Finally, a Definition of Victory!

All through this mess, I’ve been wondering, whenever someone makes an observation like “we are in danger of losing this war”, how exactly they would define winning this war. I suspected that the more blood had been spilt, the greater the chance that “we” had “won”.
Now, thanks to William L. Anderson, I finally know what “victory” is. Anderson reports that Victor D. Hanson recently gave a lecture, during a Hillsdale College cruise on the Rhine and Moselle rivers. The subject of the lecture was “What Would Patton Say About the Present War?” Hanson’s definition of victory:

“…we shall not be through with Islamic fascism until the governments of Iran and Syria cease their support, al-Qaedists are killed or in cuffs, and the greater Middle East autocracies are terrified of offering succor to terrorist offshoots. Anything less as our goal and we will be in a perpetual quagmire of reactive warfare.”

Terrified of offering succor, eh? And how shall we know when they’re terrified? Will they send us a letter saying “Dear Sirs, We are terrified…” Wait a sec … Skip back. What is “Islamic fascism”? I know what fascism is, and I’m reading a good example of it right now, but why does it have to be Islamic? Is there such a thing as Black fascism, or Homosexual fascism, or Oriental fascism? If so, I suspect we should call the Hanson speech an example of Tenured Professor fascism.
Hanson is well educated, and has published many books containing his thoughtful insights on history. He obtained his Ph. D. from Stanford, but perhaps spent too much time in the Genghis Khan Studies department:

“If an enemy is demoralized but not destroyed, he may well come back encouraged and with less respect, interpreting magnanimity as weakness or incompetence. Fallujah and Najaf are proof enough of the tragedy that can follow when a defeated enemy is not completely crushed.”

Note to Hanson’s students – Dress bulletproof and wear crash helmets, lest he think of you as an “enemy”. The next-to-last paragraph in this lecture states:

” Today, millions in the Islamic world are watching the West struggle against Islamic fascism.

Yes, I’m sure that’s how they look at it, “Look at how the West is struggling against Islamic fascism!”

“Perhaps deep down inside they prefer, logically and with some idealism, to live under Western-style freedom and democratic auspices. And yet nationalism, pride, religion and ethnic solidarity war with reason, combining to produce far greater resentment against a powerful America, even when it brings the very freedom that the Arabs for decades have said they wished.”

Who said they wished? What are their names? Why can’t they take it for themselves, if they want it so badly? What business is it of yours, Dr. Hanson, if their Religion, Nationalism, or “Ethnic Solidarity” (what the hell does that mean? more racism), are at war with their ability to reason?
I was right all along. Victory = more Blood Spilt. Is this what passes for a respected intellectual? I suppose so. I miss the days when Classical Liberals like Kant, Smith, and Spencer, more suspicious of their own politicians than the ‘enemy’s’, would argue for limited government and peaceful relations between nations. Contrast that with the murderous rhetoric of clearly insane academics such as Hanson, as he both apologizes for the state, and gleefully, smugly eggs it on in its murderous work.