What do you think?
Rate this book
Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq
In his acclaimed collection An Autumn of War, the scholar and military historian Victor Davis Hanson expressed powerful and provocative views of September 11 and the ensuing war in Afghanistan. Now, in these challenging new essays, he examines the world�s ongoing war on terrorism, from America to Iraq, from Europe to Israel, and beyond.
In direct language, Hanson portrays an America making progress against Islamic fundamentalism but hampered by the self-hatred of elite academics at home and the cynical self-interest of allies abroad. He sees a new and urgent struggle of evil against good, one that can fail only if �we convince ourselves that our enemies fight because of something we, rather than they, did.�
Whether it�s a clear-cut defense of Israel as a secular democracy, a denunciation of how the U.N. undermines the U.S., a plea to drastically alter our alliance with Saudi Arabia, or a perception that postwar Iraq is reaching a dangerous tipping point, Hanson�s arguments have the shock of candor and the fire of conviction.
In direct language, Hanson portrays an America making progress against Islamic fundamentalism but hampered by the self-hatred of elite academics at home and the cynical self-interest of allies abroad. He sees a new and urgent struggle of evil against good, one that can fail only if �we convince ourselves that our enemies fight because of something we, rather than they, did.�
Whether it�s a clear-cut defense of Israel as a secular democracy, a denunciation of how the U.N. undermines the U.S., a plea to drastically alter our alliance with Saudi Arabia, or a perception that postwar Iraq is reaching a dangerous tipping point, Hanson�s arguments have the shock of candor and the fire of conviction.
282 pages, Paperback
First published February 10, 2004
18 people are currently reading
221 people want to read
About the author
Victor Davis Hanson
85 books1,191 followersVictor Davis Hanson was educated at the University of California, Santa Cruz (BA, Classics, 1975), the American School of Classical Studies (1978-79) and received his Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford University in 1980. He lives and works with his family on their forty-acre tree and vine farm near Selma, California, where he was born in 1953.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
October 13, 2014
I always find it interesting to read with the benefit of passed time those writings labeled, current affairs. Anyone who predicts the future is bound to be wrong a large percentage of the time. This does not excuse such incorrect forecasts, but it does speak to our expectations of experts and talking heads. We expect them to nearly always be right. When the topic is politically charged, and cross-cultural morality is at play, we revel and dance on the graves of failed prognostication. It is with this in mind that I read this collection of hawkish writings by Victor Davis Hanson – a scholar of classical military history – regarding the events of the early Bush administration.
Most Americans would agree that 9/11 exposed terrorists for what they are – murderers and thugs. “Islamic fundamentalism has proved not ascendant but static, morally repugnant—and the worst plague upon the Arab world since the Crusades. By lurking in the shadows and killing incrementally through stealth, the vampirish terrorists garnered bribes and subsidies through threats and bombs; but, pale and wrinkled in the daylight after 9/11, they prove only ghoulish, not fearsome.” (3) However, Hanson clearly misunderstands that American understanding is not necessarily world understanding. “And the ultimate consequence of the attacks of September 11 will not merely be the destruction of al Qaeda but also complete repudiation of the Taliban, the Iranian mullocracy, the plague of the Pakistani madrasahs, and any other would-be fundamentalist paradise on earth.” (4) Clearly this is incorrect. The Taliban is resurgent. Al Qaeda has survived rather than thrived, but its amoral disciples have grown in power in the ashes of Bush/Obama policy in the Middle East. Why is this the case?
Hanson attributes, in general, the lack of success in the Middle East to the absence of democratic institutions. “True, the so-called masses of the Middle East have grounds for redress—who wouldn’t without elections, free speech, sexual equality, religious tolerance, or the rule of law? But their want arises largely from self-created failures and runs the gamut of tribalism, corruption, fanaticism, and frequent apartheid of women and non-Muslims—not a lack of dollars and euros. The depressing ruins that are now a large part of Kabul, Beirut, and Cairo, or the moral black holes of Teheran, Riyadh, Damascus, and Baghdad were the dividends of indigenous Middle Eastern genius, not of outside Western machinations. Promoting democracy, not handing out food, practicing appeasement, or tolerating suicide bombing, will do far more for the disenfranchised on the West Bank. Instead in the therapeutic thinking of Senator Murray war arises only from material need. Thus, lend a helping hand and offer a few billion, and—presto!—logically millions should love us. Stalin’s ruined postwar Russia, however, did not appreciate American forbearance in Eastern Europe or offers of billions of dollars in Marshall Plan money. Just as likely, it saw such conciliatory outreach as either stupidity or weakness—if not the laxity of a Western power overly worried about its own sense of morality.” (17) I would tend to agree that money will not on its own solve the problem of extremism. While poverty may provide fertile ground for the disenfranchised to be swayed my hate mongers and terrorists, I do not think it is the root cause. It remains to be seen, however, whether democracy on its own solves the problem. There are many instances of democracies who still have terrorists in their midst. Any minority, if their rights are not respected, could resort to violence. So to are many examples where impurely democratic countries have been able to establish peaceful cultures and productive peoples – Singapore being a great example. Forcing a country to eliminate corruption, establish democratic institutions, control the period of transition to such institutions – these are some of the principles of the Marshall Plan. It was highly successful. It also required a lasting commitment supported by the world, as well as the American people and government. These things have never been present in either the Bush or Obama administrations.
Who is to blame? Hanson, in true American fashion, blames ourselves. This is also and American tradition. As a conservative, he blames liberal thinking and institutions. “There is a postmodern amorality afloat—the dividend of years of an American educational system in which historical ignorance, cultural relativism, and well-intentioned theory, in place of cold facts, has reigned. We see the sad results everywhere in the current discussions of the Middle East and our own war on terror.” (23) I agree that there is a postmodern amorality afloat. I think it is highly over-simplistic to blame ourselves, and to blame our educational system and members of the Democratic party. A valid criticism does not equate to a root cause.
Ultimately, as we watch the Taliban continue to reassert control in Afghanistan, and we watch ISIS grow in both Syria and Iraq while Egypt continues to founder in the chaos after the Arab spring, Hanson’s neo-conservative predictions have proven false. “Taking on all at once Germany, Japan, and Italy—diverse enemies all—did not require the weeding out of all the fascists and their supporters in Mexico, Argentina, Eastern Europe, and the Arab world. Instead, those in jackboots and armbands worldwide quietly stowed all their emblems away as organized fascism died on the vine once the roots were torn out in Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo. So, too, will the terrorists, once their sanctuaries and capital shrivel up—as is happening as we speak.” (206) Maybe there was a chance of success, and the Bush and/or Obama administrations blew that chance. Maybe there was never really a chance of success with the initial approach undertaken by the Bush administration. I would suspect that Hanson, in retrospect, would criticize the early withdrawal of troops from Iraq. There is likely merit in this criticism. There is also merit in the criticism that the Bush administration never had a plan for the peace, and its hawkish policy towards the states of Syria and Iran weren’t likely to succeed.
Most Americans would agree that 9/11 exposed terrorists for what they are – murderers and thugs. “Islamic fundamentalism has proved not ascendant but static, morally repugnant—and the worst plague upon the Arab world since the Crusades. By lurking in the shadows and killing incrementally through stealth, the vampirish terrorists garnered bribes and subsidies through threats and bombs; but, pale and wrinkled in the daylight after 9/11, they prove only ghoulish, not fearsome.” (3) However, Hanson clearly misunderstands that American understanding is not necessarily world understanding. “And the ultimate consequence of the attacks of September 11 will not merely be the destruction of al Qaeda but also complete repudiation of the Taliban, the Iranian mullocracy, the plague of the Pakistani madrasahs, and any other would-be fundamentalist paradise on earth.” (4) Clearly this is incorrect. The Taliban is resurgent. Al Qaeda has survived rather than thrived, but its amoral disciples have grown in power in the ashes of Bush/Obama policy in the Middle East. Why is this the case?
Hanson attributes, in general, the lack of success in the Middle East to the absence of democratic institutions. “True, the so-called masses of the Middle East have grounds for redress—who wouldn’t without elections, free speech, sexual equality, religious tolerance, or the rule of law? But their want arises largely from self-created failures and runs the gamut of tribalism, corruption, fanaticism, and frequent apartheid of women and non-Muslims—not a lack of dollars and euros. The depressing ruins that are now a large part of Kabul, Beirut, and Cairo, or the moral black holes of Teheran, Riyadh, Damascus, and Baghdad were the dividends of indigenous Middle Eastern genius, not of outside Western machinations. Promoting democracy, not handing out food, practicing appeasement, or tolerating suicide bombing, will do far more for the disenfranchised on the West Bank. Instead in the therapeutic thinking of Senator Murray war arises only from material need. Thus, lend a helping hand and offer a few billion, and—presto!—logically millions should love us. Stalin’s ruined postwar Russia, however, did not appreciate American forbearance in Eastern Europe or offers of billions of dollars in Marshall Plan money. Just as likely, it saw such conciliatory outreach as either stupidity or weakness—if not the laxity of a Western power overly worried about its own sense of morality.” (17) I would tend to agree that money will not on its own solve the problem of extremism. While poverty may provide fertile ground for the disenfranchised to be swayed my hate mongers and terrorists, I do not think it is the root cause. It remains to be seen, however, whether democracy on its own solves the problem. There are many instances of democracies who still have terrorists in their midst. Any minority, if their rights are not respected, could resort to violence. So to are many examples where impurely democratic countries have been able to establish peaceful cultures and productive peoples – Singapore being a great example. Forcing a country to eliminate corruption, establish democratic institutions, control the period of transition to such institutions – these are some of the principles of the Marshall Plan. It was highly successful. It also required a lasting commitment supported by the world, as well as the American people and government. These things have never been present in either the Bush or Obama administrations.
Who is to blame? Hanson, in true American fashion, blames ourselves. This is also and American tradition. As a conservative, he blames liberal thinking and institutions. “There is a postmodern amorality afloat—the dividend of years of an American educational system in which historical ignorance, cultural relativism, and well-intentioned theory, in place of cold facts, has reigned. We see the sad results everywhere in the current discussions of the Middle East and our own war on terror.” (23) I agree that there is a postmodern amorality afloat. I think it is highly over-simplistic to blame ourselves, and to blame our educational system and members of the Democratic party. A valid criticism does not equate to a root cause.
Ultimately, as we watch the Taliban continue to reassert control in Afghanistan, and we watch ISIS grow in both Syria and Iraq while Egypt continues to founder in the chaos after the Arab spring, Hanson’s neo-conservative predictions have proven false. “Taking on all at once Germany, Japan, and Italy—diverse enemies all—did not require the weeding out of all the fascists and their supporters in Mexico, Argentina, Eastern Europe, and the Arab world. Instead, those in jackboots and armbands worldwide quietly stowed all their emblems away as organized fascism died on the vine once the roots were torn out in Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo. So, too, will the terrorists, once their sanctuaries and capital shrivel up—as is happening as we speak.” (206) Maybe there was a chance of success, and the Bush and/or Obama administrations blew that chance. Maybe there was never really a chance of success with the initial approach undertaken by the Bush administration. I would suspect that Hanson, in retrospect, would criticize the early withdrawal of troops from Iraq. There is likely merit in this criticism. There is also merit in the criticism that the Bush administration never had a plan for the peace, and its hawkish policy towards the states of Syria and Iran weren’t likely to succeed.
October 10, 2020
The second book in a two-part series. Even though the first book was good, I found the second one to be better...or at least I seemed to enjoy it more. The author's military history knowledge and expertise fascinated me as I know little to nothing about the subject; however, I did identify with the author for the simple reason we both lived through this period of history. Every once in a while, it does occur to me that today's youth were born after 9/11 and will read about it in school textbooks. Similar to the first book, this one is an anthology of the author's many articles written over a set amount of time. What caught my eye about the subject matter is the psychological analysis of the Arab world and of our traditional allies in Europe. Both seem to pay lip service to whomever benefits them at that very precise moment. This is why the United States is so loved and hated at the same time. I'll leave it to you to read the book to get in to the details of what that means. Of course I definitely recommend reading it.
September 2, 2008
This is an EXCELLENT BOOK (Full Disclosure: I'm a big fan of VDH's writing).
This book, VDH's writing style, is several steps above the usual fare. It's a very high-minded work, which invites th reader to access parts of the brain he or she might not be used to using.
That being said, the points the author makes are indusputable, and his conclusions are made after very detailed analysis.
There is absolutely no political posturing whatsoever in this book. Considering that VDH is one of the prominent historians of the ancient world, that carries over to his tone in this book, as well.
Very highly recommended.
This book, VDH's writing style, is several steps above the usual fare. It's a very high-minded work, which invites th reader to access parts of the brain he or she might not be used to using.
That being said, the points the author makes are indusputable, and his conclusions are made after very detailed analysis.
There is absolutely no political posturing whatsoever in this book. Considering that VDH is one of the prominent historians of the ancient world, that carries over to his tone in this book, as well.
Very highly recommended.
October 13, 2011
This book, written by military brass/academics, clearly shows that the hardest part of any war is the ending. While the focus is the US, it seems to me this is probably a problem with modern wars in general, no matter who wages them. Sounds like another good reason to avoid them. Also, the authors are particularly harsh on Bush/Clinton/Bush Jr./Obama for the "20-year war" with Iraq and now the 10-year war in Afghanistan. What I found ironic is that they all are basically following the Carter Doctrine, which stated the US would use force in any country in the Middle East to defend its "national interests". I wonder how many NeoCons realize they are disciples of Jimmy Carter?
January 9, 2025
This is such a zio propaganda book I cannot tell you where to start? He loves to be the cheerleader to that devil incarnate George Bush and Dick Cheney. His love of Israel even though that country is the one that did 9/11 and the USS Liberty.
He won't mention that because he's a paid prostitute! $4 million salary is enough to show where he stands!
He won't mention that because he's a paid prostitute! $4 million salary is enough to show where he stands!
July 30, 2018
Dr Hanson and Iraq in Brief
Dr Hanson provides very well researched synopses of the early heady times of our Iraq struggle. His descriptions are spot on and will stand up for years to come. I strongly recommend any work with his name on the title page.
Dr Hanson provides very well researched synopses of the early heady times of our Iraq struggle. His descriptions are spot on and will stand up for years to come. I strongly recommend any work with his name on the title page.
December 24, 2023
Well written and comprehensive with issue discussion points made based on historical knowledge We all know the comments the thousands of year old text discuss masters of war and leadership know history and that everything is a cycle. Today friends tomorrow adversaries.
December 1, 2016
VDH is pretty reliable, and does a pretty good job on this one. He missed some of the warning signs in Iraq, but with the info that was available at the time (see the 2002 NIE) his conclusions make sense.
February 5, 2017
Anything by Victor Davis Hanson is worth reading. I don't agree with his cheerleading for Bush, however.
April 25, 2008
Hanson serves up a not so popular view of war and peace based on a historical viewpoint more the present day hysterics ...
November 15, 2009
Essays re Afghanistan and Iraq
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews