Domino Theory defensive alliance system.

I'll note that the old Agricultural Age nobility was often originally a warrior caste. Agriculture was the dominant means of gathering wealth, the nobility owned the land, and more land was acquired by the sword. Thus, there was a tradition, even after the feudal system started breaking down, of military service by the aristocracy. Thus, we have the heir to the British throne serving in the army.

This certainly seems to have broken down in the United States.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I disagree. World War II was the last great power coalition war. The next great power coalition war will be the end of civilization. It is no longer possible to win great power coalition wars. This means it is no longer for great powers to resolve really serious differences using warfare. Non-serious differences can still be resolved by killing large numbers of people--just not serious ones.

When one is seriously at war politics stops at the water edge. But when it's not serious, then war is nothing but politics.

Nonsense. This is nothing more than an intellectual highbrow excuse for appeasement. Given the horrific nature of WWI and the tremendous advance of technology up to 1938, it was simply unthinkable that another "World War" would result in anything less than "the end of civilization." Thus a few miles of sovereign territory was a small price to pay Germany for the much larger unthinkable threat of another world war. Hey, what's the lives of a few Jews anyhow?

Such appeasement thinking has become quite mainstream among the Party of FDR. Though their New Dealer elders triumphed with a hard-earned "great power coalition," these third and fourth generation grandkids have no stomach for "brinkmanship." Rather they have become captive to their "never again" mantra, and are more than willing to cede world leadership to modern-day rouges like yesterday's Hitler.

Chamberlain was the typical liberal Mike Alexander of his day. Churchill would have none of it. The Alexanders of today will be in tomorrows dust bin. Those who reject this sort of appeasement will, at least, have a chance to hold their head up in the eyes of history.

Hey, what's the lives of a few million Jew, er, Iraqis anyhow, eh? No, seriously.

Originally Posted by zilch

Nonsense. This is nothing more than an intellectual highbrow excuse for appeasement. Given the horrific nature of WWI and the tremendous advance of technology up to 1938, it was simply unthinkable that another "World War" would result in anything less than "the end of civilization." Thus a few miles of sovereign territory was a small price to pay Germany for the much larger unthinkable threat of another world war. Hey, what's the lives of a few Jews anyhow?

Such appeasement thinking has become quite mainstream among the Party of FDR. Though their New Dealer elders triumphed with a hard-earned "great power coalition," these third and fourth generation grandkids have no stomach for "brinkmanship." Rather they have become captive to their "never again" mantra, and are more than willing to cede world leadership to modern-day rouges like yesterday's Hitler.

Chamberlain was the typical liberal Mike Alexander of his day. Churchill would have none of it. The Alexanders of today will be in tomorrows dust bin. Those who reject this sort of appeasement will, at least, have a chance to hold their head up in the eyes of history.

Hey, what's the lives of a few million Jew, er, Iraqis anyhow, eh? No, seriously.

Seriously, Marc, you are a fool. Mikebert just pegged what a chickenhawk was, you just confirmed it.

One of the cold comforts of your actions putting Hillary into office next election, is that she will use the tools Bush gave her on you and yours. Life will suck for us all, but at least you will be suffering more, politically.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

One of the cold comforts of your actions putting Hillary into office next election, is that she will use the tools Bush gave her on you and yours. Life will suck for us all, but at least you will be suffering more, politically.

Perfect. Yes, you've perfectly demonstrated what an utterly vindictive, sorry ass moron that you are, "Pink Splice."

Yes, there are certainly some on my side, like the sorry Sage Saari, who "wish ill that good will come," but you are a perfect example of the numb-skulled left, who will sheepishly vote for the Clinton gal and then blame her failure in office on those of us who warned America about the Clinton gal.

Ya wanna go both ways, pal. No surprise there.

p.s. Both Wilson and FDR were "chickenhawks" by your lame-ass definition. Get over it already, dudette.

Originally Posted by zilch

Perfect. Yes, you've perfectly demonstrated what an utterly vindictive, sorry ass moron that you are, "Pink Splice."

Yes, there are certainly some on my side, like the sorry Sage Saari, who "wish ill that good will come," but you are a perfect example of the numb-skulled left, who will sheepishly vote for the Clinton gal and then blame her failure in office on those of us who warned America about the Clinton gal.

Ya wanna go both ways, pal. No surprise there.

p.s. Both Wilson and FDR were "chickenhawks" by your lame-ass definition. Get over it already, dudette.

To be called vindictive by you, Marc, is a great honor. Thank you. It means I got past your defenses, and scored a direct hit. If Bush 2 had been even half-ass competent, there would be no Hillary Restoration. You re-elected the moron in '04, when it was clear he had failed to manage the most important duty he had: Commander-In-Chief. Iraq was already visibly a massive CF minutes after Baghdad's fall. Rummy should have been canned, right then and there, and the rest of the neocons with him. The incompetence of the Administration was there for all to see. You focussed on partisan glee, right up to Katrina.

Then, irreversibly, Bush showed he did not give a shit. Saari is right; if he had shed some timely crocodile tears, he would have perhaps survived.

Everything else was downhill from there. You can get as drunk as you want, you can post as much as you want, you can't hide from the bad news anymore. All the shit that is this Administration will leak out over the years to come, and you, as cheerleader, will share in the shame.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Iraq was already visibly a massive CF minutes after Baghdad's fall. Rummy should have been canned, right then and there, and the rest of the neocons with him.

Hmm... I don't really think they lost it until the combined disbanding of the Iraqi Army and the edict of full deBaathification. They had to purge the top of the command structure, but deBaathification all the way down to the lowest ranks destroyed the police forces, while disbanding the Army disbanded the Army. The first insurgent actions started right then, and have been escalating since.

True, Rummy pushed to go in with insufficient troops to quell insurgency. His priority was to guard the oil infrastructure, not to maintain law and order. He is hardly faultless. Still, the two with hindsight pivotal decisions came from the civilian side, from State.

Originally Posted by zilch

Nonsense. This is nothing more than an intellectual highbrow excuse for appeasement. Given the horrific nature of WWI and the tremendous advance of technology up to 1938, it was simply unthinkable that another "World War" would result in anything less than "the end of civilization."

Here Marc is making stuff up. Civilization did not remotely come close to ending after either world war. The Mongol invasions were worse than the world wars in this regard.

Late Cold War projections of the results of a limited nuclear war between the US and USSR indicated on the order of 20-25% of the American population dead. Detailed projections were only made for limited wars; those in which only counterforce weapons (those that target missile silos) were deployed. The assumption was that the war would be ended by diplomacy before the bulk of the US nuclear arsenal (our SLBMs) was tapped. It was widely acknowledged that if the conflict escalated there would be no national survival in a meaningful sense. Humans would undoubtedly survive in what had been the US and USSR, but there would be no nation.

these third and fourth generation grandkids have no stomach for "brinkmanship."

We all would be dead had our leaders during the Cold War thought like you do.

Rather they have become captive to their "never again" mantra, and are more than willing to cede world leadership to modern-day rouges like yesterday's Hitler.

The only person making a real bid for world leadership today is George Bush. Most Americans can see for themselves how well that is working, which is why only "brinkership enthusiasts" like you still like the guy.

Chamberlain was the typical liberal...

Chamberlain was a Conservative MP and Prime Minister.

Hey, what's the lives of a few million Iraqis anyhow

Not very much in your calculus. You did support making war upon them.

Originally Posted by zilch

p.s. Both Wilson and FDR were "chickenhawks" by your lame-ass definition. Get over it already, dudette.

Umm not they weren't. A chickenhawk is a man of military age who takes the hawkish side in a controversial war yet chooses not to serve. When Wilson was of military age in the 1880's the US was not engaged in any controversial wars, so he doesn't fit the definition. FDR was of military age at the time of the controversial Phillippine Insurrection. As a Republican enterprise, Democrats like the young FDR did not support this war, and so FDR does not qualify as a chicken hawk.

The chickenhawk phenomenon simply did not happen prior to 1945. Young men able to fight who truly believed that fighting was crucially important did serve.

Like most elite Republicans of his generation, George Bush the elder believed that Hitler was a real threat and had to be stopped and so he served in the war. Unlike their fathers, most elite Republicans of the Boom generation did not serve. Success in the Vietnam war was not important enough to justify their personal effort, whereas as success in WW II was that important. Their fathers, who themselves served, did not want their sons to serve, which illustrates that they too believed that the Vietnam War was less worthy of personal support than WW II.