Flash: Pat Buchanan and Victor Davis Hanson in Agreement!
Last week, as you may recall, I posted excerpts from a recent column by Pat Buchanan. Why, Pat asked, do we still have 50,000 troops in Europe? Or 28,000 in South Korea? Why has the Pentagon let it be known that it will defend tiny, mostly uninhabited islands in the Pacific against Chinese claims of sovereignty on behalf of counterclaimants that include Vietnam and Indonesia?
After I put up that post, a couple of events took place.
First, Diane sent it to our Victor Davis Hanson, asking Victor to respond. Victor replied with a long and thoughtful post. "I don't often agree with Pat Buchanan and am an occasional target of his magazine," Victor wrote,
but his ideas (which Peter highlighted in an earlier post) are at least always provocative and he is right that we need a debate on what we can afford and what not, and why we do the things we do abroad.
On basing, ostensibly Buchanan is making sense; there is no real reason to deploy American troops on the soil of wealthy allies who for a variety of reasons apparently think they cannot defend themselves. That said, the original logic was not just "America in, Russia out", but also "Germany (or Japan) down"—an effort never again to have an isolationist America faced with a two-front war with Asian and European powerhouses. If we were to leave, we must be prepared for the vacuum to be filled by someone, and calibrate in advance the consequences of that.
The second event? I emailed Pat, asking if he'd like to join the conversation. Pat demurred from writing a post, explaining that, between his column, his television commitments, and the deadline on his newest book, he just didn't have time. But Pat did offer a few thoughts:
Largely agree with Victor Davis Hanson's comments....In the last analysis, the financial and economic crisis is going to bring down the empire or imperium or whatever we want to call it. Had we pulled back 20 years ago, we would have saved trillions, our allies would have adjusted after the Cold War, and we would not be in our present overextended position. Of all the words of tongue and pen, etc. Best, Pat
It's remarkable in itself that Victor and Pat are in agreement on something--they tangled in print, extensively, over Pat's book on the Second World War, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. But the substance of their agreement--the need to reconfigure our forces, if belatedly, for the post-Cold War world, to be realistic about what we can and cannot ask of our military, and to require rich allies to bear the burden their own defense--strikes me as telling. If Pat and Victor agree that we need a deep rethinking of our defense policy--and if Sec. of Defense Robert Gates has suggested as much himself--then a rethinking we shall have, perhaps in time for the presidential campaign.
Note to GOP candidates: It won't be enough to talk about the budget. If you're running for president, you'd better be prepared to discuss military affairs--and to explain where you stand in the Gates-Hanson-Buchanan discussion.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Flash: Pat Buchanan and Victor Davis Hanson in Agreement!
Cats and dogs living togerher...what's next? Yes, I read VDH's post. Very well done!
Jul '10
Re: Flash: Pat Buchanan and Victor Davis Hanson in Agreement!
In unrelated news, Lucifer has reached an accord with the Hosts of Heaven. He will now be able to vacation in Cuba two weeks out of each epoch in exchange for a shipment of Cuban cigars and an early surrender on the Day of Judgment.
Dec '10
Re: Flash: Pat Buchanan and Victor Davis Hanson in Agreement!
I think that is what is called a polite and broad gentlemen's agreement on a simple point. They agree we need to consider cuts in defense spending for overseas deployments. The devil is in the specifics and the details.
However, Buchanan isn't considering anything. He stopped considering a long time ago. I know exactly where Buchanan stands. He has not changed his position a bit in at least 20 years. There is really nothing to consider for Buchanan.
From what I read, VDH is much more equivocal. For example, if we must choose between mothballing three carriers or removing 28,000 troops from S. Korea, then he would choose to remove 28,000 troops from S. Korea, with serious concerns and reservations about what might happen in the region afterward and what Japan might do.
I think Buchanan is unconcerned with such trade offs. He'd cut both without hesitation. And he has no concerns or reservations about how this might affect the region or what Japan might do. Japan is on its own as far as Pat is concerned -- give us a call if you get in trouble, we may or may not help you out.
Edited on Mar 14, 2011 at 11:01amNov '10
Re: Flash: Pat Buchanan and Victor Davis Hanson in Agreement!
All troops out of Europe is a no-brainer. South Korea, well, I am a little more concerned with that nut-case just a short Sunday drive from downtown Seoul.
Okinawa? Another no-brainer. Guam is good enough and it is our territory.
Dec '10
Re: Flash: Pat Buchanan and Victor Davis Hanson in Agreement!
The better part of training for valor is doing.
For preparing those who lead the way, they are better served by learning from experience in the theatre where the battle will take place.
Maintaining the strength of our overseas imperium is not a call for skirmishing for its own sake. Our armed forces will be less prepared—and the commanders of those of our enemies more emboldened—without it.
Our overseas footprint is a deterrent to conflict, its withdrawal an inducement.
The better debate on how to pull our country out of its massive debt is not about where federal government spends tax money on our defense, it is why does the government spend any of it—any federal tax money at all—on anything else.
Edited on Mar 14, 2011 at 11:26amDec '10
Re: Flash: Pat Buchanan and Victor Davis Hanson in Agreement!
I agree. Pull out of Europe, except for a couple of air bases.
I soured on NATO as an alliance when most of our NATO allies let us down in Afghanistan. Before that actually, but that was the last straw for me.
Mar '11
Re: Flash: Pat Buchanan and Victor Davis Hanson in Agreement!
The entire discussion centers on VDH's assessment that, "we must be prepared for the vacuum to be filled by someone, and calibrate in advance the consequences of that." Vacuums will be filled. We must ensure the advance of self-sufficiency by respective governments.
As clever, and necessary, as reconfiguring our forces for a post cold war world seems on its face, the need from a commander-in-chief is to possess the good sense and leadership to have a panoramic view of current events, yet be able to adapt to specific situations quickly.
In other words, we need a Grand Strategist who recognizes talent and delegates with confidence.
Jul '10
Re: Flash: Pat Buchanan and Victor Davis Hanson in Agreement!
Um, nice to see VDH and Buchanan agreeing on something we discussed here at Ricochet last December....
Jun '10
Re: Flash: Pat Buchanan and Victor Davis Hanson in Agreement!
From the movie Lawrence of Arabia:
Prince Faisal: "Britain is powerful because she has a navy. She can go where she likes and strike where she pleases."
T.E. Lawrence: "Exactly!"
I'll concede American bases in allied countries provided we have a navy that can provide forward deployment to every ocean in the world. So obvious that even a Bedouin tribesman can see it.
Jul '10
Re: Flash: Pat Buchanan and Victor Davis Hanson in Agreement!
Not all conflicts will allow us the kind of ramp up time we enjoyed in the Gulf Wars. Out of all the deployments, the one that concerns me most is the South Korea/Japan presence.
I would also review our relationship with Turkey. The more I look at the direction Turkey is going in, the less comfortable I am with Turkey as an ally, much less as a candidate for the EU.
Edited on Mar 14, 2011 at 8:26pm