And there was all that mucking about with the UN that we did only because Blair said that he needed us to do it.

I'm puzzled by this insistence that we should pour more troops into Iraq. Some fairly respectable people are saying so -- people who know a lot more about tactics than I do -- but I don't get it. There's no massed enemy to attack and no land to be taken. More troops only means more camps, convoys and patrols to be targeted and more resources going to force protection. What we really need is the bold moves that Rumsfeld called for in his memo, but there is no reason that I can see to think that more men would be bolder men.

After Tet all over again, but with, I hope, better results.

If the masses are with us, we've got enough men and women there now. If they aren't, 25 million wouldn't be enough.

I thought the remarks about Britain were mean-spirited. I have recently been reading a bunch of memoirs of men who were junior officers in the Royal Navy during World War II. All these were written decades later and represent mature reflection.

Their disgust with American isolation when their country was being defeated by barbarians has not dimmed, though, of course, by now most of them are dead.

When we've shown the gumption the Brits did -- and we never have yet -- then we can look down our noses.

It isn't just the allies who know so little about what's going on in Iraq. It's the citizens of the USA and western Europe. Now why would that be, Mr. Hastings?

Orrin:

Your comments are very perceptive. The underlying theme of Hastings' screed is that it was all a big favour done for Washington--now where is the payback! Not a word about British self-interest in getting rid of Saddam, or British duty. Note especially the whining about not supporting European defence proposals without any comment on whether the proposals make sense. They are obviously 100% politically motivated. Does he think the US is going to change its strategic thinking on national security just because Britain has a leg caught in Euro-quicksand? The UN debacle was payment in full, and in advance.

Visitng my wife's relatives in Greece a decade ago, and hearing a lot of anti-American and anti-West rants, I was struck by how all of them--left and right--were gripped by a burning sense of entitlement. The prevailing view seemed to be that Greece had done the West a huge favour by remaining anti-communist all those years, so why was the US so ungrateful for such heroic sacrifice? (There is a lot of that feeling in Germany too!!.) It was small-minded even by Canadian standards.

David hit it on the head a while back--the world (and apparently much of America) does not really believe there is a war going on and feels no threat it can't avoid by ducking.

And Harry, we can argue about whether the US should have jumped into WWII earlier, but I don't recall reading about American public resentment that Britain wasn't returning enough favours when US troops started falling. Geography and two oceans have blessed and protected North America, but neither the US nor even Canada have lacked historical gumption, certainly not when Britain and Europe needed us.

I doubt the US would have become involved in either WW1 or WW2 if it wasn't for the Zimmerman telegram or Pearl Harbour.

"Again and again, American patience in difficult situations has proved less durable than the will of local societies who want Americans out."

True to a degree.

Ali:

Possibly, but all that means is that the US is not the Red Cross. I don't think Flanders' fields are full of guys who were frightened about an invasion through Mexico.

True but the US only got involved when it became clear there was a genuine threat to its' national security.

Now there's nothing wrong with that but it doesn't mean the US got involved in the two World Wars because of a burning desire to help Britain or Europe.

For me Britain's decision to refuse peace terms with Germany in the early years of WW2 when it faced the most terrifying enemy since the Mongols and had very gloomy chances of surviving the war is probably the most noble act by a country in the 20th century.

Ali:

No argument there on courage, although you have to credit extraordinary leadership as much as general British bravery.

But noble? Ask the Czechs about that. It had been a low dishonest decade. Appeasement empowered Hitler. The British left was blindly pacifist and many on the right flirted with treason to save their class, not the nation. "Five Days in May" is a scary book.

Is not the fact that Bush is pursuing the war on terror when the US is not directly threatened in any significant way(a lot less than Europe) more noble than heroic, desperate self-defence?

Ask the Poles about the noble Brits.

Ali:

A postcript. First of all, the book I meant was "Five Days in London" by Lukacs. Sorry.

Also, one thing that strikes me about American theorists on foreign policy like Kagan, Hanson and many others is how much time they spend trying to convince their audience that self-interest is an acceptable goal in foreign policy, and even then they qualify that with moral purpose. British and French theorists do not need to be so didactic on that point. Says something, no?

Of course, that is not much of a problem for the crusty misanthropes who inhabit this site and who see malevolent Canadian influence as the source of all dangers. :)

Harry:

Don't you think those British officers should rather have been angrier at most of their nation's politicians (from 1918 to May 1940)? Being angry because the US did not attack Germany in 1939 seems pretty pointless to me.

Lukacs is a nitwit:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1181

Orrin:

Maybe on geo-politics, but on Halifax and the Conservative defeatists? If Churchill hadn't had Labour's unequivocal backing in 1940, he might not have survived.

Peter:

So what? It wasn't Britain's war.

Jim, agreed.

There were not a lot of men who lived during the '30s who had anything to proudly tell their grandchildren about later.

My father was one of the few, but his experiences in the '40s were so awful he would not talk about them.

The 2000s are shaping up as a pretty low, dishonest decade, too.

???

Peter B:

Labour would have been just as pleased with Halifax in power. It was the Liberal leader who wanted Churchill.

And it wasn't just the left who didn't want war and were for appeasement but all of British society. The country was incredibly scarred from WW1 and even the notion of rearmament was repugnant until the people slowly realised exactly what kind of person Hitler was and what his victory would mean.

I'm a bit surprised when you say the US is a lot less vulnerable to terror attacks than Europe. Last time I checked two jet-liners hadn't been crashed into the Eiffel Tower.

I'm sorry to say this, Peter, and present company certainly excepted, but we don't take Canada seriously enough to blame anything on "malevolent Canadian influence." The whole idea is a little grandiose, actually.

The genius of Hitler's policy was that the focus of his animus was the Jews and Bolsheviks ("same thing" of course).

And who could really argue with that?

WWII wasn't supposed to start until '42 or '43. Imagine Hitlers's surprise when those muddlers in London and Paris decided to start fighting over Poland. Poland! Even so, Hitler, not as prepared as he wanted to be, almost pulled it off.

The genius of the current terror consortium....

Of course, if they'd helped Poland as their treaties required or had the USSR not attacked, the war might have ended in Poland.

David:

A) There was a smile attached to my post; and B) Are you really, really sorry?

Peter -- I'm not sorry that we aren't worried by Canadian malevolence, but I do wish that Canada was in a position such that the threat of its malevolence would matter.

David:

Hey, some of us are on the case, but be careful what you wish for.