"This title does Daniel J. Flynn's fine new history a disservice," Ronald Radosh writes of A Conservative History of the American Left in the current issue of the Weekly Standard. "Some readers seeking a thorough and critical history of the left in America are likely to ignore it because of its claim to be a 'conservative history.' Flynn is certainly a conservative, as some of his candid and pithy judgments indicate, but what he gives readers is a well-rounded history of the left that should be read by anyone interested in the subject--and that includes those who call themselves left or liberal." This is an important review for my book both in terms of the influence of the journal in which it appears and the authority its author has on the subject matter. Ron Radosh is a red-diaper baby turned critic of the Left, who literally, then, knows the Left from the inside out. He has written on the Left as a memoirist in Commies: The Old Left, the New Left, and the Leftover Left and as an historian in The Rosenberg File, the best book on the case of Soviet spy Julius Rosenberg and his wife-accomplice Ethel. "A Conservative History of the American Left could not have come at a better moment," Radosh writes. Ditto for his positive review.

UPDATE: Read the full review here.

Congratulations, Dan! That's excellent.

So far I've only skimmed over the book. Not much was said about the Left on Iraq (the history seemed to end with 9/12). Has the Left mostly been right on Iraq whereas the Right has mostly been wrong?

It is perhaps imprudent to write a history of a war that is not yet over.

obi juan: isn't the left "right" on iraq for all the wrong reasons? Wasn't their overwraught and nonsensical opposition to it the biggest thing preventing reasonable opposition from being heard? From condemnations of so-call American global oppression to the demand for UN approval, they made me want to support the war.

The war is over, but the occupation and rebuilding continues. Ben, under your logic, the Korean War must still be raging on.

If you believe that the situations in Korea and Iraq can be equated, I have a great deal for you on a bridge in Brooklyn.

Sweet, where do I sign?

I would agree that what's going on now in Iraq is more a policing action than a war. The real war was quickly won when we decimated and scattered Saddam Hussein's army and successfully occupied Iraq. Since then, our troops have been there to keep the locals from killing each other and to eradicate any wayward terrorist types who happen into the area. And since the Surge, there have only been scattered skirmishes.

But Iraq does not resemble what transpired in Korea. Troops there fought a full scale war to a stalemate and eventual truce. There will be no truce (at least for a while) with the many factions in Iraq.

Where Iraq and Korea are similar is that there will always be a U.S. military presence in both places.

"Where Iraq and Korea are simillar is that there will always be a US military presence in both places." asdf

Actually no. The US military has been stretched almost to the breaking point due to the ongoing operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the GWOT. The bottom line is it really does not matter who the next president is. The US military as it is currently constituted cannot continue in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere much longer. As such, there will not be a US military presence of any type in Iraq past the middle of 2009. In addition to this, the American people will not tolerate continued operations there much longer. (I had expected the withdrawl from Iraq to happen much sooner than it has.) The withdrawl from Afghanistan will occurr very soon after the withdrawl from Iraq.

As for Korea, the US military is less formidiable than it was a few years ago due to the wear and tear on it and North Korea has significantly strengthened its converntional forces. As such, they may calculate that they can fight and win a conventional war against South Korea. The US will not go nuclear to defend South Korea. In any event, the US troops there will face signifcantly more danger there than they have historically. As North Korea gets bolder, pressure from the American electorate will grow to bring the troops that are there back home. In addition to this, my understanding is many South Koreans resent the US military presence in their country. All of these factors, mean that the American troops that are in South Korea will have left by the end of the next Presidental Administration.

South Korea should and probably is planning for the aftermath of the inevitable American withdrawl. They have made great strides militarily in recent yearas, however, they probably stil have a ways to go before thay cna be an effective deterrent against North Korea. By the time the Americans withdraw they will probably be ready. There will not be a permanent American military presence in either South Korea or Iraq. This US military presence in both countries will be ending soon.

In fact, the Aemrican military presence around the globe will have largely ended by the end of the next Presidental Administration regardless who the next President is. Several factors are converging to make this situation a reality. The US has a massive national debt and cannot afford to continue this much longer. The US military is worn down. The American electorate does not want the role of Global Policeman. Finally, many people around the world don't want the Americans in this role. As America withdraws from this role, what it will mean for world security is not known. What does seem very likely, is the US military will be withdrawing from most places in the world where it currently is by the end of the next Presidential Administration.

I would agree that the presence in Korea should be dissolved (since 1953 the South can't defend themselves?). At least at the level it's at today.

But I'm not sure where you're getting your information. How can you make statements either philosophically or practically to the effect that, very soon, we'll have no military presence in those places that are now dominated by the U.S.? Are you somehow privy to information regarding troop movement that other people aren't? Maybe you are.

But, even a softy like Obama could not make a wholesale move of troops out of Iraq and do it quickly.