Thoughts on History Repeating Itself

[The Beatles]

Winston Churchill said to Colville in 1956 (on Suez and Eden), in response to the latter's direct question:
"I would never had dared; and if I had dared, I would certainly never had dared stop."

Put with his usual talent for expressing things well. It does expresss a principle that crops up frequently. The reason I bring it up is I that I just read this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/f ... 155128.stm

I guess no other news article puts it in such a raw, visceral, and personal way. I've been numbed by all the Iraq news, so much so that my brain almost puts an immediate block on thinking about the subject, due to the firestorms of debate it brings up. A sort of muted acceptance, that in time can change opinion. But the article has changed all that, thankfully. I do recommend that site, "From our own correspondent", by the way.

And the reason for the quote is the estimate for the necessary power to stabilize Iraq, which was woefully under-supplied. No hand or a firm hand.

[windhound]

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -George Santayana (?)

thats the quote I usually think of when somone speaks of history repeating itself

in many ways wars like the ones fought, what, just 150 years ago were preferrable to what we have today. two armies in ordered lines shooting at each other in a reasonably orderly fashion

my thought on today's mess is that eventually the world will run out of suicide bombers, atleast at the rate they're goin'. it takes maybe 18 years to make a new one, 8 if they resort to child bombers.
the way it is now 'fighting' this war is impossible. its red vs. blue, with the red in uniform and the blue looking like everyone else. And people wonder why there are so many civilian casulties.

its just a bad situation, as the US really cant say 'oh, well we got rid of the dictator, so we'll just be going now'

[The Beatles]

What's worse than the current mess is when order comes. Because the conditions are exactly ripe for a fascist dictatorship of the highest order to emerge, just like the Nazi state from the mess that was the Weimar Republic. Consider: there is a moral decay, an economic upheaval increasing the divide between poor and rich, a breakdown of law and order, perpetual fear, an invasion led by a variety of Western nations: all these changes in such a short amount of time are a powder-keg that only need the spark of one well-spoken fundamentalist idelogoue to make the West's worst dream come true again, except in the Middle East this time.

[Gen. Volkov]

But as long as we are there, it will not happen. It took the Western powers withdrawing from Germany for Hitler to rise to power. If there had still been occupying powers in Germany during Hitler's ascent, it would have gone very differently I think. Also, unless it's a total illusion, we are slowly reestablishing law and order. It's more akin to Germany after WW2, than after WW1.

It's just the Iraqi army and the insurgents weren't totally beaten like the Germans were. That's both good and bad. It avoided WW2 like casualties, but left a will to fight in the various groups who oppose us, and we aren't willing to really bring the hammer down on them. That's because we'd destroy the country to an even greater extent if we did so. Plus, there'd be a huge wave of dissaproval from the American public. It would be backlash worse than anything we saw during Vietnam. It would be a total abandonment of everything we stand for, more like what the Soviets would do than Americans. This way will take longer, and has a chance to work, and we will get to keep our souls.

(And yes, it could have been handled better from the beginning, and campaign that really defeated the Iraqi army and insurgents would probably have worked, and most likely not have sparked a backlash, but that was then, this is now, and we have to deal with what is, not what should, could, or might have been. Sure you can finger-point and make recriminations and all the otehr stuff currently going on, but at some point you have to stop, at least long enough to get something done.)

Wondy, this is nothing new in the world of wars. In fact, this is considerably better then say, the war of 1812, or the Thirty Years War. For one thing, most of the soldiers are living, not dying horribly. Just because people say, "Armies fought, but the civilian population was left alone" doesn't mean it's TRUE. The civilian population was stolen from, raped, brutalized, and killed with quite some frequency during war.

[The Beatles]

Bear in mind that during those times -- even up to WWI -- more soldiers died of disease than war.

[Gen. Volkov]

I think disease is included in "dying horribly", don't you?

[The Beatles]

My point is that the saving of lives is not due to any better organization on the political side of things, just due to medical advances.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Slightly OT, but I watched a History Channel special that went into Civil War Era STD's, and according to them Nashville Tennessee became the first city in the US to legalize prostitution. At the time more Northern soldiers were in the infirmary with STD's than were injured by Southern bullets. I believe the rate of infection was around 50% for soldiers, but I can't remember exactly. Anyway after several failed attempts at controlling the outbreak they finally decided to legalize prostitution, charge each hooker a $5 licensing fee, and had 2 hospitals strictly for STD's. These were funded by the licensing fee. The girls were regularly tested, anyone who caught anything was quarantined in the hospital until cured, and the rate of infection dropped by 90%.

As soon as Nashville was under the control of their council/mayor/whoever they banned prostitution again and the rate of infection went up.

[The Beatles]

They tried something like this in mediaeval Europe, but it failed, because there was no reliable testing: all they could test for was symptoms. So basically every carrier slipped through the net, and most prostitutes and their clients had STDs. So they banned prostitution instead with rather vicious measures, and that's where the modern practice dates from, not the Church, as most would have you think.

[Gen. Volkov]

My point is that the saving of lives is not due to any better organization on the political side of things, just due to medical advances.

In terms of the saving of the lives of injured soldiers yes, but since WW2, the number of people killed in wars, everywhere, has gone drastically down, much more so than just medical advances explain. Before WW2 the lethality of war was increasing nearly exponentially, with the curve about to go nearly vertical. After WW2, it dropped off markedly and has stayed there ever since.

[The Beatles]

For a wealthy offender, anyway. 200k casualties in Iraq?

[Gen. Volkov]

Is nothing compared to 50 million in WW2.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Comparing Iraq to WW2? Come on Volkov, you know better than that.

[Gen. Volkov]

What are you talking about? It has direct bearing, for once, on the subject at hand. I say that the deadliness of wars has decreased vastly since WW2. In a direct comparison, Iraq has been far less deadly than any theater of WW2, let alone the whole war. Many more were killed in single battles in WW2 than have died the entire time the US has been there. It was kinda rare, but it did happen. But the death toll from the majority of battles was well above the 2900-3000 American dead in Iraq, and the Siege of Stalingrad cost more in a couple months than everybody who has died in Iraq, no matter what side, after more years than WW2 lasted.