Hoover fellow Victor Davis Hanson on the type of men who become savior generals

Hoover fellow and author Victor Davis Hanson discusses his book The Savior Generals: How Five Great Commanders Saved Wars That Were Lost--from Ancient Greece to Iraq. Hanson notes that savior generals are eccentrics, iconoclasts, and visionaries who see things others do not. A great general peels the veneer of invulnerability from a winning enemy, convincing his own men that victory is entirely within their purview.

[@heimdall46]

It's always a good day when you got Victor Davis Hanson speaking.

[@dopplereffeckt675]

As a British viewer, I am always delighted when the Hoover Institution pings in my mailbox. ·

[@jimmbbo]

Victor Davis Hansen is a voice of solid reasoning and logical conclusions in a world that has become a bad acid trip into Alice's Wonderland

[@drewthomasarnal5378]

I enjoy these interviews very much. Thank you Hoover Institution.

[@Zelator1000]

More Victor Davis Hanson please.

[@williamh7517]

Most interesting, informative and insightful, and actually very encouraging. Great interview

[@laprasta]

Please tell Victor he's one of my hero's along with Christopher Hitchens and Thomas Sowell.

[@thanksfernuthin]

"Hoover fellow Victor Davis..." SOLD! I gots work tah do! But when Victor Davis Hanson speaks, I listen. Now... back to work.

[@brooklynrobotworks9866]

So interesting; thank you, Professor.

[@sharbelabdo]

A great mind. Lucky to read your thoughts; very enlightening

[@roastbeefdinner]

to quote the great philospher Mac from the Great city-state of Philadelphia "THAT's BADASS!!

[@thomassmestead6424]

Sherman attacked the infrastructure of the Confederacy, under a policy of total war, no holds barred. Sherman had a mindset that basically was that the only rule of war, is to win in the most expeditious manner possible.

[@robbie_]

I love VDH. Just a shame none of his books are available in audio form on audible.

[@googlespies7347]

He is a national treasure

[@Ztex]

The last 7 minutes are absolutely brilliant. It's more applicable today than 7 years ago. Amazing

[@thomassmestead6424]

The most classical example from the history of the Roman Republic is that of Cincinnatus, the Roman farmer-general, who saved Rome at the 11th hour, then returned to his plow, eschewing offered political power by the Roman Senate.

[@American-Nobody]

America needs a leader, who can save us from ourselves. Who believes political correctness is a cancer.

[@GoCardinal2012]

Jar Head so?

[@christianlibertarian5488]

I love Victor Davis Hanson. His books are very clear and interesting. This is the first I have seen him actually speak, and he is absolutely great. Clear, knowledgeable. Just remember he is tilted toward the right (duh), and you can use what he imparts.

[@pegerockas]

should of hit all 5! Korea is a very good example. Very good discussion. Love to listen to historians pull things together that gives perspective.

[@ianmcmath92]

Peter Robinson has one of the coolest jobs!

[@PR0per6RAMmar]

I once watched a documentary on the History Channel about Sherman's march through Georgia. He was portrayed as a homicidal maniac, and "possessed by demons". Much better info in this video about the man, and from a much more credible source.

[@IndianBrah]

You're right, that's why Dr. Hanson calls them savior generals. They saved wars from defeat, but they didn't win them. There was no declared victory after Salamis, The Civil War, The Korean War, Vietnam or Iraq. The Civil War ended, but it wasn't exactly a time to revel in the vanquishing of the enemy who were after all fellow americans.

[@jimlaguardia8185]

Anang I disagree with you completely. The southern plantation owners were no better than Nazis. They were brutal racist elitist slaveowners, and they got what they deserved. Unfortunately, reconstruction was ended many decades too early. Nothing in US history should be more celebrated than the Union victory. African-Americans should worship Lincoln, Grant and Sherman, who did all the heavy lifting.

[@Brainfryde]

This seems more like moral grandstanding than an accurate representation of what the civil war era was. The south would be demonized for decades for what the 1% did there. The plantation elite were hardly Nazis, as they did not believe in socialism nor the republic's right to take property from private citizens through threat of murder by the republic. Today, the equivalent move would be to deprive all property and wealth from New York, because the gambling deals on Wall Street lead to starvation and depravity among the corporations in the US. The peaceful solution to the Civil War would have been to compensate the large wealth and investments put into the removal of slavery, so as to not devastate the southern US. Four years of war didn't destroy the south; removing it's greatest concentrations of wealth did. People didn't fight in the south to protect slavery, they fought against the idea that a few people in Washington could sign a document ruin the lives of everyone in the south, no matter their race. We certainly became a stronger and morally improved country after the civil war, but the killing was over greed on both sides of the mason-dixon line.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Peter Robinson is probably the best interviewer on KZbin. He asks his guest a question then listens to his answer. He doesn't compete with his guests by telling everybody how much he (the interviewer) knows about the subject. Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, Laura Ingraham, etc. could learn a lot from Mr. Robinson.

[@NikovK]

He's got a way to go though. The man needs a proper 1860's Manstache. The kind that rallies troops and goes well with spurs.

[@HoyaSaxaSD]

I enjoy these, but I often feel that Robinson is too quick to interject or try to set the table, as he steps on the interviewee, derails a train of thought, and makes some of the Q&A a bit disjointed. Just constructive criticism, as I know it's important to have a moderator move things along and help lay the foundation for those of us who are not experts in the subject, but increased restraint and more intentionally allowing the speaker to tell the story (at least until he starts rambling or repeating) would improve these IMO.

[@Rsambo00]

I've probably said this but I think it bears repeating, I love Mr. Peter Robinson. What a class act.

[@zantawolf]

Always interesting.

[@nwo-killers9319]

the most effective vessels in battle, are vessels that are unstable by design. The best fighter aircraft are aircract that are inherentpy unstable in flight

[@STWRITES1]

Hanson is the best.

[@CurtW1962]

He didn't even mention those KY brigades that came off of those ships at Pittsburg Landing on the second day at Shiloh. If the North was crushed at Shiloh Sherman would not have been able to make the march to the sea. "I hope to have God on my side but I must have Kentucky." Abraham Lincoln.

[@patrickgronerjr4117]

I like Robinson's moves at 42:20.

[@heyricksander]

He looks like a Nixon era bad ass.

[@thomassmestead6424]

Good leadership is perpetual.

[@anthonychaffeemd]

It was interesting to hear VDH start to get on a roll, but a shame that Mr Robinson cut him off so many times to ask questions. I am a big fan of Peter Robinson and his interviews, but it would have been nice to hear a bit more from VDH when he started on a point that he felt was important.

[@TrondBie]

He called it right about the Islamists in 2013 - the president cannot do it in 2016.

[@Terrekain]

He's dead wrong about Petraeus. The insurgency was not broken by Petraeus, but by Abizaid and his field commanders like Steele and Brandl in 2004 (People like the current SecDef, Mattis were Abizaid's operational commanders) to late 2006. By 2007, they were mopping up the rat lines which would "burn out" the insurgency by starving them of oxygen - long before Petraeus showed up on the scene. Petraeus' only contribution to the war was to set up a bunch of "window dressing" shows of force knowing that the insurgency was already broken in all but one city - Basra - which was only allowed to fester and metastasize because it had been under British "protection". Why Basra was allowed to metastasize went back to 2003: after the US Marines overran Basra in 2003 (they were only interested in securing roads, rails and bridges to clear a way to Baghdad), they left the city to the British who promptly ceded the metro and progressively its surrounding rural area to the Iranians - they never actually "took" Basra. In 2008, when the Iraqi QRF (I think they renamed them from "First Division" after dispersing the QRF NCOs to seed the units they used really) engaged Basra, the Iraqis made requests to local US combat commanders and their forces, both sides warning the British to stay out, and the British commanders in the dark (in order to keep the Iranians and their terrorists in Basra in the dark). Petraeus had no control over this last action either, no part in the pacification of any area or city throughout the Iraqi war, from Al Quaim to Tikrit. Petraeus' utility was a political sop to US politics in general and "international" politics" which would allow the opposition from John McCain to Angela Merkel to the media to switch sides and support the Mission in Iraq. Remember that the media had been lying this entire time that the US was "losing" the war, so that by the time the Insurgency was broken in places like Mosul and Fallujah, they needed some visible excuse to claim that "Something had turned the war" before people figured out that the media had been lying the entire time. Petraeus gave all these people - the opposition - their excuse, their "out" so to speak. Look, this is not to say that Petraeus didn't play his part in Iraq - He DID, and one can argue that it was an important part if it meant that it allowed various opposition around teh world to admit the war was won (so they could save face rather than having egg on it). Merkel and even Hillary Clinton jumped on the bandwagon rather than be on the "losing" side. Barack Obama and Joe Biden tried to claim the resulting peace was due to THEIR management - until Obama withdrew forces and the insurgents who had been kicked out into Syria years ago (now called "ISIL") invaded backed by tanks and artillery, in a rehas of what happened to South Vietnam after the US withdrew. One could argue that Petraeus' "detente", and subsequent promotion, only set the stage to phase out competent combat commanders like Abizaid and Steele who would have fought Obama on pain of court martial or in civil service (if they had been given the public recognition and credit they deserved), rather than watch him throw the sacrifice of American soldiers away to satisfy the black President's vanity.

[@nwo-killers9319]

Let not Professor Hansen forget the first great military leader King David

[@williamcarr442]

Sherman's relationship to Bragg before and after the war and his work for the railroad from San Francisco to Omaha versus Davis' Savannah to San Diego flatland route means that he was motivated by something much more than saving the Union or abolition. Even Shelby Foote who said "I consulted no original documents. It's all been gone over before," avoids talking about Sherman's pre and post Civil War rail ambition to the Pacific and the Middle East poppy fields beyond. Patraeus? Given Col. Theodore Westhusing's experiences with Patraeus and Patraeus's subsequent demise? Victor Davis Hanson needs serious revision. With the 1999 discovery of the Heard/Russell opium cutter The Frolic near Fort Bragg (California not N.C.) and we see why a century an a half later Gary Webb's Dark Alliance is such a threat to the "Order".

[@DrCruel]

Yes. Deposing a Ba'athist regime. Our gain was one less civil war inthe Middle East - compared to what is going on in Ba'athist Syria, where Bashar Assad clings to power with massive Russian aid and the mass killing of Syrian civilians, Iraq is a relative haven. (In fact, there are now Syrian refugee camps in Iraq.)

[@rcn123451]

Love the Moe VDH

[@nwo-killers9319]

i wonder what Professor Hanson has to say about Charles Martel, "The Hammer of Tours" in 732 AD

[@WarVideo]

He had a mustache before he got big in political commentary. Watch the documentary The Greeks: Crucible of Civilization from the year 2000, he has a mustache there.

[@hockeypuck999]

Mr Hanson: should we have gone to war in the Middle East in the first place? What was the objective? What did we win?

[@IndianBrah]

My one nitpick with the book was the exclusion of Creighton Abrams, but that may be because (fingers crossed) Prof. Hanson is writing a book on how Gen. Abrams saved the Vietnam war.

[@MCOult]

Peter Robinson has one of the best jobs in existence. Maybe THE best.

[@takayama1638]

Thankful for a reasonable voice these days. There are a few still living. But, what's up with all the black background?

[@adamhauskins6407]

he just described Donald trump!!!!!!!!!!!! this is a very good sign , make Amerika great again

[@adamhauskins6407]

and yes I spelled amerika with a k, its the Germanic way of spelling it

[@christianlibertarian5488]

Peter Robinson sure got enough plugs in for the book. How many times did he hold the thing up?

[@markm3988]

Mustache is on point

[@dcred123]

His mustache makes me feel uncomfortable

[@hrvad]

I wonder if many of those generals weren't on the front lines, leading the charge? Physically close to the danger.

[@aslekay]

Trump watched this dude

[@sagecreekwitt3301]

Hey Issy, you obviously know more about human nature and war than Victor Davis Hanson, Christopher Hitchens or the thousands of Kurds who were gassed. It's easy with hindsight from your comfortable position to make those comments.

[@hantusmostert]

Subutai the general of Genghis Khan

[@brentholladay3113]

TRUMP IS OUR SHANE even though Trump struggles a little with humility

[@Celurn]

I agree with the concept of saviour general,especially in the case of Themistocles.But I cannot agree with the view that the Iraq war was victorious, to me it looks like a strategic defeat, to say the least.

[@isambo400]

Celurn it was won to the extent that it was winnable. We got rid of the obvious tyrant. Beyond that, the situation was too chaotic to really "win"

[@zeroceiling]

isambo400 ....it needs to be looked at as a study in the area of: "the law of unintended consequences".... ...as getting rid of Saddam was the short game...while post Saddam Iraq became the loosely envisioned long game.

[@karenkline7221]

USA...USA...USA

[@thomasjamison2050]

Anyone who actually thinks the Persians invaded Greece with 250,000 has never seriously studied the matter.

[@exmarine66]

But it was lost at home.

[@stever5544]

This is for the host: let your guest speak! He’s smarter than you

[@LoneWolfRanging]

Things that didn’t age well: petraeus’ “victorious” surge. Lol

[@tomconners8497]

General Patraeus is my type of General , has all the stuff. Western infidel mentality , no different than moors in Spain. Os.. I just learned this. Thanks

[@IndianBrah]

Reconstruction by radical republicans had nothing to do with it? I admire Lincoln and Sherman and even I don't agree with reconstruction.

[@studolf]

I bet he copied the mustache from Stossel, who was here few months back.

[@donrussell8889]

and what did the Iraq bs get us, hmm?

[@Nounismisation]

That was great. Very interesting. But the last five minutes was disappointing surprise, well below his usual standards.

[@yuripantyhose4973]

+Nounismisation Why? It was right on the mark from my knowledge and perception about the US. There is a huge disconnect between the civilian leadership and the military, which is why so many good soldiers and officers have resigned during the Obama administration because they would not enforce classifying their soldiers unstable or like most soldiers have said that being a soldier is not militarily interesting anymore as the focus is on social and gender issues and they have lost the traditional freedoms of expression they had before.

[@Nounismisation]

You'll have to remind me as I can't watch it again atm: is this the lecture where he likens a recent general to one of the Greeks?

[@Charlemagne_III]

+Nounismisation This is about the Savior generals which includes Themistocles and Petraeus.

[@TrondBie]

Why?

[@Nounismisation]

I rate him less and less. Particularly in his conclusions. I can see why he's got a stage to stand on however.

[@vidman163]

Umm, we won Iraq? Well from the point of view of the War on Terror, that is to say strategically, then we lost simply because we allowed terrorism to spread. We may have prevented the Jihadists from taking over Iraq but that should have been a no brainer as far as military goals are concerned. Frankly we didn't even accomplish the goals that we set out to accomplish.

[@ikesteroma]

Thus far, determining whether or not we won the war has yet to be concluded. If Iraq can survive and become a stable democratic-republic, then we won. Terrorism, by its nature, is an enemy to democracy. Toppling a dictator and establishing a democratic regime in the Middle East derives an automatic outpost against the forces of chaos. Either way, Petraeus still stands as a remarkable hero. He took a situation that was absolutely hopeless and brought relative peace. (For what it's worth, I was deployed twice, once in '05 and again in '11 just before everything was shut down. There was a HUGE difference in the level of hostility between the pre and post Surge time period.) I, for one, just hope that our current President didn't completely undermine all that work with his hasty withdrawal to serve his political base.

[@icanfartloud]

ike evans We won in Iraq when the true and historically sequenced events are understood. Hussein had the audacity to say publicly that oil is a competitive product and he could sell it to the world at whatever price he deemed fair.(lower than everyone else btw) It was at that point the the propaganda of what he was about changed and went into overdrive pitting Americans and others against him. Removing him and putting in a controllable "government" who would follow the status-quo was the purpose, not "weapons of mass destruction or terrorist housing". It started with Bush senior and desert storm being a scam.

[@jimmbbo]

Remember when 0blamea and Joe the Mouth said Iraq was one of THEIR greatest accomplishments and that THEY were leaving behind a "stable" country?

[@ikesteroma]

jimmbbo A very good point. Unfortunately.

[@vidman163]

jimmbbo I still laugh to this day. So stable ISIS controls half of it and our supposed enemies in Iran nominally control the other half.