War and Empire: The Debate Arianna Huffinton vs. Victor Davis Hanson DeVos Place, Grand Rapids, MI September 14, 2005
Gleaves Whitney: The question before us is whether the United States is an empire. Much of the world sees the U.S. as the imperial metropolis. But in America, the debate has not been settled. Political scientist David Hendrickson recently observed, “In the last few years, roughly since the annunciation of a new national security strategy and President George W. Bush’s WestPoint address of 2002, hardly a day has passed without a news item, essay, or book announcing, denouncing, or contesting the idea of American Empire.” On one side of the debate are those who argue that the United States has become an empire due to the overwhelming power that it can exercise unilaterally around the world -- militarily, politically, economically, and culturally – the ability to remake the world in America’s image. On the other side of the debate are those who insist that the United States today is internationalist rather than imperial. There’s no question about America’s primacy around the globe, but it has been more than a century since our government waged war to expand territory, create colonies, or appropriate resources without paying for them in the market. Whatever your position, or if you do not yet have a position, it is important to push this debate to the highest level. How is empire defined? How is imperial behavior distinguished from internationalist behavior? And perhaps most important of all, what
should we do with our power? Many different answers are circulation, prompted recently by the Iraq war. Even within Republican and Democratic camps, one sees isolationists, Wilsonian idealists, and foreign policy realists. Each camp is vying for influence, seeking security for the U.S. and just relations with foreign powers. The stakes are high, and it is important to get the answers right. To get the answers right, the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies presents Arianna Huffington and Victor Davis Hanson. These two distinguished individuals share common traits; both hail from California, both are best-selling authors, both are giants on the web, both have a devoted following, and both are formidable debaters. It is also interesting to see them on the same stage because Ms. Huffington, a native of modern Greece, has been described as a conservative turned progressive, while Dr. Hanson, a student of ancient Greece, has been described as a progressive turned conservative. What distinguish these individuals are their arguments and ideas. We have seen Ms. Huffington convey her ideas on the radio and 10 books, including her New York Times bestseller Pigs of the Trough and Fanatics and Fools. She was recently a gubernatorial candidate in California, and has had appearances on CNN and HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. She has earned herself a reputation as a passionate voice for political reform and social awareness. No less influential is Mr. Hanson. One has likely seen him explain and develop his ideas in 13 books including Ripples of Battle and Mexifornia. He is also an authoritative presence on his website and National Review. He has taught history to generations of students.
There has not been an odder couple on stage since Jack Lemmon and Walther Matthau paired up. With our match-up tonight and Mary Madeline and James Carville speaking in Traverse City tomorrow, it is safe to say that Michigan has become the odd couple capital of the world! I now invite Dr. Hanson to make the opening argument.
Victor Davis Hanson: When I think of empire, I think of the Athenian empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, the Kaiser’s Prussian Empire, the German Nazi Empire, and the Soviet Empire. The word comes from the Latin “imperium” meaning power to coerce, exact tribute, or exercise influence where others don’t want you to. None of these terms fit the United States. Every empire has had an imperial culture with art, music and literature: Virgil’s Aeneid glorifying Rome and Kipling’s poem’s about the white man’s burden. Think of U.S. writers; what did Oliver Stone say after 9/11? What did Normal Mailer say? What did Phillip Ross say? What did Susan Sonntag say? What did Alice Walker say? It was either something nihilistic or critical about the U.S. in its greatest moment of peril since W.W.II. The U.S. does not have an imperial culture. The U.S. created an economic empire. South Korea will not defend itself without the U.S.; they have a large trade surplus. Japan has an archaic banking system and a trade surplus. After creating this economic system, the U.S. finds it impossible to enforce or master it.
Politically, empires take people’s territory. They then dictate the conditions to their imperial subjects. The U.S. has not taken anybody’s land since 1898 in the Philippines. What’s even stranger is, at the time the U.S. is called imperial, it is getting out of occupied territory. The U.S. has taken every troop out of Saudi Arabia and is trying to take 40,000 troops out of Germany. While Mr. Schroeder was calling the U.S. an imperial power, his own mayors in the Pentagon were begging Americans to stay. I was always amused by that sign when the U.S. left the Philippines – the sign says, “Americans go home… and take me with you!” There has never been the idea that the U.S. was going to take someone’s land. A lot of Americans died in Okinawa and what did the U.S. do? The U.S. gave it back to the Japanese willingly. The U.S. took the Panama Canal fair and square by stealing it, and now Americans have given it back. This is not a trademark of an imperial power. The U.S. funds 25% of the U.N. And yet, if one looks at U.N. declarations or resolutions, 48% have been against America’s ally, Israel. The U.S. is always condemned by the U.N., yet they have offices on U.S. land and Americans pay the largest contribution to their budget. Again, politically, economically, and culturally, there is nothing imperial in American veins. The one thing all empires do is institute a militarily sophisticated system of imperial aggrandizement. But, the wonderful U.S. military doesn’t fit that definition. The sharpest critics of the Iraqi war were Generals Wesley Clark and Anthony Zinni – generals of all people! If one looks at U.S. budget spending on military preparedness, it wouldn’t look like any empire in history. The Athenians spent 25% of their gross domestic product on
their military: the Romans even more. The Germans and Russians spent between 25% and 30%. Britain may have spent less, but that is because they didn’t have a large Army during their imperial tenure. The U.S. only recently has spent up to 4% of the gross domestic product on military spending. In 1950, 70% of all non-discretionary funds were spent on the military, and 30% on domestic matters. People were not talking about the U.S. being an empire in the 50s, and now we see the opposite ratio. 30% of non-discretionary funds are spent on the military and 70% on domestic matters. Take a look at what the U.S. military has done lately. They have not just closed bases in Saudi Arabia and Germany, but they are trying to reduce their role in Korea. The military has done a strange thing for an empire; they went into Granada, a totalitarian communist state, and left a democracy. This action may be imperial, but it is not what empires do. The military “took out” Noriega and left a democracy. They bombed a Christian country in the heart of Europe to “take out” Milosevic and tried leaving a democracy. The fascistic, theistic rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan was halted and the U.S. left a democracy. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, the predominant opposition said no blood for oil! Price of oil at the time was $38 a barrel. Now it is over $70 a barrel. The U.S. has a tendency to remove fascistic dictators after the cold war and replacing with a democracy, which aren’t always friendly towards us. The locus classicus is the 1991 Gulf War. The U.S. was sitting on a quarter of the world’s oil reserves, didn’t remove Hussein from power, and returned the former 19th province of Iraq back to the Kuwaitis. What did the Kuwaitis do? Against U.S. objections, the Kuwaitis ethnically cleansed every Palestinian. This is important because after 9/11 the
Kuwaitis held the highest anti-American sentiment in the entire Middle East. When they were asked why, it was because of the U.S. treatment of Palestinians. Kuwait was a country that was saved by the U.S., ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, and objected to U.S. “treatment” of Palestinians. This is a touchstone to understand why people allege the U.S. is an empire. It is not just enough to say the U.S. does not do bad things, we must look at the good the U.S. does. As we speak, the U.S. is starting six party talks in Korea. China is nuclear, and there is no doubt that if the U.S. were to leave, Japan would go nuclear to protect its interests. They would build 4000 nuclear weapons and they would work; they would work like Toyotas and Hondas. Taiwan would go nuclear. South Korea would go nuclear. You would have a real arms race. If the U.S. withdrew from the Middle East, Iran would go nuclear and Saudi Arabia and Syria would go nuclear in response. The Europeans had a utopian stance and did not focus on defense. When Milosevic came, what did the Europeans do? They called for the U.S. What was the result? Mr. Milosevic was gone in seven weeks after he killed a quarter of a million people. The European reaction was we’re an empire and we would be wrong to save those people from Milosevic. The question is what is the U.S. if it is not an empire? The U.S. is the most militarily powerful and influential democratic power in the history of the world. Why did this happen? It was not because the U.S. had imperial planners in the Pentagon. It happened for two reasons. First, the U.S.’s “founding fathers” created in seven pages what the Europeans can not do in a thousand. They created this unique balance of power that protects property, guarantees individual rights, allows for evolutionary and liberal
progress, and is the most egalitarian and racially diverse civilization in history. And because of this, the U.S. exercises influence culturally, politically, and economically. The U.S. takes in more immigrants than all other countries put together. The second reason the U.S. is so powerful is an artifact of the Cold War. The U.S. was isolationist in the 19th century. After late involvement in W.W.I, the U.S. decisively saved Western liberal democracy from Prussian totalitarianism. After that, the U.S. withdrew and had another European war 20 years later. The German army was not defeated; it gave up in foreign territory and went back to say they had never lost. The U.S. went back a second time but did not leave. The U.S. stayed to protect Europe from the new threat of the Soviet system that meant an end for all the U.S. had accomplished by the end of the 20th century. After the Soviet system collapsed, the U.S. was faced with a choice: do we want to be isolationist and go back home as we did after W.W.I only to leave Nazism to grow? Or, do we want to stay to defeat communism as we did after W.W.II? Unlike the Europeans and others, when the Soviet Union collapsed the U.S. did not disarm. The U.S. reduced defense spending under the Clinton administration to 3-5% G.D.P. but continued building defenses. The bipolar system collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union. But this is not written in stone. The Chinese, who are finally adapting our system and giving up the Mao communist system, have an open market, capitalistic systems, methods of investment, and private property. They are finding the same success the U.S. has enjoyed. Given the rules of the U.S. system, the Chinese will be as powerful because they have a billion people. In 20 years, people will be talking about the Chinese empire. But, unless the Chinese become democratic, they will not treat people in the
Middle East the way the U.S. has when they want more oil. China will become a real empire unless it becomes democratic. Nothing in the U.S.’s political, economic, cultural, or military behavior or protocols resembles empires of the past. The U.S. does far more good than people give it credit, which leaves us with the question why do people say the U.S. is imperial? If one scans all the titles of books, magazine and op-ed articles, and newspapers that allege we are imperial, one finds one common denominator. They are all critical of the U.S. No one says they like the U.S. because it is imperial. Thus, the ideas are synonymous. Let us be careful and focus on who is calling the U.S. imperial. It is not one million Indians in India. India is happy the U.S., at great risk to the economy, allowed outsourcing and free trade. The U.S. has created a new middle class in India. 76% of those in India – one billion people – are pro-American. They are not Japanese; the Japanese know the difference between an imperial country like China and the U.S., and they desperately want good relations with the U.S. The critics are not Eastern Europeans. They know what an empire is and who saved them from it. They are not all of the Europeans. If one looks at what is going on in Scandinavia, Denmark, and Holland, one will see that these Europeans know what empires of the past have done. Let us be honest. Who are the people today that are alleging the U.S. is an empire, contrary to all of the empirical evidence we have discussed? There are three groups. The first is the Middle East, aside from the fact that the Middle East shows no gratitude. It was the U.S. that bombed a Christian country to save Muslims, over the objections to everyone in the world. For all the rhetoric of bin Laden, he did nothing to
save Muslims in Bosnia. There is nothing but criticism from the Middle East. The U.S. saved Kuwait, a Muslim country, from Saddam Hussein. The U.S. was the only country in the 1980s and 90s to criticize the Russian treatment of Muslims. The U.S. has also tried to save Muslims in Somalia from starvation. There is no gratitude because of the 22 countries in the Middle East, none until recently were democratic. Only Iraq has that potential. With the globalization movement which the Middle East associates rightly with American culture, Middle Easterners are able to access the internet, cable TV, and satellites to know that life in Damascus is worse than life in Paris. Life is worse in Cairo than Seoul. Life is worse in Baghdad than Tokyo. Middle Easterners have no method to express that anger on the Arab street. The autocratic countries had no method to deal with this frustration. The leaders did not want to take the tough measures necessary as leaders in South America and Asia have done. Don’t discuss polygamy, don’t discuss gender apartheid, and don’t discuss religious intolerance. Instead, make a devil’s bargain with right-wing, fascistic Islamic terrorists to blame two people: the Jews and the U.S. for all of our self-induced misery. They are a powerful anti-American bloc. One hears of the U.S. being a pernicious empire from the Middle East. The other group is Western Europe, especially Germany and France. They were imperial cultures. Ask the Danish, Dutch, or Polish what Germany was during W.W.I and W.W.II or what France was under Napoleon – they were grand empires that invaded and took what they wanted. Now, Germany and France do not do that. They are very angry that their influence has been curtailed by a multi-racial, radically democratic, anti-
aristocratic culture that brings everybody in and succeeds by being antithetical. The U.S. is antithetical to Europe, as our grandparents knew when they came to the U.S. The Middle East is angry in a way they were not during the 1970s. They have changed because they don’t have 300 Soviet tank divisions on their borders. They can say whatever they want without a defense because the U.S. won that war for them. For the foreseeable future, whenever a Milosevic comes, the Europeans will call on the U.S. for help. The Middle East’s final reason for anger is their “alternate strain of Western Civilization” from Europe. High taxes, state-ism, utopianism, and pacifism have led to record levels on unemployment, almost no growth, and an unassimilated minority. The U.S. is better during times of war than Europe is during peace. It makes Middle Easterners angry – like a teenager is angry at parents because he wants to be independent and dependent at the same time. There is a final group that alleges American imperialism. Never in history has civilization seen a more affluent, leisured, and comfortable class than millions in Western Europe and America. I’m not talking about the people who work from eight to five in the plant in Lansing or those that pick berries all day. There are a large number of highly sophisticated, highly informed, and intellectual people who understand that they are well off. However, they do not believe they are well off because of the unique U.S. system that gives chemotherapy and A.I.D.S. drugs to the world, but they are angry at the imagined U.S. system that has taken something from someone else. They are angry in a boutique way. They do not put their children in public schools or do anything to step
down from their wealth. In the abstract, they criticize the U.S. because it brings to them great psychological relief at little cost. Remember that when one claims the U.S. is a pernicious empire, they are saying nothing about the U.S. and everything about themselves.
Arianna Huffington: There is nothing worse than a great mind like Mr. Hanson’s stuck with a bad idea. I have done research on Mr. Hanson’s previous writings and I came across an amazing interview Mr. Hanson gave before 9/11. This is important because after 9/11 the ideas of empire and republic have been re-focused. Mr. Hanson answered the following question prior to 9/11 on N.P.R: “The words empire and hegemony are Latin and Greek words. Does the U.S. today bear any recognition to an empire?” Mr. Hanson’s reply was, “Yes, the words empire and hegemony refer to the ability to exercise power beyond one’s borders.” All that Mr. Hanson has said about McDonald’s, popular culture, the fact that we don’t have imperial literature, and Donald Rumsfeld saying “stuff happens” – a postmodernistic defense secretary telling us he can’t know anything because everything is so complex – goes against what he previously said. Mr. Hanson went further; he said another characteristic of an empire which America has is the “militaristic culture with people who are not necessarily from the same class or share the same values as the elites who order and plan their lives for them.”
Do we not see that in Iraq now? The class of non-elites is in Iraq fighting the war for the elites. This is a characteristic of an empire: people making decisions when they do not have skin in the game. They do not have their children, grandchildren, or themselves there, yet they decide who is to die in a foreign country that poses no immediate threat to U.S. security. This is the heart of my argument. We are left with one reason as to why the U.S. is in Iraq which many people on [Dr. Hanson’s] side of the fence do not want to hear. After 9/11, there was a “Project for a New American Century” with which many neo-cons found a home. Neo-cons have consistently sought “over-throwing Saddam Hussein, installing a friendly government in Baghdad, setting up a permanent military and political presence in Iraq, and dominating all interests in the region including securing oil supplies and building permanent bases.” Today, the neo-cons’ wishes have come true; the U.S. is building 12-14 permanent military bases in Iraq. All of this has nothing to do with the security of the U.S. This is a tragic imperial adventure that was planned before 9/11. 9/11 was merely an excuse to convince the American public that the U.S. has justification to attack Iraq. We must now look at the explanations that led us into Iraq. The question of empire has to do with Iraq – not North Korea, not outsourcing, not globalization. It has to do with the most tragic decision of the U.S. to invade a country does not present a threat to U.S. security. The first explanation was Saddam Hussein’s involvement with the events on 9/11. This argument was repeated many times and during the election a poll showed that over 40% of Americans believed it to be a lie. The second explanation involved accusations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.). Condoleezza Rice was talking
about mushroom clouds. Colin Powell was talking about aluminum tubes used for W.M.D. manufacture. Americans heard all this rhetoric which was used, as Paul Wolfowitz admitted, as the easiest way to convince the public of the legitimacy of invasion. American people want to mind their own business. This goes back to the earliest days of U.S. nationhood. U.S. D.N.A. is not imperial. It is an ideological neo-con class that has brought about the reality America is now facing. Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind, is one of the greatest philosophers of the conservative movement. There is no question that Mr. Kirk and many other conservatives would be completely against the Iraq war. The essence of Kirk is prudence and there is nothing more imprudent than pursuing an unnecessary war. An unnecessary war is not only imprudent, but it is the height of immorality. When we go down the list of why the U.S. is in Iraq, democratizing the region is now the default explanation. It was never mentioned before the U.S. invaded. At the time of invasion, Americans were expecting to be met as liberators; it was going to be easy. Look at what the U.S. is facing now: the terrible loss of American life, the mutilated men and women returning from Iraq unable to lead a normal life, 300 billion dollars gone, and most importantly, compromised U.S. security. These are the ultimate crimes of an empire. Remember when the president said he was going to capture Osama bin Laden dead or alive? What happened to him? Is it not a tremendous failure of this administration to not capture the man who masterminded 9/11? If one looks at the resources the U.S. has spent in Iraq, the resources used to secure the homeland, and the
decision to pursue terror in Iraq, one will see the mistakes. Indeed, Hussein was a despicable despot that should have been removed from office. And I can give a long list of despicable despots that should also be removed. Removing despicable despots from power is not the responsibility of the U.S. Compare the U.S.’s imperial adventure with the Athenian imperial adventure. The Sicilian expedition to Athens’ rival took place in 415 B.C. Thucydides describes the expedition with a chilling resemblance to the U.S. expedition to Iraq. The expedition was the end of Athens. And unless more rational minds prevail, the U.S. may share the same fate. Bush intended to “show our enemies” the power and resolve of the U.S. Do you think America’s enemies are quaking when they look at the disaster that is Iraq? Does the U.S. not appear more vulnerable now than before Iraq? The debate about the U.S. Empire in Iraq has nothing to do with partisan politics. The most interesting voices objecting to U.S. involvement in Iraq are conservative! Senator Jack Hagan said that the U.S. is less safe because it invaded Iraq. Congressman Walter Jones, the conservative supporter of the Iraq war and the one who re-named “French-fries” “freedom fries,” now supports the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. To voice his desire, he co-authored a book detailing an exit-strategy with Senator Lynn Woolsey. I can give a long list of democratic leaders that are displaying the timidity, spinelessness, and cowardice that has turned the Democratic Party into a minority party. For example, when Judy Woodruff was interviewing Hillary Clinton, she asked the Senator about an exit strategy. Clinton’s reply: “I don’t feel comfortable with an exit strategy.” This is how terrified democrats are to speak the truth to the American public.
I have a litmus test for politicians: a democrat who speaks a clear sentence regarding Iraq. My response to Hillary Clinton is, “If you are not comfortable with an exit strategy, would you step out of the way and point to someone who is?” Young men and women are dying in Iraq; they are dying because U.S. leaders are not comfortable with an exit strategy. Do you want more evidence that America is indeed an empire in Iraq? Iraqi president Talabani suggested pulling U.S. troops out now. By the end of the month, 4050 thousand troops could be back in the States. Despite his comments, he received a spanking from the imperial powers in Washington D.C. At a press conference in the White House, President Bush repeated his unwillingness to set a date for troop removal because it will embolden U.S. enemies – the same shallow rhetoric we’ve been hearing for years. Talabani said he would not act without approval from the U.S. That is not a characteristic of a free democracy. The Iraqis know it, and Americans know it. The Iraqi constitution is scheduled to be voted on by the Iraqi public. This constitution excludes Iraqi Sunnis and makes Ahmed Chalabi happy – it will therefore divide Iraq, not unite. Is this the constitution of a free democratic society? Russell Kirk was wary to have the U.S. democratize other countries that do not share a history with the U.S., nor share her principles. A country can not use their military to democratize other nations; this is a fundamental error that the U.S. is experiencing in Iraq. Let us return to the founding of the U.S. John Quincy Adams and George Washington made it clear the U.S. is not to be involved in foreign entanglements. To quote Adams, “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. America is the
well-wisher for the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator of only her own.” If only democratic leaders realized the power of this message. It is a message that would bring red and blue states together. Every American knows that U.S. troops in Iraq do not make their family safer or their lives easier. To paraphrase Toynbee: any autopsy of history will show us that empires in the end commit suicide. The decision to invade Iraq was indeed suicide. And now, the American people are waking up – ahead of their leaders. 60% of Americans object to the war. Although the Democrats have Senator Russ Feingold and the republicans have Senator Hagan and Congressmen Walter Jones and Ron Paul, the leadership of both political parties is still in a state of absolute delusion about Iraq. The president continues to say Americans must stay the course. What is sane about “staying the course” when the result is going over a cliff? The democratic leaders are so terrified about being “soft” on terror that they are incapable of seeing what an incredible opportunity it is for them to redefine national security – to redefine in terms of protecting the homeland and making the U.S. safe and secure. This is not an anti-war movement that says, “Love, not war.” This is not an antiwar movement that even focuses on peace, not war. This is a movement that focuses on security for the U.S: security that has been compromised by the U.S.’s imperial adventure. Iraq is now, as the C.I.A. has confirmed with solid facts, a breeding ground for terrorism. The adventure has united the Muslim world against the U.S. in a way Osama bin Laden could only dream of. As we saw in New Orleans, the U.S. is not ready for a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. The public health system is in shambles and the U.S.’s ability to respond
at the federal, state, and local levels is in shambles. Cronies are another characteristic of an empire. Who was the head of F.E.M.A.? The head of F.E.M.A. was an Arabian horse expert who happened to be a friend of the president’s. What is going on in Iraq today? There is an incredible misallocation of resources in Iraq. The U.S. cannot even get a Truman-style committee going: a committee that will evaluate how resources are being spent. Whether one is for or against the war, everyone should be for the appropriate use of resources. There is nine billion dollars unaccounted for. There are 70 criminal investigations pending regarding the use of tax-payer dollars. Halliburton has been found guilty again and again, yet they are still receiving more money to reconstruct Iraq. We all can see what a great job they are doing reconstructing Iraq. They are now going to reconstruct New Orleans. These are more blatant examples of cronies and a lack of accountability, which is the heart of a functioning republic. The president finally admitted responsibility, like a child taking his medicine, because his cabinet has said: You must say something! The American public thinks you are responsible; you have to own up to it. Karl Rove uses different talking points; he moves from being clueless to taking responsibility. He talks about how Americans used to party in New Orleans immediately after the disaster – this is not the right talking point after a disaster. Your mother says it must be nice for these underprivileged people to have something nicer in the Houston Astrodome. This is not a smart move. Moving from being clueless to taking responsibility is a way they deal with the disasters in Iraq and New Orleans. These are the traits of an empire: the combination of hubris, and incompetence. The U.S. may not have Kipling, but it has an enormous amount of spin. Spinning is the
equivalent of all the great imperial poems we wish we had, but do not. Instead we have the vice-president telling us that we are in the last throws of the insurgency, just as it is growing stronger. We have the secretary of defense sounding increasingly postmodernist in the press conferences, saying, everything is so complex with Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds; how can we know what is going on? The only thing the secretary of defense seems to know unambiguously is that the U.S. is winning. It is time for the American public and you, sitting in the room whether you are democrat or republican, to tell the truth. There is nothing more important; there is no greater antidote to the imperial adventure than telling the truth.
Victor Davis Hanson: I thought we were talking about empire, but I am more than happy to attack Iraq for my rebuttal. I was struck by your quote of my interview on N.P.R because it proves the point I made today; the only characteristic that is remotely connected with empire is that we influence people abroad. I gave many reasons that defined the U.S. not as an imperial power, but as powerful. Almost everything Arianna said was unfortunately inaccurate. How would you know if the losses are inordinate in Iraq? Look at the 2000 that have died. Is it a crosssection of the U.S.’s volunteer army? 6% of those that have died are African-American and 10% of the population is African-American. 9% of those that died in Iraq are Latino and 11% of the population is Latino. 29% of the population graduates high-school in a poverty zone and 30% of those that have died are from a poverty zone. But, the disproportionately high loss is middle-class, white, male officers – 70% of all the dead
and 28% from the Marine Corps. Although Arianna is right that 34% of the force in Iraq is National Guard, only 16% have lost their lives. I guess there was a government conspiracy to have middle-class white males with college diplomas die in Iraq. I do not like the September 23, 1998 letter you mentioned, either. I think it was a mistake that people wrote a letter to President Clinton asking before 9/11. I did not sign it. Dick Cheney did not sign it. President Bush did not sign it. Condoleezza Rice did not sign it. None of them did. Why did they not? They ran as realists – they did not want to get involved. That is what Bush said in the election. One thing changed their mind – 9/11. If you take away 9/11, the U.S. would not be in Iraq. Was Iraq about W.M.D.? The U.S. senate on October 11, 2002, voted to authorize a war. They voted for 23 resolutions and only one was about W.M.D. They covered everything from trying to assassinate the president of the U.S., to genocide, to violations of the 1991 accord, to violations of the U.N., and to the destruction of the environment. These were voted in by a majority of 76 senators. If one could read the speeches by John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, one would see that they were quite stirring. Did 9/11 have anything remotely to do with Iraq? The person who organized the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center went directly to Iraq after the attack and he was in Baghdad when the U.S. invaded. Kurdistan, which had a viable system only because of our no-fly zones, had al-Qaeda in it with Saddam Hussein’s approval. An Iraqi intelligence officer, Mr. Shakur, met with people who tried to blow up 11 – yes, 11 airliners before 9/11. When Al-Zarqawi, the architect of the Iraqi resistance today, was wounded, he went to Iraq. It is no accident that Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal (the bin
Ladens of the 1970s) were in Baghdad when the U.S. arrived. The only country that was shooting at U.S. personnel after 9/11 was Iraq. For 12 years, the U.S. had been flying over and occupying two-thirds of Iraqi airspace. General Zinni and Bill Clinton, both critics of the war, bragged in 1998 that they had attacked Iraq and killed 5000 Iraqis. Why? They were worried about W.M.D. W.M.D. was probably wrong, but the U.S. military was not in on a conspiracy to have soldiers wear heavy chemical gear so they would not die if attacked. Mr. Mubarak warned General Myers that W.M.D. might be used. This was a reason not to go in. Nobody thinks that 2000 dead is a tragedy more than me. But I can not think of any war after four years where the U.S. has lost two-thirds of the amount dead than we did in the first minute of this war. Is the U.S. safer? Unlike Europe, Spain, London, and the Middle East, the U.S. has not had another 9/11. Two-thirds of the al-Qaeda leadership is scattered; they are no longer operating. Do not take my word for it; Mr. Musharraf said they have symbolic significance – that was his word. But they were not a real terrorist cadre. Whether you agree with Iraq or not, there have been great changes in the Middle East. I can not think that Mr. Qaddafi would have given up his nuclear commerce had it not been for the fate of Mr. Hussein. I do not think that Mr. Khan of Afghanistan would suddenly out of the blue decide he would no longer traffic nuclear machinery. I do not think the Syrians would have given Lebanon a chance for democracy had they not seen what happened to Hussein. The election in Cairo may have been rigged, but an Arab columnist said there is no going back now in Egypt.
The U.S. has given up the old real politik that says just pump oil, keep out communism, and we will give you a blank check because we have 7000 nuclear weapons pointing at us from the Soviet Union and we cannot afford to be idealistic. That went out the window. People agree that a realist president [Bush], far from being a neo-con and imperialist, did not want to do that. But after 9/11, Bush did it because he saw for the first time that realism was idealism. The way to break the unholy alliance between dictators and terrorists in the Middle East was to offer a third alternative and that is what he did. Saddam Hussein, was he a terrorist like everyone else? Was he an autocrat like everyone else? The world is full of them, as Arianna said. But he was unique; he was sitting on one-fifth of the world’s oil reserves and he had a proven record of translating petrol dollars into W.M.D. He attacked four of his neighbors and he was the only country the U.S. was at de facto war with, if one considers occupying two-thirds of airspace war. Arianna mentioned the Sicilian expedition, the great folly of the Athenians in 415 B.C. It may have resonance to understand Iraq, but one must be careful using this analogy because it will bite you. In the middle of a war, democratic Athens attacked democratic Sicily, which was larger. It would be like the U.S. attacking India right in the middle of the Afghan war. The most ironic thing about the comparison is what Thucydides saw. I do not agree with his estimation, but we should repeat his words. “For all the mistaken calculations of Sicily, it would have worked had people at home not squabbled and fought among each other.” Those were his words, not mine.
We do have an exit strategy. When the constitutional government is established, American troops will come home. That will allow people for the first time to vote and not bow down before dictators and Islamisists. The incident about Mr. Talabani is very important because 67% of Iraqis said they did not want the U.S. to go home. Talabani felt it was upon himself to educate himself about American public opinion and ask Americans, even though the majority disagrees with the war, that the U.S. can leave in two years. He was told by George Bush – told, not ordered, you do not have to say that; we will stand beside you. Talabani changed, but not on the orders of Bush who said, do not make that magnanimous gesture; we are here no matter what. Sunnis are 20% of the population but they have no oil. They do have a history of supporting dictators and fascists like Hussein and Islamisists like Zarqawi. The U.S. in engaged in the most radical and idealistic effort in the history of the country. Whether you like it or not, the U.S. is helping the underprivileged and despised Kurds and Shiites who have no power. Anytime a country takes on a radical, dangerous, and humane undertaking like this, people will be upset, just like the radical plantationists were upset during the civil war. (103.15) As Arianna said, a nation can never bring democracy on the heels of war. Ask the Japanese that. Ask the Italians that. Ask the Germans that. Ask the Argentines that after the Falklands war. I wish it were not so that democracy often follows war. Is it because war is evil? No. It is morally neutral. It is evil if it is used to kill or oppress people. All of the great evils of our society -- slavery, German Nazism, Japanese militarism, Italian fascism, and Soviet totalitarianism – all of them were eliminated by force or the threat of force. As awful as the 20th century was, and it was the most awful in terms of wars for all
of civilization, we must remember that more people died outside of the battlefield: six million during Hitler’s holocaust, 50 million murdered by Mao’s impunity, 30 million killed by Stalin, and a quarter million Milosevic killed. All could be stopped by someone saying, no. Wars are awful but there are worse evils; ask the dead in the concentration camps. Vietnam was raised by Arianna; that is a very good parallel. No, it is not a parallel to Iraq in one sense because the U.S. does not have nuclear powers on the border curtailing options. The Iraqi constitution is light years ahead of what happened in Vietnam. By 1974 most of the objectives were met by the U.S. There was a viable country in the south that could evolve into something like South Korea. But, for a variety of reasons including Watergate and the anti-war movement, the U.S. could not honor its commitment to defend that country via airpower. It was defeated by a North Vietnamese conventional invasion. What followed when the U.S. decided to leave? This is not a good thing to bring up as wisdom to follow. A million boat people. Half a million people were executed. Another half a million were sent to re-education camps. 30 years of totalitarian misery was experienced by the people of Vietnam. What happened elsewhere, when others saw the U.S. not honoring its commitments? Communism took over in Nicaragua. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. There was a holocaust in Cambodia. Hostages were taken in Iran. This was all because the U.S. was seen as unable or unwilling to stand up to its principles of supporting those that wanted more than totalitarianism. Katrina was raised by Arianna as well. This is interesting because for all the rhetoric about global warming, racism, a non-caring U.S., too few troops, one should
compare it to any other natural disaster. 15,000 people were killed in France just three years ago. Nobody responded to them. 200,000 people were killed in a tsunami because they couldn’t even monitor a tidal wave. The aid is still going to them. 40,000 were killed in Iran just two years ago. For all the rhetoric from the media about 10,000 dead and 25,000 body bags, the U.S. is seeing the most generous relief effort in history. We will not see the results of other natural disasters around the world because the U.S. is different; it is compassionate. Nobody wanted to go to Iraq after 9/11. Nobody likes to see Americans killed. By any measure of history, this is something radically different. The U.S. went to Iraq and the price of oil went up, people previously with no chance to vote are now voting, and democratic fervor spread around the globe. How can you call it imperial while criticizing the U.S. for wasting money on lives? If a country is imperial, it is going to act like an empire and do what is in its best interest. By any classical definition, this was in the interest, for once in American history, for Middle Easterners to have a chance of changing the way they lived.
Arianna Huffington: It must be hard when you have all the facts stacked against you and you must create a good argument as to why the U.S. is in Iraq as an imperial adventure when it is not in the best interest for the U.S. to be there. It must be so hard that Victor accused me of mentioning things I never said. I never mentioned Vietnam. Iraq is of course not Vietnam, but it is Vietnam in that the longer the U.S. stays there, the worse the situation will become. No one has suggested moving out tomorrow,
but the suggestion that the U.S. should stay there indefinitely or until the Iraqis take over the country, which could be Ahmed Chalabi’s grandchildren, as being in the best interest of the U.S. is incomprehensible. Victor then mentioned Katrina. The way you mentioned Katrina is staggering. Yes, there were not 10,000 people dead, but there was devastation. The U.S. responded well, and we responded well as individuals. Nobody here is saying anything against the American people or America as a country. This is against the American leadership of both political parties and the way they are acting against our own best interest. We saw the same thing in the Katrina aftermath. We saw what happens when there is not the infrastructure or responsiveness needed to deal with a disaster, whether it is a natural disaster or a terrorist strike, the same factors prevail. This is so unambiguous. We also saw that U.S. security is closely connected with the lives of millions of Americans who are poor, black, and not on the radar screen of the U.S. Read what the public editor wrote in the New York Times on Sunday when he analyzed ten years worth of articles on New Orleans; little mention was given to the state of poverty in New Orleans. This is not about the Bush administration; it is about the Clinton administration and the priorities of the country. To mention the deaths in Iraq and how they are not predominately black is irrelevant. Are there any members of the ruling elite that are represented by the deaths in Iraq? This is the characteristic of an empire that I quoted you [Dr. Hanson] when you were on N.P.R. I am not saying that your explanation is not worthy of your brilliant mind because you said it, it is in black and white, and it was said before 9/11. I know you think realities have changed since 9/11, but you categorically said that a characteristic of
an empire is when there is a category of people making the decisions and another category of people who act out the decisions. And this is unequivocally what is going on in Iraq. The sacrifices are definitely not shared. It is not even shared among the majority of the country. We are not even called to do anything about this war, unlike the Second World War. What have we been called to do besides making tax-cuts permanent? That is the only way you act during war-time: if your survival is at stake. Incidentally, I mentioned Chalabis and his grandchildren and how the grandchildren are the ones who are going to be in charge after the Iraqis finally take over the country. But why is Chalabis the oil minister and the deputy prime minister? Can anyone explain this to me? Victor is a Greek scholar and he knows of the myth of the River Lythe. When people would drink from this river, they would get amnesia. That is what has happened to this country, especially the leadership. And, it has happened to the people because of the role of the media. We see the men who have misguided the C.I.A. and the leadership of this country on what kind of weapons Saddam had. Chalabis is now in charge and he is the one who masterminded the constitution. He was quoted in the New York Times as basically saying, that’s it; the Sunnis can take it or leave it. We cannot dismiss the Sunnis as being Saddam loyalists. We are talking about 20% of the country. Democracies are about protecting the rights of the minorities. They are also about protecting the rights of women, women who will not be protected by this constitution which is going to be based on Islamic law.
I want to say something about the media in the U.S. We would not be where we are and we would not have Victor trying to defend the connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein if the media was doing their job. The media in this country has stopped doing their job a long time ago. There is no question that the New York Times has a huge responsibility with their role in the leading up of the war, with their disgusting reporting by Judy Miller on W.M.D. when she used sources she never double-checked and when she used the administration’s sources to back up the Chalabis sources. When you go back and read the transcripts of Dick Cheney on Meet the Press you will see how he used the New York Times to validate his arguments. It is not me, Dick Cheney said when discussing nuclear weapons, it is the New York Times. His source that gave the information to the New York Times is not known because they are of course anonymous sources. This is the kind of behavior that exists when the U.S. stops operating as a republic. In a republic, there is accountability, responsibility, and putting the public interest first. There is not a sense of commonwealth; there is not a sense of a sacrifice that is shared, and there is the sense of a media that is kowtowing to power instead of speaking the truth. As I have made myself clear, I am not here to defend democratic leaders. They are just as responsible because with the absence of a loyal opposition, those with the wrong ideas can prevail. That is why we have a loyal opposition in the U.S: to oppose. And they failed to oppose. They did it with the most crass and calculating instincts. In 2002 you can read Daschle and Gephardt saying, let’s just vote for the war so we can win in 2002 by concentrating on domestic issues. And guess what? They failed
miserably in 2002. In 2004 we saw all kinds of foreign policy experts advising John Kerry to not put in the daylight the president’s stance on terror, because it would make him look soft on terror: he should go ahead and focus on domestic issues. There is one truth in post 9/11 America. Every election from now on is going to be about national security. Because the American people know that if they are not safe and secure, nothing else matters as much. Ultimately, the voter will vote on the party that makes them feel most secure. The democrats must understand this. They cannot get away with being primarily a domestic policy party. They have to become the party that really finds national security not based on imperial adventure, but finds it in our selfinterest, safety, security, and the protection of those we love. This ultimately is the major dilemma that the U.S. is facing. It is very clear and without any doubt that this is the greatest turning point and the greatest moral crisis. I say this with much love for this country as an immigrant and an American. I do not say it with any of the anti-American feelings that Victor kept quoting: the straw-man we put up when our argument is weak – that is not what this is about. Because I love America, I see the danger it is facing. Because I love America, I encourage those who want to put the interest of America above a political party to keep speaking out because so much is at stake.
Gleaves Whitney: Ms. Huffington, do you have a question for Dr. Hanson?
Arianna Huffington:
Yes, I have many. One of my questions has to do with the famous “fly-paper” theory. We have heard the president time and time again say, we are fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them over here. Because Tony Blair was as much a part of the Iraq war as President Bush, the London bombings show that this theory is preposterous. Do you [Dr. Hanson] agree?
Victor Davis Hanson: It proved just the opposite of what you are insinuating because polls of Muslims in London, unlike Muslims in the U.S., say that 30% of them approved of the bombings. You will not find that in America. What the London bombings showed us is that London has failed to assimilate people along the American model. I suppose that if 50,000 people from different nations had been killed or arrested in Iraq, then yes, it has made the U.S. more secure. When you put “decon trays” in your garage, I think the rats came out and died and you think they came out of thin air. That’s the difference. They came from somewhere and I do not think someone got up at ten o’clock in the morning and said I want to kill Americans. They had a predisposition, they met the American military in Iraq, and they were defeated. This is making the U.S. more secure. After 9/11 people predicted an entire series of attacks. What has happened? The U.S. has arrested over 500 people in the homeland and radically changed Americans who have no tolerance for radical Islam, the Madrassa, and the hatred that is spewed. The U.S. has taken out the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and terrorists abroad. That is why the U.S. has not been attacked. Britain has a lot to learn and they are catching up.
Arianna Huffington: Not even the secretary of defense would agree with you. He said in one of his briefings, “We still do not know if we are creating more terrorists than we are killing.” That is the heart of it. To say that all these people were intending to become terrorists instead of saying that these people are provoked by the presence of the U.S. military in their country is ridiculous. This is not a matter of opinion. There is no question that there was not the number of terrorists and radical Islamists that are there in Iraq now. Equally important is the fact that this is a war about hearts and minds and not just about weapons. There is no question that the feeling towards America has dramatically changed since the U.S. invaded Iraq. You see this all around the globe, particularly in the Islamic world, where the breeding ground for terrorists is.
Victor Davis Hanson: I explained in my opening statement that this is wrong. Osama bin Laden’s popularity has been going down and the U.S. is very popular with India and Japan. The Europeans that ran on anti-American platforms like Schroeder and Chirac are in deep political trouble. People in Europe want closer ties than ever before and we have seen radical changes. The Lebanese are happy to get the Syrians out. People are happy Libya does not have nuclear weapons. People are happy that Pakistan has given up its nuclear arsenal. People are happy that America is pushing Mubarak to have elections. 67% of Iraqis do not want the U.S. to leave. They want to have a chance. I have a question for you. You suggested you have insight as to what is wrong with the U.S; insight that the New York Times and American people do not. This war was
not dreamed up by some “Project for the New American Century.” The U.S. had two national elections. That is not what empires do. George Bush went to the people in 2002 and they had a national congressional election where he gained seats – this was never heard of. The U.S. had a presidential election where all these issues were aired. The U.S. has a senate that anytime it wants to it can cut off all funds – it can be filibustered by an opposition. The U.S. has a supreme court and this matter is adjudicated in the courts. The U.S. also has a free press. You may think that this is an imperial, anti-democratic war but the people so far have expressed a different view. If the public changes its mind, the U.S. will not be in Iraq. That is why the U.S. is a republic, not an empire. Arianna Huffington: I do not know why you are quoting meaningless Iraqi polls and not quoting American polls. You say the people are not against the war? Over 60% in every poll taken are against the war! George Bush got elected? Absolutely! I blame John Kerry and the democrats for his election. John Kerry could not speak one straight sentence on Iraq. I wanted him to win. I understand why people created a group called “John Kerry haters for John Kerry.” People wanted so much for him to win because they wanted Bush out. They could not understand, “I voted for the 82nd bill before I voted against it.” The “Grand Canyon” statement that buried his campaign: “Even if I had known what I know now, that there were no W.M.D. in Iraq I would have still voted for the war in Iraq.” That was the end of him; of course people did not vote for him! They would rather vote for someone who sounds like he knows what he is talking about – even though he does not -- than someone who consistently does not know what he is talking about.
This is the key issue of our time; every election will be based on national security and the democrats had better “get their act together.”
Victor Davis Hanson: [Missing Text] are now against it, but as soon as the U.S. had the Lebanese vote on it, suddenly 52% said they were not against it. And if the Iraqi constitution goes through and Saddam Hussein is put on trial, there will be more developments and Americans will stop dying. But, Americans cannot run a foreign policy based on three week polls. If you look at the American people on December 5, no one wanted to get involved to save England. But after December 7, everybody did. That is what polls do; they reflect the pulse of the battlefield. What statesmen do is look at the long-term interest of their country and the world at large and they make decisions based on reason and not popularity at any given moment as it is deciphered through a popular media that is hostile from the beginning to this war.
Arianna Huffington: I have co-founded the “Partnership for a Poll-Free America.” There are very few leaders in the U.S. that dislike polls as much as I do. There has been a crisis of leadership in the U.S. and a lack of leadership on this issue with the democrats -- I have made this very clear. What I am saying is that the fact that majority opinion is changing is unequivocal. It is not just a matter of polls; it is anecdotal and unequivocal. It is a factor right now that shows why we are beginning to see Americans making up their own minds and not just listening to their leaders. They
are looking at the facts, their interests, security, and safety. That is why I believe the American people will once again lead and the leaders will follow, as it has happened at many great moments of progress in the U.S.
Gleaves Whitney: We will now have questions from the audience.
Question one: During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush said that he would not endeavor in nationbuilding. Is there a difference between imperialism and nation-building?
Victor Davis Hanson: An imperial power would have gone to Iraq, “taken out” Saddam Hussein, installed 500,000 troops, and gotten its hands on one-fifth of the world’s oil. A republican country like the U.S. would have spent 300 billion of its own money, sacrifice treasure for a democratic experiment, and seen oil go from $30 to $70 a barrel.
Question one response: I misspoke. I meant an empire. Because as you are well aware, Mr. Bush was selected five to four in our democratic society and I meant to say empire.
Victor Davis Hanson:
You did say empire. I just explained this. That is what the U.S. has done: sacrifice treasure after W.W.II in Japan, Germany, and Italy. Americans, at great cost to the U.S., are trying to give Middle Easterners a chance to break this pernicious cycle of Islamic theocracy and dictatorship. Brave Americans went over there – the bravest people this civilization has produced. They know what they are fighting for; they’re fighting for a chance for these people to be free and stop this cycle of terror. They don’t want oil because the price has gone up and they don’t want Iraq, they want to come home as soon as possible. That’s called nation-building.
Arianna Huffington: If the goal from the beginning was to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, why didn’t the U.S. say that to the American people before it invaded Iraq?
Victor Davis Hanson: The U.S. did. Whatever you want to think about Iraq, nobody thought that when Saddam went away that the U.S. was going to put in an American dictatorship. That was the criticism. What I cannot figure out from the left is that they first criticize the U.S. for going into Iraq and being imperial and then they criticize the U.S. for being naïvely idealistic to bring democracy to such a people. That is what you said: how do you bring Democracy to a people with no history of it? That’s idealism. You cannot have it both ways; you cannot say the U.S. is cynical realpolitik and naïve buffoons that want to do something that cannot be done.
Arianna Huffington: What I am saying is that the U.S. is being both hubristic and incompetent. That is a lethal combination. We are seeing it again and again. As Paul Wolfowitz said unequivocally, the U.S. picked the W.M.D. explanation because it was the easiest to sell to the American people. Bringing democracy to Iraq was the fourth explanation as to why the U.S. is there. The American people are starting to see that. Paul Wolfowitz said the supplies of oil in Iraq were going to pay for this adventure. That fact that it has not is proof of incompetence. It is not a fact that the U.S. is not an imperial power; it is a fact that the U.S. is an incompetent imperial power.
Question two: I come from a military family. My son’s classmate was the first person of his class to be killed in action. He died in the World Trade Center. We have a local person by the name of Eric Price who is the head of Blackwater. One of the things that is very disturbing is the involvement of mercenaries, including foreign nationals, in the war in Iraq and now, surprisingly and alarmingly, in New Orleans. These mercenaries have been acting in the protection of corporate interests. Do you, Ms. Huffington, find the use of mercenaries in Iraq and New Orleans acceptable?
Arianna Huffington: You are bringing up one of the major problems we are facing. Recruitment numbers are down for the first time in five years. The U.S. does not have the Army it needs to finish the job in Iraq or the National Guard needed to help in New Orleans. The
U.S. is forced to use mercenaries that are being paid an enormous amount of money. I was talking to Congressman Ed Markey about the amount of money paid to mercenaries in Iraq. At the same time, some of the U.S.’s best officers are not re-enlisting, the National Guard is being depleted, and enlistments are not at the same numbers they were before. If this dream of bringing democracy to the Middle East is going to continue at U.S. expense, a solution is needed. Even if the U.S. wanted to invade Syria, Iran, or any other country, it would not have the resources. It doesn’t even have the resources in New Orleans when it comes to the military and National Guard. That is the tragedy; we have decimated the greatest military in the world because of this disastrous war.
Question two response: Aren’t mercenaries a trademark of imperialism?
Arianna Huffington: It is another trademark of imperialism, absolutely.
Victor Davis Hanson: The use of mercenaries started during the Clinton administration because onethird of the conventional and strategic air forces, marines, and navy were cut. It was a disastrous decision but a long standing part of American policy to cut the military and outsource jobs. That is what was done. It is part of the idea to put as few troops as possible in Iraq because of the Vietnam syndrome. In 1965 the U.S. had 500,000 troops
in Vietnam and the American phonebook in Saigon weighed 11 pounds. People thought, we don’t want to have a big foot-print this time. Whatever the U.S. does, there is going to be a criticism. Too few troops and the U.S. is understaffed and if there are too many, the U.S. has too big of a foot-print. It is a dangerous precedent but it did not start in this war. It started in the early 90s when the decision was made by a democratic Clinton and a republican congress to cut the military drastically at the end of the Cold War. It was a strategic mistake.
Arianna Huffington: Victor, stop looking at the world in terms of right, left, democrat, and republican terms if you want to understand what is happening and what those of us who say this is an imperial adventure are saying. Every time someone makes a valid argument, you counter it by saying the democrats did it! So what? We are not here to defend democrats. We are not here to defend any particular group. We are here to defend what is right for the United States of America. If you don’t stop looking through the world in this obsolete prism of right, left, democrat and republic, you will never be able to face the facts as they are on the ground. You will keep repeating the same clichés about what democrats are supposed to want and what republicans are supposed to want. I tried to make it very clear that the most interesting and powerful voices against the war and imperial adventure in Iraq are republicans: like Jack Hagan, like Walter Jones, like Bill Buckley, like Pat Buchanan -- hardly the kind of people you would identify with the isolationist left.
Victor Davis Hanson: I’ve tried to refrain from ad hominem attacks. I am not on Crossfire. I am not just someone with these clichés. You did not listen to me. It is very important to listen. Let me finish. I just said that the use of contractors is pernicious and that it took place in the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, and in a republican and democratic congress. They all approved of the cuts. Do not suggest I am picking on the democrats. I made a statement anyone could hear. It is easy to say your opponent is being partisan; you have said it 500 times. Question three: This is for Dr. Hanson. Are you at least a little bothered that the U.S. was "lied" into a war?
Victor Davis Hanson: I think the administration made, and I wrote at the time, a strategic mistake because they had a resolution by congress that outlined 23 counts of violations. It was bipartisan and the administration decided to privilege the one consensus about W.M.D. that was not that important. Iraq had violated the 1991 accords and that war cost the U.S. 350,000 sorties. Any time an American plane did not fly the Kurds were going to be attacked and they had already suffered from genocide. If you go back and read the literature when the senate voted on those 23 counts, the criticism of the Bush administration was that they were using a shotgun approach. They were throwing anything they could about going to Iraq to see what would stick.
We have this problem in America where whatever the U.S. does, there is criticism. If the administration concentrated on one, then it is the false one; Bush lied and thousands died. If you go to the real reasons, the 23 counts that bi-partisan people of all political persuasions approved of, then suddenly the U.S. is throwing everything but the kitchen sink. You cannot win.
Arianna Huffington: You cannot win when you do not have the facts on your side. Victor, you are not hearing what I’m saying. I did not accuse you of being partisan. On the contrary, I said that the fact that democrats also did something wrong does not make it right. In the same way, to say the administration privileged one consensus that the American public would agree on, does not get away from the fact that they chose the presence of W.M.D. because as Paul Wolfowitz said, it is the easiest way to sell the war. They were successful at manipulating the American public. But now the facts are so horrendous and impossible to spin away. The American public is waking up and speaking out. That is the dramatic shift that has happened.
Question four: The focus of the debate has been military imperialism. What about corporate imperialism? How would you differentiate the relationship between two countries, Cuba and China with America?
Victor Davis Hanson:
Everyone is worried about corporations. I am speaking as someone who saw everyone from my neighborhood in central California including by brother and cousin declare bankruptcy as small farmers because they could not compete with corporate agribusiness. Everyone is concerned but by the same token, corporations are morally neutral; they represent a system of delivering goods and services quickly. In my dressing-room were grapes; grapes are not grown here and I cannot get them from my farm. Corporations do that. Everything in this area from the lights to the trucks to the gasoline is a product of a system. It is incumbent upon us to watch it all the time and insist we don’t have a Kofi Annan or a Ken Ley. That is in the hearts of man. The system is there and it is incumbent upon us to watch it. As far as Cuba and China goes, it is clear that the U.S. has a per capita income 25 times higher than Cuba, the Chinese have seen this, abandoned Mao’s failed dream that gave them poverty and 50 million butchered, and followed the American model.
Arianna Huffington: The Chinese haven’t exactly followed the American model; they are still butchering their people. The U.S. should not forget that as it brings China into trade negotiations and the W.T.O. They are continuing to kill people for their religious beliefs. The economic model is not separate from the moral model on which it a country is based. For you [Dr. Hanson] to say that corporations are morally neutral is to ignore what is happening with Wal-Mart, a morally-neutral corporation that is being sued in multiple states for sexual harassment of women, that locks up employees at night, and refuses to pay health-care costs. A system that allows that kind of behavior is an
indictment on that political system. Campaign contributions and lobbyists that allow this with Wal-Mart and Halliburton in Iraq are not morally neutral. There is nothing morally neutral about overcharging the American military for mirrors they did not deliver in Iraq. That has happened with Halliburton. I don’t know about you, but I would like to have a “three strikes and you’re out rule” when it comes to corporate behavior. The U.S. does not, however. It should not allow government contracts to go to corporations that are not behaving in a moral way consistent with the principles of the U.S.
Victor Davis Hanson: You just reiterated what I said. The jet that got you here and the hotel you’ll stay in tonight are corporate chains. You’ll enjoy them and hope people will monitor them so you continue to get that same honest service. When they don’t, we criticize them. The boutique criticism of “corporations are bad” makes it incumbent on you to not partake in them. They are a system that requires them to be scrutinized. But inherently they do a lot of good; they got us here tonight and they will get us home.