Historian Victor Davis Hanson offers an interesting interpretation of Japan’s thinking before the attack on Pearl Harbor:
I do not doubt Hanson’s analysis; nevertheless, I have some problems understanding how Japan’s military leaders arrived at their conclusions.
Most importantly, there were no aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. It is illogical to assume that Japan’s high command did not have that intelligence on the morning of the attack. Let’s face it, no carriers in port could hardly be hidden from Japanese spies with short wave radios. The first question has to be asked from a military perspective: Why the attack took place before one or more aircraft carriers were easy targets?
The second question is: Why were America’s aircraft carriers at sea when their bodyguards were in port?
One possible answer to the second question also answers the first question. Japan was led down the garden path.
I realize that my interpretation is getting close to the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory. Without buying into the mother of all conspiracy theories a bunch of interesting questions surrounding the attack remain unanswered. Asking the questions automatically labeled the inquisitors conspiracy theory nut jobs.
One way to put it in perspective is to look at all of the noise Democrats made, and still make, over the Iraq War —— Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s WMD and so on. Liberals even claim that the attack on September 11, 2001 was a conspiracy engineered by Republican warmongers, yet the attack on Pearl Harbor is accepted at face value.
This next one always troubles me because it implies that isolationism was responsible for WWII:
The global government crowd goes so far as to blame Smoot-Hawley for WWII. No one ever points out that isolationism is a boogeyman born in the 1930s. In fact, had isolationism been backed up by a powerful military there would have been no Pearl Harbor. The same boogeyman is still trotted out to frighten the uniformed. The remedy for global busybodyitis is also the same —— an invincible military prepared to defend the country.
If Americans want to keep what is left of their freedoms they better get used to the idea that the military can never be dismantled by promises of a lasting peace. In plain English a powerful military is the price of eternal vigilance.
Remember that very few countries pose a military threat. Dictators without expansionist ambitions are harmless. It is countries that build military machines large enough to threaten America that require a large, better equipped, better-trained, military than aggressor nations have. Holding the Soviet Union at bay militarily throughout the Cold War until our economic system defeated the Soviets proves my point.
Incidentally, doing business with a known-enemy like China may very well allow their economic system to defeat us. And please do not tell me that a global government will eliminate the need for militaries altogether.
Conversely, the conflict over the proper use of the military originates with Democrats who believe the US military should only fight to make the world safe for democracy. Eternal vigilance means nation-building to Democrats. Madame Short Legs said as much to Colin Powell:
Barack Taqiyya does not want to fight the war that Muslims declared. He wants to fight a criminal gang. I believe that he intends to use the mess he created in Iraq —— after the war was won —— to hand the US military over to United Nations control of some kind. Both Taqiyya and John Kerry live for the day they can get approval to send Americans off to die for the United Nations. There is no doubt that is what Kerry has been after all along. All of the talk about an international coalition is meaningless if Muslim governments do not join in. Do it without Muslims and it will seen as a war against Islam.
The only way any Muslim country will participate is if the UN is in charge. In that way they can fight their Muslim brothers without actually trying to defeat them. That makes me wonder if Kerry is just plain stupid:
And who the hell will Taqiyya and Kerry be fighting in Syria? Bashar Assad, or the people who will join up with ISIS the minute Assad is deposed?
The Arab Spring will be the problem for future presidents; more so if Assad is deposed à la Gadhaffi and Mubarak:
Finally, there is not a chance Democrats want victory after their guy threw it away; hence, Taqiyya the Liar & Company had no choice but to manipulate the entire mess into yet another Peace Without Victory war. Thanks to the public’s reaction to ISIS brutality peace without victory is succeeding again. The trick for Democrats is to keep the American people focused on stopping ISIS without them demanding an all-out war against Islam.
The Japanese did not see their attack on Pearl Harbor as foolish at all. What in retrospect seems suicidal did not necessarily seem so at the time.
While the United States had belatedly begun rearming in the late 1930s, the Japanese were still convinced that in a naval war, their ships, planes and personnel were at least as modern and plentiful, if not more numerous and qualitatively better than what was available to the United States. The growing isolationism of the United States that had been championed by the likes of icons like Walt Disney and Charles Lindbergh, the persistent Depression, and the fact that the United States had not intervened in Europe, but instead watched Britain get battered for some 26 months from September 1939 to December 1941, suggested to many in the Japanese military command that the United States might either negotiate or respond only halfheartedly after Pearl Harbor, especially after the envisioned loss of the American carrier fleet.
. . . Japan would only have to deal with a vastly crippled and solitary United States. In short, for the Japanese, December 1941 seemed a good time to attack the United States – a provocation that would either likely be negotiated or end in a military defeat for the U.S.
Real reason Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor
Historian Victor Davis Hanson on why 'foolish,' 'suicidal' mission was carried out
Published: 4 days ago
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/real-reason-japanese-attacked-pearl-harbor/
XXXXX
While the United States had belatedly begun rearming in the late 1930s, the Japanese were still convinced that in a naval war, their ships, planes and personnel were at least as modern and plentiful, if not more numerous and qualitatively better than what was available to the United States. The growing isolationism of the United States that had been championed by the likes of icons like Walt Disney and Charles Lindbergh, the persistent Depression, and the fact that the United States had not intervened in Europe, but instead watched Britain get battered for some 26 months from September 1939 to December 1941, suggested to many in the Japanese military command that the United States might either negotiate or respond only halfheartedly after Pearl Harbor, especially after the envisioned loss of the American carrier fleet.
XXXXX
. . . Japan would only have to deal with a vastly crippled and solitary United States. In short, for the Japanese, December 1941 seemed a good time to attack the United States – a provocation that would either likely be negotiated or end in a military defeat for the U.S.
Real reason Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor
Historian Victor Davis Hanson on why 'foolish,' 'suicidal' mission was carried out
Published: 4 days ago
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/real-reason-japanese-attacked-pearl-harbor/
I do not doubt Hanson’s analysis; nevertheless, I have some problems understanding how Japan’s military leaders arrived at their conclusions.
Most importantly, there were no aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. It is illogical to assume that Japan’s high command did not have that intelligence on the morning of the attack. Let’s face it, no carriers in port could hardly be hidden from Japanese spies with short wave radios. The first question has to be asked from a military perspective: Why the attack took place before one or more aircraft carriers were easy targets?
The second question is: Why were America’s aircraft carriers at sea when their bodyguards were in port?
One possible answer to the second question also answers the first question. Japan was led down the garden path.
I realize that my interpretation is getting close to the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory. Without buying into the mother of all conspiracy theories a bunch of interesting questions surrounding the attack remain unanswered. Asking the questions automatically labeled the inquisitors conspiracy theory nut jobs.
One way to put it in perspective is to look at all of the noise Democrats made, and still make, over the Iraq War —— Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s WMD and so on. Liberals even claim that the attack on September 11, 2001 was a conspiracy engineered by Republican warmongers, yet the attack on Pearl Harbor is accepted at face value.
This next one always troubles me because it implies that isolationism was responsible for WWII:
“The growing isolationism of the United States . . .”.
The global government crowd goes so far as to blame Smoot-Hawley for WWII. No one ever points out that isolationism is a boogeyman born in the 1930s. In fact, had isolationism been backed up by a powerful military there would have been no Pearl Harbor. The same boogeyman is still trotted out to frighten the uniformed. The remedy for global busybodyitis is also the same —— an invincible military prepared to defend the country.
If Americans want to keep what is left of their freedoms they better get used to the idea that the military can never be dismantled by promises of a lasting peace. In plain English a powerful military is the price of eternal vigilance.
Remember that very few countries pose a military threat. Dictators without expansionist ambitions are harmless. It is countries that build military machines large enough to threaten America that require a large, better equipped, better-trained, military than aggressor nations have. Holding the Soviet Union at bay militarily throughout the Cold War until our economic system defeated the Soviets proves my point.
Incidentally, doing business with a known-enemy like China may very well allow their economic system to defeat us. And please do not tell me that a global government will eliminate the need for militaries altogether.
Conversely, the conflict over the proper use of the military originates with Democrats who believe the US military should only fight to make the world safe for democracy. Eternal vigilance means nation-building to Democrats. Madame Short Legs said as much to Colin Powell:
NOTE: Albright was US Ambassador to the United Nations for four years before becoming secretary of state. Her love for democracy is well-known. The thing that makes her so sickening is that she truly believes that Euro trash is smarter than America’s Founders who hated democracy. Bottom line: It is not hard to imagine the kind of military Madame Short Legs and her kind would create given the opportunity.
Barack Taqiyya does not want to fight the war that Muslims declared. He wants to fight a criminal gang. I believe that he intends to use the mess he created in Iraq —— after the war was won —— to hand the US military over to United Nations control of some kind. Both Taqiyya and John Kerry live for the day they can get approval to send Americans off to die for the United Nations. There is no doubt that is what Kerry has been after all along. All of the talk about an international coalition is meaningless if Muslim governments do not join in. Do it without Muslims and it will seen as a war against Islam.
The only way any Muslim country will participate is if the UN is in charge. In that way they can fight their Muslim brothers without actually trying to defeat them. That makes me wonder if Kerry is just plain stupid:
CAIRO — Secretary of State John Kerry received broad assurances but no public commitments from Egypt on Saturday as he continued his tour of the Middle East to try to assemble a coalition behind an American campaign against the extremist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Kerry Scours Mideast for Aid in ISIS Fight
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICKSEPT. 13, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world/middleeast/kerry-visits-egypt-seeking-aid-in-isis-fight.html?rref=world/middleeast&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Middle East&pgtype=article
Kerry Scours Mideast for Aid in ISIS Fight
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICKSEPT. 13, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world/middleeast/kerry-visits-egypt-seeking-aid-in-isis-fight.html?rref=world/middleeast&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Middle East&pgtype=article
And who the hell will Taqiyya and Kerry be fighting in Syria? Bashar Assad, or the people who will join up with ISIS the minute Assad is deposed?
The Arab Spring will be the problem for future presidents; more so if Assad is deposed à la Gadhaffi and Mubarak:
He was acutely aware that the operation he was about to embark on would not solve the larger issues in that region by the time he left office. “This will be a problem for the next president,” Mr. Obama said ruefully, “and probably the one after that.” But he alternated between resolve as he vowed to retaliate against President Bashar al-Assad if Syrian forces shot at American planes, and prickliness as he mocked critics of his more reticent approach to the exercise of American power.
Paths to War, Then and Now, Haunt Obama
By PETER BAKERSEPT. 13, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world/middleeast/paths-to-war-then-and-now-haunt-obama.html
Paths to War, Then and Now, Haunt Obama
By PETER BAKERSEPT. 13, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world/middleeast/paths-to-war-then-and-now-haunt-obama.html
Finally, there is not a chance Democrats want victory after their guy threw it away; hence, Taqiyya the Liar & Company had no choice but to manipulate the entire mess into yet another Peace Without Victory war. Thanks to the public’s reaction to ISIS brutality peace without victory is succeeding again. The trick for Democrats is to keep the American people focused on stopping ISIS without them demanding an all-out war against Islam.
