Small Dead B****slaps

Yes,they're doing the atomic bomb
Do they know where the dance comes from?
Yes they're doing the atomic bomb
They want you to sing along

Say goodbye
--U2

Kate is fronting a link to an article at NRO, stating that Victor Hanson delivers a 'reality bitchslap' in his defense of Rummy's tired and incompetent ass.

Hmm...well...let's talk about reality, shall we? Victor Hanson's credibility has reached an all time low after being regarded at one time as the oracle of the invasion. His formerly optimistic visions of democratic conquest, backed with his reputation as a renegade thinker and academic have more recently become desperate pleas for patience and the 'wait and see' attitude...His writing has degenerated from the objective, historically informed viewpoint of an military historian to the rants of a partisan hack, devoid of making even a basic defense of Rumsfeld:

...... the usual media-inspired flight from reason that overwhelms this country at various times — hype playing on our fears and groupthink to create a sudden story when there really is none. And now with the renewed attack on Donald Rumsfeld we are back to more of the flu-shot hysteria that has been so common in this war. Remember the pseudo-crises of the past four years — the quagmire in week three in Afghanistan or the sandstorm bog-down in Iraq?

Here we see a classic delusional flight from reason of the Bush apologist (and I say this as a right winger). The detractors are hardly media actors, creating a pseudo crisis of leadership. We have McCain, the AEI, senior military officials, the troops themselves and the Republican party all gunning for Rumsfeld. Hardly the New York Times.

But his resignation would be a grave mistake for this country at war, for a variety of reasons.

In an army replete with Bradleys and Abramses, no one could have known before Iraq that Hummers would need to become armored vehicles as well. Nevertheless all of them will be in a fleet of many thousands in less than 18 months.

Really? No one would figure out they would need armour? Maybe people with tunnel vision who should have seen the insurgency miles away should have been more on the ball. Maybe only people like Rumsfeld wouldn't have known.

Second, being unprepared in war is, tragically, nothing new.

Tragically, this is the worst defense of Rummy. Ever. How is this helping? Is Hanson excusing Rummy by saying that in the tradition of military leaders made of more hawk than brain, his performance has been acceptable? Jumping off cliffs is not new, either. Can we all go jump, Victor?

Third, the demand for Rumsfeld's scalp is also predicated on supposedly too few troops in the theater. But here too the picture is far more complicated. Vietnam was no more secure with 530,000 American soldiers in 1968 than it was with 24,000 in 1972. How troops are used, rather than their sheer numbers, is the key to the proper force deployment — explaining why Alexander the Great could take a Persian empire of 2 million square miles with an army less than 50,000, while earlier Xerxes with 500,000 on land and sea could not subdue tiny Greece, one-fortieth of Persia's size.

Where to start? Vietnam comparisons were supposed to be off limits here, no? I'm glad you changed the frame. Thanks for bringing in the comparison of Persia: too bad you didn't bring in a number for the 'native population' they were attempting to placate with 50,000 troops. Maybe it was only 2000 natives. Or two million. We don't know, and your lack of figures shows no confidence in a proper comparison. Even by historical peacekeeping comparisons, the US is light in the ass. I see that you think the numbers of troops don't matter, so why is the US stretched as it is with troops staying far longer than they should in Iraq? Why is the US utilizing its reserves and national guardsmen to the max? Could it be a....shortage? Caused by ....lack of planning?

The amazing victories in Afghanistan and Iraq not only set up unrealistic expectations about the ease of implementing post-bellum democracy among tribal Islamic societies.

Hmmm, wonder who created those expectation?

In reality, [Bush] has carefully allotted troops in Iraq because he has few to spare elsewhere

....Why would that matter, since troop levels don't matter? Too bad about that whole 'not being prepared, but going ahead anyways' idea, eh? Maybe the troop levels should have been higher beforehand.

Fourth, we hear of purportedly misplaced allocations of resources. Thus inadequate Humvees are now the focus of our slurs — our boys die while we are wasting money on pie-in-the-sky ABMs.

...Now we're on to government waste somehow? A long way from defending Rummy's actions, are we? Okay, well how about a 30% rise/per year in non-discretionary spending? How about massive tax cuts for the rich in the middle of a recession? If Bush really wanted to get consumer spending, he would have cut the middle class' tax bill in half...but that's another argument.

Fifth, have we forgotten what Mr. Rumsfeld did right? Not just plenty, but plenty of things that almost anyone else would not have done. Does anyone think the now-defunct Crusader artillery platform would have saved lives in Iraq or helped to lower our profile in the streets of Baghdad? How did it happen that our forces in Iraq are the first army in our history to wear practicable body armor? And why are over 95 percent of our wounded suddenly surviving — at miraculous rates that far exceeded even those in the first Gulf War? If the secretary of Defense is to be blamed for renegade roguery at Abu Ghraib or delays in up-arming Humvees, is he to be praised for the system of getting a mangled Marine to Walter Reed in 36 hours?

And who pushed to re-deploy thousands of troops out of Europe, and to re-station others in Korea? Or were we to keep ossified bases in perpetuity in the logic of the Cold War while triangulating allies grew ever-more appeasing to our enemies and more gnarly to us, their complacent protectors?

Lastly, have we forgot what he has done wrong, Victor? Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? The insurgency? The lack of planning? The riots? The lack of armour? The dickhead responses to valid questions about these issues in the press? The arrogance? The senseless verbal attacks on other western allies and powers? The lack of international legitimacy of the coalition?

The mess of Iraq that continues to this day? The fact that the coalition is barely holding on to control of Iraq?

A thousand brave Americans gave their lives in combat to ensure that the most wicked nation in the Middle East might soon be the best, and the odds are that those remarkable dead, not the columnists in New York, will be proven right — no thanks to post-facto harping from thousands of American academics and insiders in chorus with that continent of appeasement Europe.

This insidious little paragraph seeks to paint the critics of an inept and arrogant leader as the enemies of the brave dead, as friends of those 'evil' appeasers in France, as traitors of the US, as useless academics barking into the void without the benefit of real world experience to validate their 'theories'.

Well, Professor Hanson, maybe you could tell John McCain, former pilot and POW to his face how he's an inexperienced traitor.

Maybe Professor Hanson should return to teaching the undergrads about ancient sea battles on the Aegean and stop smearing those who have legitimate problems with Rumsfeld.

Criticism isn't treason: Say it with me......