65 years ago, in the morning. About just now, in fact.
We were under attack.

for some, this date has sparked memories.

But for me, I have often wondered how those who died in that attack… and how those who survived it, would react to the prevailing ‘cut and run’ attitude around another dastardly attack, suffered more recently.

Hanson, who has come up in conversation here just recently, points out the differences, then to now:

in those days, peace and reconstruction followed rather than preceded victory. In tough-minded fashion, we offered ample aid to, and imposed democracy on, war-torn nations only after the enemy was utterly defeated and humiliated. Today, to avoid such carnage, we try to help and reform countries before our enemies have been vanquished —putting the cart of aid before the horse of victory.

Quite correct. And therein lies the biggest problem with the approach we’ve taken… it’s one that I’ve spoken of before. We’re ruining our chances for peace, because we don’t want to be seen as the aggressor. So worried are we about that impression that we’ve lost sight of the fact that peace only comes when the enemy is defeated.

In short, our action in Iraq were hobbled by one major sticking point; It was formulated so as not to tee off the anti-war left.  The trouble is accomidating such people is never condusive to good outcomes. I have written often enough that Bush 41’s problem was trying to accomidate the Democrats as regards taxes. He at their demand, broke his ‘no new taxes’ pledge, and they used that as a weapon against him. Bush 43 now suffers the same problems in his legacy; He also tried to compromise with the Democrats, as regards Iraq. Which, I’m afraid is how we ended up where we are.

Hanson is exactly on the money here… There is no starker contrast than the handing of that attack, 65 years ago today, and this one.

Tags: ,