The undoubted foul-ups of history

Carol Iannone writes:

Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote at NRO of certain military endeavors of the past that historians still cannot agree on as to what happened and why and how and to what effect. But are there not certain military endeavors that all historians agree were mistakes? These come to mind:

• Napoleon’s invasion of Russia
  
• Pickett’s Charge
  
• Hitler’s invasion of Russia

More controversial perhaps:

• The “Black Hawk Down” action, known as the Battle of Mogadishu.

The obtuse general who ordered this said it might have succeeded if the Army Rangers had left their dead and wounded behind. But since the Rangers (like the Marines, I believe) have it as sacred not to leave their fallen, this general ordered something impossible for his men to execute.

And another:

• The invasion of Iraq with belief that once Saddam was down, the natural desire and capacity for freedom on the part of the Iraqis would immediately result in the formation of a liberal democracy without any help from us

LA replies:

I haven’t read the article, but is it possible that Hanson, like a postmodern liberal, is adopting an “indeterminacy” position vis a vis what went wrong in past military campaigns so as to prevent clear judgment from being rendered on the Iraq invasion and occupation?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 09, 2008 02:11 AM | Send