Are you a Jacksonian?

The New Sisyphus blog is having an engaging discussion about Jacksonians – specifically, the Jacksonian approach to war. I encourage you to check it out and would be interested in reading your thoughts as to whether or not the Jacksonian approach to war is one we should apply as it relates to the war on terror.

(Hat tip: ST reader Severian)

7 Responses to "Are you a Jacksonian?"

andrew says:

February 26, 2006 at 7:46 pm

That’s smart. Do to the muslims what we did to the Injuns. Some people’s blood lust is just too much.
Severian says:

February 26, 2006 at 8:23 pm

Jacksonian warfare is the only type that makes any sense. If you’re not interested in the outcome enough to go medieval on their butts,you’re wasting lives and money.

One of the reasons we’re having the troubles we are in Iraq is that the war was over way too fast and didn’t impact the average person enough. After WWII, the countries we occupied had suffered massive damage and casualties, the people were more easily satisfied. It’s hard to complain about not having any shoes when you’re just thankful you still have feet.

Sadly, it appears that we will need at least one or two more catastrophic attacks on the US before we get serious enough to wage a Jacksonian war. The US could use a lesson from the Romans on how to wage war in the middle east. They were about the only ones to do it effectively there.
andrew says:

February 26, 2006 at 8:43 pm

“One of the reasons we’re having the troubles we are in Iraq is that the war was over way too fast and didn’t impact the average person enough.”

It seems rather sick that people support a war ON iraq, rather than for it.
Severian says:

February 26, 2006 at 8:56 pm

Well, andrew, it’s obvious that people like you and steve view reality as a sickness, but just because you feel that way doesn’t change the nature of the world or the people in it. Any even casual student of world history would know how this works, the same pattern has been played out for as long as there’s been recorded history.
forest hunter says:

February 26, 2006 at 10:09 pm

Some very intelligent reasonings in that link ST. Severian as usual, sets the head deep in the wood, in his opening volley.

Just a few days back in a conversation with my Korean War Vet Dad, we had a relatively shory chat as to methodology and tough as that is, we are unequivocally in agreement for the Jacksonian method.

The will and spirit of any contest are very real and often the only factor difference. Naturally, in the case of wars even more so because of the promises and permanence of death. The dragging it out and prolonging of the inevitable needed outcome, goes in no small part to the MSM reports where a constant source of favorable stories for America’s and indeed the world’s enemies thrive. This good will service they provide for the terrorists is why I continue to call their words treasonous. Accountability for their disdainful and reprehensible assisting of the enemy is overdue!
andrew says:

February 27, 2006 at 11:26 am

“Any even casual student of world history would know how this works, the same pattern has been played out for as long as there’s been recorded history.”

No. Not really. Democracy has come to other countries without the sort of bloodshed you’re envisioning.
NewSisyphus says:

February 27, 2006 at 5:24 pm

I appreciate the link. I’ve found the discussion very interesting myself. I have a great deal of sympathy for the view that if one is not willing to wage all-out war one has no business waging it in the first place. Ironically, and as many people miss, this makes the Jacksonian approach much, much less likely to lead to general war than, say, the Wilsonians, who get us in the shit every time they come to power (including, I would argue, the quasi-Wilsonian Bush).

Comments are closed.