It was the most controversial of all America’s military ventures and it led to a rupture in American society that continues to this day.

While the social/political fracture from Vietnam continues to this day, I would venture to say that historically speaking, the War of 1812 was by far the most unpopular war this county engaged in.

Due to the great distance in time, the intensity of the opposition to this war has faded from memory, but if you read contemporary sources the opposition to this war was intense and visceral and fractured American politics for a generation and helped set the path towards the civil war half a century later.

The New England states and several other northern states, which were politically dominated by the federalist party and whose commerce was almost wholly dependent on trade with Britain, seriously considered seceding from the union. “An Address of Members of the House of Representatives… on the Subject of War with Great Britain,” was signed by 34 of 36 House Federalists, was widely circulated at the time.

The war exacerbated regional tensions with the south and west, who were suffering from British supported Indian depredations and the threat of foreign invasion, strongly supported the war.

I can only hope that the social/political fallout from the War of 1812 and the types of events it set in motion are not repeated in the 21st century. While today’s differences are not so much geographical, the ideological divide seems to be as great and continuing polarization in society can only lead to yet more polarization and political violence.

Let’s hope we’ve learned a few things since then.

Problem with Iran is that earlier attacks would have been opposed by the usual suspects whom the Bush admin–hypothetically–thinks would be on board if the situation ripened up a bit. But they won’t. It’s a forlorn hope.

IMO, the entire thing is related to the folks who think we should dump the Iraq effort and emphasize Afghanistan. Further IMO, once we do that, they’ll be howling for our leaving Afstan. In other words, they’re dishonest.

And so are many of those who say we should have done Iran first. Had we done so, somewhere north of 99% would be bitching in the same terms you use regarding Iraq. Now, you may be the honest guy in this debate–although the likelihood of encountering that individual is pretty small in any given location–but the fact is, the others who speak like you are lying like rugs.

Unfortunately for the IDF, if the rumor about Meier’s foreknowledge was correct, they paid a price for moral authority which Meier should have known would not be forthcoming. And if Bush is putting off Iran for the same reason, he is equally deluded.

IMO, the various delays regarding Iran are actually a positive. They can’t get spare parts for their most useful equipment, their fuel shortage restricts training time–for any equipment still working–and their various sub-constituencies are looking around for their best option, which probably does not include fighting the Americans. So their capacity is probably going downhill. It certainly can’t go uphill.

In the meantime, air-delivered munitions are becoming more and more effective.

Iraq was not contained, except to the extent that a conventional invasion of another country was probably not in the cards, at least until a democrat was elected in the US.

And the various weapons inspectors have made it clear that SH retained the human capital and many of the facilities, and the will to start up his WMD program immediately after the inspectors would be gone and the oil money began flooding in.

The usual assertion that guys like SH would be deterred by our, say, nukes, is nonsense. He knew that our political process would never allow the kind of response that would actually be bad enough to be a deterrence. Assad is the same, and in the case of the True Believers Iran, there is no deterring those who want to die–or who plan on being in Saudi Arabia when others do–no matter that we insist we will to nuke them.
They know we won’t.
And the libs who insist that deterrence will and must work are, most of the time, insisting on actions making that an absurd bit of nonsense to which no bad guy should pay the least attention.
IOW, the people talking about deterrence so stoutly are those who are working to make it meaningless.

While we wasted 3700 American lives and another 30,000 wounded (many horribly), the real devil state Iran, brings new meaning to the word “threat.”
Podhoretz may well be correct that we are in WW IV against Islamofascism, indeed.

But wars include wins and losses and stupid tactics along with the brilliant. Wars are fought on the backs of the young and we need to be certain that their lives are not wasted in stupid adventures of old men in arm chairs. If it is not the parents and families of our soldiers who speak out, then who?

Iraq, a failed state that was never a state and likely can never be a state, was stupid and needless adventure. I do maintain it reflects the hubris and misjudgement of a failed administration. Or sons and daughters and Nation have paid a mighty price. What, unfortunately, awaits us, is the real threat, regional and worldwide, that confrontation with a more determined foe, the looney and ignorant Islamofascists in Iran and Syria, their client state. Of course we can deal with this threat, but the real foe is much more determined and has a false sense of security because of the gross failures of the Bush administration. The consequences of the actions against Iran will be inversely proportional to how badly we can cripple their nuclear program and their military. Half measures will not work and, sadly, only massive violence–silly Rumsfeld’s “shock and awe” tactics–will wor. The Iranians are not the beloved of the Arab world–they are not Arabs and have killed more Arabs than any Western state ever has. Their military capability must be laid waste and they must be humiliated in a region where “face” matters. Half measures will not suffice–again Podhoretz is correct. Unfortunately, the hour is late, and our sons and daughters will pay for the delay.

Iran can “strike back” to the extent that what they have left will be effective against our interests. Considering the feckless Iraqi army killed hundreds of thousands of them during the Iran-Iraq war, a ground attack on our forces in Iraq would be…just dandy. They’ll have no air force, no navy, no infrastructure for proxy armies and terrorists. No oil. No money. Few commanders.

But, if they do strike back…. Nobody said we were going to get away with this without any difficulty at all. This is war. Question is, do we come out ahead?

Even the French have recently made the case that military action against Iran’s nuke work is inevitable unless there is a major change in Iran’s tactics. It wouldn’t be going it alone. But, of course, having a couple of dozen allies consists of going it alone if Bush is president, having few is multilateral if Clinton is president.

As to unncecessary wars, see Fehrenbach, “This Kind of War” Great history of the Korean war, including a discussion of the place of the military in a liberal society, and of small wars in a big world.

As has been said before, if Europe had fought a small war in 1936 against the militarization of the Rhineland, we wouldn’t have had WW II–at least in the European Theater, and anybody who tried to write an alt-hist novel about the war we saw wouldn’t get a publisher. And the fight would be, in some people’s minds, “unnecessary”.

Pshrinking a billion-plus people is a fool’s game. However, convincing a proportion of the world’s Muslims that the umma is about as big as it’s going to get would be useful, and you don’t do that by having conferences in which the West inquires as to the next pre-emptive surrender which is desired.

I will look at your post.

As for Iran, Laura, I’ve actually posted quite a bit on the growing crisis. I support preventive strikes on Tehran’s nuclear developmental program, but I don’t know if we have the forces for a full-scale toppling of the regime, which is what we’d really need to be through, once and for all, with Iran’s challenge to international security.

Here’s my post on Hersh, from this afternoon:

http://burkeanreflections.blogspot.com/2007/09/administration-plans-for-iran.html

“”All the damaging consequences of all the blunders the President has committed to date in Iraq are reversible in 48- to 72-hours – the time it will take to destroy Iran’s fragile nuclear supply chain from the air. And since the job gets done using mostly stand-off weapons and stealth bombers, not one American soldier, sailor or airman need suffer as much as a bruised foot.”

But wouldn’t that backfire at least as badly as Iraq? Wouldn’t the Iranians strike back?

Not at all, Friedman insists: “They would stand before mankind with their pants around their ankles, dazed, bleeding, crying, reduced to bloviating from mosques in Teheran and pounding their fists on desks at the UN. . . .

“Miracles would be seen here at home. Democratic politicians are dumbstruck, silent for a week. With one swing of his mighty bat, the President has hit a dramatic walk-off homerun. He goes from goat to national hero overnight. The elections in November are a formality. Republicans keep the White House and recapture both houses of Congress.”

I only hope that the same Iran planners aren’t the ones who predicted what would happen in Iraq. The question of whether or not the American people can be convinced on the need remains to be seen.