Eleanor Holmes Norton: Iraq could be the most catastrophic war of the 20th century

posted at 2:01 pm on May 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Daily Caller, let’s be charitable and assume this is a simple brain fart about which century is the 20th, not an assertion that Iraq was the worst conflict of the last hundred years. She inadvertently raises an interesting question, though: Is Iraq the most catastrophic war of the 21st century? Given China’s military build-up and Putin’s czarist ambitions, it’s a cinch that it won’t hold that title in the year 2100. But what about right now?

If you’re measuring strictly by the number of deaths, the war in Darfur was probably worse. The Iraq Body Count site claims 188,000 deaths, including all combatants; the number killed in Darfur had already exceeded 200,000 by 2006 and may now have surpassed 300,000 per a UN estimate last year. (It may be much higher than even that.) But Darfur has never been on America’s political radar, so go figure that it wouldn’t leap to mind when Holmes Norton was thinking of conflict. What about the Syrian civil war, though, which nearly saw a U.S. bombing run late last year? By some estimates, that’s already claimed 150,000 lives and shows no signs of abating. Iraq has remained formally intact as a multi-sectarian country (although that’s capable of changing quickly) but in Syria it seems a foregone conclusion that the country won’t survive in its current form. The only plausible way Syria remains “united” at this point is if Assad steamrolls the rest of the rebels and then does God knows what to “pacify” the Sunni population. Otherwise, the country may well split into an Iran/Hezbollah Shiite fiefdom on the one hand and a jihadi-controlled Sunni one on the other. It’s always strange to compare atrocious situations like war, but it’s hard not to think Syria will end up being the yardstick against which modern catastrophes are measured for years to come.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

God bless Eleanor Holmes Norton!

She made such a mess of EEOC under Carter that Reagan had to find a sharp young legal mind to clean it up fast. His name was Clarence Thomas.

And since 1991, she has been a constant reminder of why we don’t give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress. Her incessant partisan, racialist whining and demanding of ever more federal gravy is the overture of the Democrat parasite class.

I would say she is as dumb as a rock, but I don’t want all the rocks suing me.

Adjoran on May 1, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Why do you guys intentionally ignore reality in favor of listening to the proven lies of congresspeople?

everdiso on May 1, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Not a nice way to talk about Elanor Holmes Norton.

itsspideyman on May 1, 2014 at 4:40 PM

The Dems have been conditioned to not worry about facts or the truth because they never get called on it. I have been conditioned to never believe anything that is said by a Dem.

MnCoolRoad on May 1, 2014 at 4:42 PM

History, and facts..

..be racist.

Joe Mama on May 1, 2014 at 4:46 PM

Stupid, ignorant, liberal. Even ‘Nam was more devastating.

HiJack on May 1, 2014 at 4:50 PM

I sense a paradigm shift, sort of like Guam be capsizing

cosifantutte on May 1, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Maybe she was talking about the clinton war?

clement on May 1, 2014 at 5:00 PM

(Operation Desert Fox)Not that I would call it a war

clement on May 1, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Stupidest woman of the 20th and 21st centuries.

VorDaj on May 1, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Wonder what those dead jihadists would have been doing had we not got up in their business… Probably flying aircraft full of people into buildings full of people to kill the kuffar..Probably starting recycling programs or rolling bandages for the red cross crescent.

V7_Sport on May 1, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Norton probably couldn’t find Iraq on a map. One of the dumbest human beings ever. Joke.

petefrt on May 1, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Even if this ditz actually knew what century she was in, it’s only 2014, and there are another 86 years to go in this century, so it’s a bit early to be claiming she knows what the worst war of the century is. Odds are, there is much worse coming in the future (especially given the cowardly, corrupt, and incompetent morons who currently pass for the leadership of this country).

AZCoyote on May 1, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Just curious which factors you’re looking at to put WW1 above WW2 as far as “most catastrophic”?

Total worldwide casualty estimates for WW1 range between 15 million and 65 million, whereas the range for WW2 is 40 million to 85 million.

dentarthurdent on May 1, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Causalities aside (of US soldiers) I believe America should’ve stayed out of WWI. Our involvement was unnecessary and as Missy pointed out the result set the stage for Hitler’s rise and a Second World War where we had to get involved.

The catastrophic measure is, at least as I see it, in how totally unprepared America was when we entered the First World War. You have to remember Wilson dragged his feet as much as possible while promoting the most incompetent people in every effort to win political points instead of making sound choices as Commander and Chief (thanks in part to the fiasco in Mexico). By the time we went to war against the Triple Alliance our allies had been fighting for years and adapted to the new realities of trench warfare, machine guns, and heavy artillery. We did not, even our boot camp was a throw back to the Spanish-American War (heck we didn’t even have enough navy vessels to transfer most our men overseas and had to rely on private, commerce, and foreign ships). When we landed and began to engage the entire chain of command was poorly trained and the method of attack was antiquated (charge straight at the defensively entrenched enemy). This is why Meuse-Argonne is still the deadliest US fought battle to this day.

Scottie on May 1, 2014 at 5:43 PM

her face in that picture is just perfect though. so hilarious

Sachiko on May 1, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Have you ever wondered just how stupid her constituents must be in order to elect this moron to Congress?

cajunpatriot on May 1, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Wonder what those dead jihadists would have been doing had we not got up in their business… Probably flying aircraft full of people into buildings full of people to kill the kuffar..Probably starting recycling programs or rolling bandages for the red cross crescent.

V7_Sport on May 1, 2014 at 5:33 PM

They would be doing exactly what they’re doing now. Expanding the reach and power of Islam. With force where they can and and by other means when force isn’t an option. We accomplished, virtually, nothing.

DFCtomm on May 1, 2014 at 6:02 PM

It’s telling that in a hearing to learn more about the Obama administration’s cowardly and deliberately dishonest actions in Benghazi, Eleanor Norton’s best defense of her fellow Dims is: “But … Buuuuuush!”

AZCoyote on May 1, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Libruls –she’s yours . Sadly, many of yours are like her. Embarrassing.

CW on May 1, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Between her and Krystal Ball, I just believe that these two people hold higher positions than most people in the country and yet they have the gray matter of a brick….combined

jaywemm on May 1, 2014 at 6:43 PM

I think probably WWI was the worst war of the 20th century. Maybe WWII.

COgirl on May 1, 2014 at 6:47 PM

Just curious which factors you’re looking at to put WW1 above WW2 as far as “most catastrophic”?

Total worldwide casualty estimates for WW1 range between 15 million and 65 million, whereas the range for WW2 is 40 million to 85 million.

dentarthurdent on May 1, 2014 at 2:27 PM

WWI came about in large part by centuries of Imperial diplomacy that had become moribund. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand set in motion a war on autopilot due to the various mutual defense agreements.

The war itself was really the first instance of real technological warfare and saw the use of chemical warfare. The opening salvos of WWII was really nothing more than an application of the lessons learned from WWI. Some of those lessons, like the Maginot Line proved wildly inadequate.

The war effectively wiped out a generation of European males on both sides of the war. In particularly the officer class that would have otherwise been the next generation of political, business, and societal leaders.

The war created a “never again” spirit of isolationism in the UK and America which would come to have political implications as the war clouds of WWII were beginning to form over Europe. Wilson wasn’t able to get the US sign on to the league of nations for this reason. Chamberlain was hailed as a hero when he returned home from Munich. Lend/Lease was a highly controversial idea here in America as it seemed to be taking sides (it was) and not all Americans were rooting for the French and British.

The war ground to a stalemate where daily progress in the trenches from the Adriatic to the Atlantic was measured in inches. The AEF didn’t win the war as much as it gave one side sufficiently enough fresh troops and equipment to end the open warfare.

The Treaty of Versailles was in one part vindictive but, more importantly, reverted to the old European diplomatic sensibilities that caused the war in the first place. Empires were divided up in incredibly stupid ways, particularly the Austrian-Hungarian empire where tribal/ethnic divisions were put aside for geographic lines.

The punishment for Germany was designed to keep them from raising again as a military power but it did so in a way that made it utterly impossible for Germany to become a workable nation-state. Hitler rose, in part, on an appeal for German nationalism and Germany’s militaristic culture and heritage.

The war gave Russian revolutionaries the opportunity to rise up against the Tsar at a time when the rest of Europe was in no position to come to the aid of the monarchs.

So………

To recap this long post. WWI gave us:

- an end to the old European sensibilities of empires.
- real technological warfare.
- the lost generation of European leaders.
- the isolationist movement in the UK and US.
- a war that really didn’t end but just stop for awhile.
- gave rise to German nationalism.
- set artificial borders that caused ethnic/tribal strife throughout Eastern Europe.
- and ensured the establishment of the Soviet Union.

And beyond all that, WWII in Europe was only a continuation of WWI after a respite to rearm and and equip the next generation of Europeans. WWII has an Pacific aspect which, while costly, was mostly Japan seeking to attack European empires while they were otherwise engaged.

Happy Nomad on May 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Just another obumble supporter, no matter what. A stupid, brainless, twit and a typical member of congress. The idiots who keep electing her are the worst of the worst of low information voters. Poster children for a voter competency test.

ultracon on May 1, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Good points, but I still think WWI is the most catastrophic. IMO the causal link between WWII and Korea/Vietnam is not as strong as the one between WWI and WWII.

Missy on May 1, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Well, I wasn’t trying to argue with you, but borders drawn at the end of WW2, and who controlled each side were THE cause of the Korean and Vietnam wars.
I don’t disagree with the impact of the Versaille Treaty, but pretty much every war has factors or causes that resulted from a previous war.

I’m just looking at the total casualties, damage, cost and such of each war individually as a judgement of how catastrophic each one was.

dentarthurdent on May 1, 2014 at 3:23 PM

It’s always hard to make direct comparisons, but I would have to say that Korea and Vietnam weren’t caused by World War 2 so much as by the rise of communism, which actually began in the middle of World War 1.

Both Korea and Vietnam were driven largely by Chinese Communism, anyway, which was not really a factor in World War 2.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 1, 2014 at 7:47 PM

“Will no one rid me of these meddlesome racial clowns” — Henry II, king of England

J_Crater on May 1, 2014 at 7:51 PM

…who prepared her script?…I was amazed she could read it!

KOOLAID2 on May 1, 2014 at 7:56 PM

The Dems target demographics are idiots, morons, and fools.

And when necessary they trot out one of the many idiots, morons, and fools in their ranks to ‘communicate’ with their target audience.

We here at HA also get to deal with some of them directly, in the form of trolls.

farsighted on May 1, 2014 at 8:18 PM

“Wonder what those dead jihadists would have been doing had we not got up in their business… Probably flying aircraft full of people into buildings full of people to kill the kuffar..Probably starting recycling programs or rolling bandages for the red cross crescent.

V7_Sport on May 1, 2014 at 5:33 PM

“They would be doing exactly what they’re doing now. Expanding the reach and power of Islam. With force where they can and and by other means when force isn’t an option. We accomplished, virtually, nothing.”

We drive them out, they flow elsewhere, we follow them. That’s how it’s done. Or you can declare resistance is futile and hang out here while you wait.

Recon5 on May 1, 2014 at 8:23 PM

millions were actually freed, but commucrats don’t like free people

Iraq, despite its enemies has not bee problem on the national stage

It just goes to show that middle east reform is possible and it scares the crap out of the authoritarian ass wipes

Doyle Hargrave on May 1, 2014 at 8:25 PM

We drive them out, they flow elsewhere, we follow them. That’s how it’s done. Or you can declare resistance is futile and hang out here while you wait.

Recon5 on May 1, 2014 at 8:23 PM

What we do is futile. Our government is afraid to even name the enemy.

DFCtomm on May 1, 2014 at 8:40 PM

It just goes to show that middle east reform is possible and it scares the crap out of the authoritarian ass wipes

Doyle Hargrave on May 1, 2014 at 8:25 PM

You confuse a media blackout because they don’t want to embarrass their President with success.

DFCtomm on May 1, 2014 at 8:42 PM

57 States

…just sayin’

Tard on May 1, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Blaming Bush is getting old. Iraq wasn’t a disaster until Obama surrendered.

nazo311 on May 1, 2014 at 9:03 PM

How appropriate that the circus which passes for our Federal Government has clowns like her.

bluesdoc70 on May 1, 2014 at 9:05 PM

Blaming Bush is getting old. Iraq wasn’t a disaster until Obama surrendered.

nazo311 on May 1, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Yep, Vietnam all over again.

slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2014 at 9:09 PM

History, and facts..

..be racist.

Joe Mama on May 1, 2014 at 4:46 PM

Dat be old skool.

davidk on May 1, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Blaming Bush is getting old. Iraq wasn’t a disaster until Obama surrendered.

nazo311 on May 1, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Yep, Vietnam all over again.

slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2014 at 9:09 PM

slick, that’s what I told my wife yesterday.

davidk on May 1, 2014 at 9:11 PM

Affirmative-action strikes again….

viking01 on May 1, 2014 at 9:51 PM

You are assuming that she doesn’t think that the 1991 gulf war was the most catastrophic of the 20th century.

Don’t bet on it.

Pythagoras on May 1, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Eleanor “The Brain” Holmes-Norton probably thinks the 1991 Gulf War involved spring break in Panama City, FL.

viking01 on May 1, 2014 at 10:12 PM

“Iraq was the most catastrophiest lunar landing on Mars which caused Guam to tip over.”

People vote for these people. Some are actually real people.

hawkdriver on May 1, 2014 at 10:24 PM

The most catastrophic wars if the 20th century were WWI and WWII, Eleanor. Iraq was not even close.

Techster64 on May 1, 2014 at 10:29 PM

She is a brain fart.

Conservchik on May 1, 2014 at 10:38 PM

The House would be more useful to the conservative cause if many of the nominal Republicans ceded their speaking time to Eleanor Holmes Norton.

HitNRun on May 1, 2014 at 10:48 PM

She needs to borrow The Donald’s toupe.

NoPain on May 1, 2014 at 11:00 PM

lighten up after all everyone knows you have to be more tollerent of certian types of people. (Democrates)

jpcpt03 on May 1, 2014 at 11:10 PM

I’ll bet Eleanor is a big fan of Eric Clapner just like Jocelyn Elders.

viking01 on May 1, 2014 at 11:11 PM

Wonder what those dead jihadists would have been doing had we not got up in their business… Probably flying aircraft full of people into buildings full of people to kill the kuffar..Probably starting recycling programs or rolling bandages for the red cross crescent.

V7_Sport on May 1, 2014 at 5:33 PM

They would be doing exactly what they’re doing now. Expanding the reach and power of Islam. With force where they can and and by other means when force isn’t an option. We accomplished, virtually, nothing.

DFCtomm on May 1, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Umm… wow. Since they are dead the only thing they are spreading is nutrients into the soil. The things that flooded into Iraq from all over the world to fight the jihad against the “Zionists and Crusaders” would have been pursuing other avenues to attack non muslims. They aren’t “expanding the reach and power of islam”, They are habitrails for worms, probably the most decent thing that has come out of their existence.
Iraq was a lightening rod. (As Israel has been for decades.) That’s what the invasion accomplished. We fought them there so we didn’t have to see them murdering civilians here. It culled the crap herd.

V7_Sport on May 2, 2014 at 12:25 AM

WWI was the worst and easily the most preventable. If we had not stuck our big nose in that one, there never would have been a Hitler rise to power.

cimbri on May 2, 2014 at 4:35 AM

Iraq was a lightening rod. (As Israel has been for decades.) That’s what the invasion accomplished. We fought them there so we didn’t have to see them murdering civilians here. It culled the crap herd.

V7_Sport on May 2, 2014 at 12:25 AM

It’s considered that roughly 1% of Muslims are radicalized. There are 1.6 billion Muslims. That’s around 16 million. We were killing them in spurts of less than 25 an engagement. It’s going to take a long time to get to 16 million at that pace. If your advocating a war of attrition then it’s an even bigger failure.

DFCtomm on May 2, 2014 at 5:06 AM

Hank Johnson has met his match.
They could pair up on Dumb-eHarmony.

kregg on May 2, 2014 at 5:15 AM

WWI came about in large part by centuries of Imperial diplomacy that had become moribund. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand set in motion a war on autopilot due to the various mutual defense agreements.

The three major triggers for WW1 were Metternich’s “Pan-Europeanism” that led up to the revolts of 1848, the Franco-Prussian War that proceeded from that, and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Those mutual defense agreements were mainly intended to prevent a repeat of the above three situations, plus preventing the rise of another Bonaparte’. Instead, they got first Mussolini, then Tojo, and finally Hitler.

The war itself was really the first instance of real technological warfare and saw the use of chemical warfare. The opening salvos of WWII was really nothing more than an application of the lessons learned from WWI. Some of those lessons, like the Maginot Line proved wildly inadequate.

Actually, most of the technology of the First World War had already been prototyped and used in the Crimean War, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, two Boer Wars, the Spanish-American War, and the Russo-Japanese War. About the only real innovations were the use of smokeless powder, aircraft, and radio communications. Even chemical warfare dates to the 1860s; chlorine gas was advocated on both sides in the ACW. And trench warfare plus the use of machine guns (Gatlings) in same dated to the final investiture of Richmond in 1865.

The punishment for Germany was designed to keep them from raising again as a military power but it did so in a way that made it utterly impossible for Germany to become a workable nation-state. Hitler rose, in part, on an appeal for German nationalism and Germany’s militaristic culture and heritage.

In short, he tried to be a second Frederick the Great and, unfortunately for Europe, in large part succeeded.

The war gave Russian revolutionaries the opportunity to rise up against the Tsar at a time when the rest of Europe was in no position to come to the aid of the monarchs.

Happy Nomad on May 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Not that they would have anyway. People today tend to forget that prior to WW1, the Tsar was the boogeyman most European chancelleries worried about, even more than Germany. And he was Germany’s single biggest worry after France.

cheers

eon

eon on May 2, 2014 at 7:49 AM

It’s always hard to make direct comparisons, but I would have to say that Korea and Vietnam weren’t caused by World War 2 so much as by the rise of communism, which actually began in the middle of World War 1.

Both Korea and Vietnam were driven largely by Chinese Communism, anyway, which was not really a factor in World War 2.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 1, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Korea, definitely. Vietnam, not so much. They followed the Soviet model and relied on Soviet, not Chinese aid. After all, the Vietnamese have had (and still have) a lot longer history of animosity toward the Chinese than they did us or the French.

Steve Eggleston on May 2, 2014 at 8:26 AM

Eleanor Holmes Norton: “I am the biggest idiot alive.”

redguy on May 2, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Happy Nomad on May 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Thanks. Interesting points.

dentarthurdent on May 2, 2014 at 11:13 AM

It’s always hard to make direct comparisons, but I would have to say that Korea and Vietnam weren’t caused by World War 2 so much as by the rise of communism, which actually began in the middle of World War 1.

Both Korea and Vietnam were driven largely by Chinese Communism, anyway, which was not really a factor in World War 2.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 1, 2014 at 7:47 PM

I would have to say the rise of communism was a major factor in WW2 – especially as to how the Chinese had 2 sides battling each other as well as the Japanese. The war in China might have been very different had the Chinese been working together as one force opposing Japan. And that is all directly linked to the borders drawn at the end of WW2. It’s all linked together.

Russia really didn’t do much against Japan for most of WW2, as they were focused mainly on Germany. But once Germany was beaten, Russia moved to ensure they had a piece of the action on the Pacific side as well. And of course the Chinese communcists were battling the Chincese Nationalists throughout much of WW2 – as well as both sides taking on the Japanese to some degree. Once Japan was beat, and the communists took control of China, just like Russia – they wanted control of as much as they could get.
All of which added together resulted in borders drawn in Korea and Vietnam with communists (of some type) on one side and western supported governments on the other side – same as the line through Germany.

dentarthurdent on May 2, 2014 at 11:22 AM

It was bad enough that Obama chose to lose the war in Iraq, but now it appears that he has even lost the Cold War, something most thought that the West had handily won. Obama is just so awesome.

higgins1991 on May 2, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Send her to Guam. Maybe it will tip over.

Bevan on May 2, 2014 at 11:49 AM

The Dems in general and the CBC in particular think that money spent in Iraq should have been dumped into social welfare coffers instead.

Axe: Notice that EHN’s undergraduate degree focuses on American Studies, which are a select “study” of American history. It has gaping holes of understanding, emphasizing our country’s “atrocities.”

onlineanalyst on May 2, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Via the Daily Caller, let’s be charitable and assume this is a simple brain fart about which century is the 20th, not an assertion that Iraq was the worst conflict of the last hundred years.

Let’s NOT be charitable and call it like it is – she is ignorant and self-serving and is a perfect example of the members of the CBC.

maryo on May 2, 2014 at 1:10 PM

DFCtomm

It’s considered that roughly 1% of Muslims are radicalized.

By whom? By what metric? Even if that’s the case how many “non radicalized” Muslims turn a blind eye to terrorism?

There are 1.6 billion Muslims.

According to Pew.. for the sake of argument we can go with that but I think it’s an overestimate. I hope so at least.

We were killing them in spurts of less than 25 an engagement. It’s going to take a long time to get to 16 million at that pace.

Take a look at a map of the Middle East. Iraq is the hub of all the countries that are a pain in the ass. This wasn’t the Heartland Theory revisited or a gift to Haliburton or any of the other nonsense: It was fighting them there rather than here. It was providing the worst of the worst a convenient place to go get killed that wasn’t a major US city. It also reminded these maniacs that there is a price to pay in lives for attacking us and they should move on to an easier target. It tells those who previously turned a blind eye to attacking Americans that it’s not worth it.

If your advocating a war of attrition then it’s an even bigger failure.

I’m hoping they evolve into something other than what mohammad demanded that they be. I have to confess that hope isn’t a strategy though.

V7_Sport on May 2, 2014 at 10:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2