Victor Davis Hanson answers the question in a compelling way in the City Journal.
I pass the essay on in particular given the mind-numbing display of ignorance of such issues one can find in current debates about Iraq, the war on terror, etc. Not to say there are not credible liberal arguments on such issues, which include a reasonable understanding of history. But most don't have such depth, especially when one moves past the think tanks and into the crowd of activists. A depressing lack of historical knowledge and context is a broader problem in American society, but some corners of the left seem especially adept at showing it off.
Granted, I'm biased. I'm a double major in history and political science who sought out courses with both direct and indirect correlation to the topic of war (and no, they weren't all filled with crazed, war-mongering, chicken-hawk, neocons). But I don't know how many times I've read this statement or that from war opponents and peace activists and wanted to slap my forehead at the naivete of it all.
Read the essay. And pass on its recommendation to those you might know at-or-near their college years.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 20, 2007 07:58 PM | Email ThisAnd Eric is on the mark: The widespread lack among hoi polloi of even cursory familiarity with recent military history (say from the French Revolution and Napolean forward) is astounding; let alone a shallow understanding or even awareness of major military events back thru recorded antiquity.
SIDEBAR: My favorite comprehensive history of WWII: Winston Churchill's 6-volume set ''The Valiant Years''. And for the run-up and start of WWI (mentioned by VDH) Barbara Tuchman's ''The Guns of August'' can't be beat. And given where some on the left seem to want to take us: On my list for when harvest is over are the 1st 3 volumes of Gibbon's classic 6-volume work: ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire''. Some day if I can find time, volumes 4-6 by Gibbons on the Byzantine empire are on my list. How the Byzantines managed to more-or-less hold together for ~1100 years after (then) Constantinople was founded is interesting: That's about 5 times as long as the USA has been a going concern.....
Posted by: Methow Ken on August 20, 2007 09:24 PMI know they teach young officers not only how to fight wars, but why they started so they can help to end them before they start.
I recall studying history of wars, etc. during high school history. Don't they do that anymore?
Putting two and two together, I was watching a podcast on the Onion regarding school curriculum. It was absolutely hilarious when the discussion was on the importance of the whale studies- singing, talking, etc. While the whale studies curriculum was a satire, it shows what the schools teach or don't teach.
Posted by: swatter on August 21, 2007 07:07 AMAnd since War is an extention of politics, then the obvious task here is you'd better take an interest in war. The implied task is to do your homework.
Posted by: Diogenes on August 21, 2007 08:27 AMif you are wondering about "lack of historical knowledge," let's see how many of your sp fan club recognize that the soviets on the eastern front, not the allies at d-day (or brokaw's greatest generation) did most the damage to hitler and the third reich? (which btw was fought with as many men as necessary, as opposed to bush's half ass attempt to take out saddam). of course the allies played a major role, but it's no fun to make heroes out of communists, is it?
this coming from a person whose party is comprised of people who deny science, evolution and believe the earth is 6000 years old.
"The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, also known colloquially as the Hitler-Stalin Pact or German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact or Nazi-Soviet Pact and formally known as the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was a non-aggression treaty between the German Third Reich and the Soviet Union. It was signed in Moscow on August 24, 1939 - but dated August 23 - by the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and the German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The mutual non-aggression treaty lasted until Operation Barbarossa of June 22, 1941, when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
Although officially labeled a "non-aggression treaty", the pact included a secret protocol, in which the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania were divided into spheres of interest of the parties. The secret protocol explicitly assumed "territorial and political rearrangements" in the areas of these countries. Subsequently all the mentioned countries were invaded, occupied or forced to cede part of their territory to either the Soviet Union, Germany, or both."
He wil finde the WDMs somwheres and pertect us all and he is a fine Christan man and prays alot and is a morale man and knows what God sez and God tells him what todo and he is a fine Christan and God dosnt tell the rest o' us the importnt stuff that he telld George W and if the libral meedya would just SHUT UP and let George W do his job bombin' and wiretappin' and pertectin' and surveillin' and spyin' we will be fine.
Posted by: Bushie on August 21, 2007 11:42 AMI also don't think that ignorance is limited to the common people, though the miserable state of our public education system surely doesn't help the situation. Remember: it was a bunch of chickenhawk elites in Washington who led us into the disaster of Iraq, while the military was for the most part opposed to it.
One should also emember that Hanson was among the more vocal in calling for war, not just the just retaliation against AlQ in Afganistan, but the unjustifiable, unnecessary and completely stupid war in Iraq. Before we put too much faith in the words of another chickenhawk intellectual we ought all to take a breath.
I agree we need a better understanding of history, I just don't need a lame lecture by someone out to cover his own ass.
Posted by: MJ on August 21, 2007 11:51 AMI also recommend "The United States Navy in World War II" compiled and edited by Stanly E. Smith. He is a documentarian and a former news editor for NBC. He was also a Navy veteran of WW II. This book is particularly compelling because the articles in it were written by the men who fought in the Atlantic and Pacific as well as distinguished Naval experts, authors and historians.
In both cases, the earlier parts about how the war got started and how we got into it are the most importatnt lessons.
Posted by: Desert Rat on August 21, 2007 12:25 PMAnd if you're going to apply that standard, then you certainly need to give the same amount of weight - if not moreso - to the opinions of those of us who have served, correct?
BTW, history major - the Iraq war was 'justifiable' the very second Saddam Hussein violated the cease fire he signed in 1991.
Posted by: jimg on August 21, 2007 12:30 PMHere is a start, the 'left' runs the schools.
The schools, aka the 'left', set the curriculum.
The curriculum is devoid history of the world.
Hopefully, you can draw the conclusion.
Here is a rant: Where in the name of my Aunt Betsy did this chickenhawk thing get coined recently? Who started it and why? This is an invention of the last week on the net.
Posted by: swatter on August 21, 2007 01:37 PMNot crap found on some website, but facts in the truest sense.
"not just the just retaliation against AlQ in Afganistan, but the unjustifiable, unnecessary and completely stupid war in Iraq."
In relation to above...what do the facts say? Unjustifiable and unnecessary? I think not.
Posted by: Chris on August 21, 2007 10:00 PM