Politics and War, Then and Now
Is it a Roar or a Meow?
Governance is not the same as easy criticism. Already the Democrats are learning, as is eternally true of our wonderful political system, that loud opposition is not the same as being responsible for governance.
Suddenly the beloved press is looking again into John Murtha’s questionable ethics—and wondering whether we can really leave Iraq so easily. Nancy Pelosi was unable to see Murtha elected as majority leader, and we wonder about her political skills when it is matter of being a leader rather than a megaphone. And we still await something novel from the Democrats about Iraq commensurate with their vehement criticism. Surely they will soon introduce legislation rescinding Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, and wiretaps, since they convinced us that such measures have done nothing to make us safer and couldn’t conceivably have anything to do with the absence of another 9/11 attack.
Couldn’t We Just Get Along?
I suggest a few new proposals that might benefit the country and enhance Democratic prestige. First, eliminate farm subsidies. Most go to corporate farms while smaller family farmers get nothing. No one can determine why a carrot or peach grower doesn’t qualify, but a cotton grower or dairyman receives government loot. It’s a perfect populist issue for such self-acclaimed reformers.
Strike a deal on energy: allow drilling in Anwar and off the coasts in exchange for tougher mileage standards on trucks and SUVs. Offer tax breaks both for renewable energy development and coal gasification. End tariffs on imported ethanol.
Put aside worry for the moment about guest workers and amnesties and just close the border now—through more fencing, more agents, more employer fines, and offering a verifiable ID system.
Introduce a spending freeze. Since the revenues are soaring, the current deficit is a result of government spending exceeding the rate of inflation.
So it is gut-check time for the Democrats. Either they will seek to appear moderate and institutionalize their newfound majorities, or prove lunatic and beholden to all the old fringe groups that turned voters off. I hope their pros have sent out a memo: don’t be photographed with Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, or any of the Hollywood elite. Muzzle John Kerry. Shut up the Wal-Mart-buying John Edwards on the evils of Wal-Mart. Tell Sens. Durban, Kennedy, et al. not to say a word about our troops. Don’t let Congressman Murtha or Sen. Harry Reid give any lectures on the culture of corruption. Instead they should follow James Webb around or the newly elected Jon Tester of Montana who at least look like old-style Democrats that were not at ease with pompadour hairstyling, windsurfing, and Volvo SUVs.
Israel
We are witnessing strange things about Israel. Columnists this year wrote about it being a “mistake.” And for the first time emboldened Islamic leaders talk seriously not about restoring lost land on the West Bank and the Golan Heights, but of “wiping” it off the map entirely.
The Lebanon war saw not just slanted coverage, but outright falsification and lying from the major Western new servers—many of them served by local stringers who provide on the ground propaganda and faked photos. And now the Holocaust has been reinvented, as the old idea of a safe haven for the survivors of the Third Reich has been transmogrified into “a one bomb state.” Mein Kampf is translated as “Jihadi” on the West Bank and sells briskly. We are seeing a venomous anti-Semitic hatred in the Arab-supported state papers that the world has not witnessed since the 1930s and 1940s.
Back home, the Left/Right split on Israel has also been turned upside down. If you wish to read sick hatred about the Jewish state go to the leftist blogs or the campuses, not the Montana badlands. Somehow the Palestinians have reinvented themselves as liberal victims of Western, white male imperialists. Thus, in the manner of Blacks, Chicanos, Gays, and Women they are deserving of the usually accorded sympathy for their oppressed status—never mind the Islamists’ gender apartheid, religious intolerance, homophobia, and fundamentalism that should be so repugnant to the liberal mind.
Now more than ever Israel is nearly all alone—and so serves as a barometer in the West of true liberal courage of conscious. It has no oil, no international terrorists, no large population, no real material advantages and no threats to be made in the most crass sense.
Instead, it is a humane liberal society, an atoll of reason in a surrounding sea of autocracy. So it is the perfect litmus test for the Westerner: on the one hand is principled support for an embattled democracy; on the other, is easy appeasement that wins applause from millions, eases concerns about oil and terrorism, and offers cheap relief of elite guilt by trashing the very Western culture that rewards us all. Tragically, most leftist elites these days fail the test. Somehow, especially in Britain, they put themselves on the side of illiberal groups like Hamas or the Palestinian Authority whose history is antithetical to very notion of tolerance.
Now we have yet again the ubiquitous Jimmy Carter. Not content with a failed Presidency, he is determined to turn his legacy into even a greater failure, lecturing us in his new book about an apartheid Israel.
Unlike blacks in his own Georgia of the 1950s, Israeli Arabs vote and enjoy civil liberties, perhaps a million of them, with another 100,000 plus as illegal aliens. In fact, they enjoy rights not found in other Arab countries, inasmuch as Jews treat Arabs inside their own country not just better than Arabs treat Jews (they ethnically cleansed 500,000 from the major Arab capitals in the 1960s), but in the sense of civil liberties better than Arabs treat Arabs.
Carterism is a new postmodern pathology in which smug piety, dressed up in evangelical new-age Christianity, pronounces from afar moral censure on the more righteous party—on the theory that acting well but not perfect is worse than acting badly. Carter reminds me of the timid parent who spanks hard the good son for the rare misdemeanor because he takes it with silence while giving a pass to the wayward son for the daily felony because he would throw a public fit if corrected.
Debating
This past eight days I have been at various places from San Diego to off the Mexican Coast to New Orleans discussing, and debating scholars and pundits on issues ranging from illegal immigration (no to open borders), troop levels in Iraq (don’t add and don’t subtract, but change tactics and force the Iraqis to step up), and World War II (the Red Army, for all the savagery and ordeal on the Eastern front, was not mostly responsibility for winning the war, and its soldiers were no more courageous than Americans at Bastogne, Normandy Beach, Iwo Jima, or Okinawa.).
Sir Max Hastings and I this morning gave differing views at the D-Day Museum in New Orleans on the role of the Soviets in World War II in connection with the efficacy of totalitarian armies versus democratic forces. In passing I made the point that much of the Red Army’s zeal came not from the superior motivation (provided by the fear of being shot), but by the fact it was for nearly 4 years fighting on the soil of Mother Russia. And when it was not—Poland 1939, Finland 1939-40, or even Afghanistan in the 1980s—it fought far worse as an expeditionary force than did the Americans in WWI or WWII, whether at Bastogne or Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
Yes, it is true that 3 out of 4 Wehrmacht soldiers were killed by the Red Army, but the vast majority of Italian and Japanese soldiers were killed by Anglo-Americans; and strategic bombing, Lend-lease, fighting in three simultaneous theaters on three continents, supplying allies, running a submarine and surface naval campaign across the globe were all beyond the Soviets. In general, I found Hastings astute, deeply learned, and polite, and our differences in emphasis were discussed cordially and in a context of gentility.
World War II Redux
On the topic of WWII: After September 11, suddenly the war was in the news as never before, as it became the reference point, rightly or wrongly, for much of our current struggle with the jihadists. 1930s appeasement was seen again in terms of preemption, whether against Saddam or Iran. With the end of the Cold War, and the nuclear plans of North Korea and Iran, we recalled Hiroshima as never before—especially with the specter that the once bombed Japan might well be forced itself to go nuclear.
How do wars end? We seem now always to seek to explain a reformed Japan and Germany in contrast to the up-in-the-air end of the Korean War or Gulf War I, seeing again the wisdom of our fathers who were intent not to repeat the indecisive armistice of World War I.
Intelligence failures? After the WMD fiasco we can now understand the failures to anticipate Pearl Harbor or know the magnitude of exactly what was going on in the death camps. Poorly armored humvees brought us back to thin skinned Shermans and the disastrous day-light, unescorted B-17 raids of 1942-3.
And the UN—that postwar liberal, Western notion of collective security and governance—seems hopelessly naive, given the illiberal nature of the non-Western states in the General Assembly and Security Council. Then there was the constant looking back to Pearl Harbor after 9/11—and wondering what would it take to truly anger the American people when we lost more on September 11, 2001 than on December 7, 1941, and on the home soil of the continental United States, right in the heart of our two greatest cities.
Finally, we all evoked the generational differences. To me it was summed up when Democrats alleged that “We took our eye off Afghanistan by going into Iraq”. My Lord!—this is a country that fought Italy, Japan, and Germany all at once, and was in an inferno on Okinawa while racing eastward past the Rhine, while bombing Berlin, while slogging up through Italy, while igniting the Japanese mainland. Our ancestors apparently had quite a lot more eyeballs than did their lesser sons and daughters.
If I may build from your last point about how far we differ from our ancestors & their faith in our ability to wage war…
To regain a sense of how precarious peace is, how much we rely on warriors to defend us (whether we like to admit it or not), perhaps we can do no better than to go back to that strange story we all read (or used to read) in high school: Beowulf (& it’s a very quick read, too, you may recall!).
If so, we might discover that true leaders are not those who promise us utopias where “we can all just get along”, but those who recognize the fact that sometimes our enemies choose us, that we are not always to blame for the evils that descend on us.
J.R.R. Tolkien understood this tragic reality–he, after all, knew his Beowulf.
“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.
“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” (Lord of the Rings, Bk. I, Ch. 2, p. 55-6).
To those who wish to understand “why they hate us”, it’s all there in Beowulf as well: pride, envy, greed, etc. As when the Danish warrior Unferth taunts Beowulf, but then must learn humility and gratitude for this foreigner who crossed the seas to defend his country.
We might then gain a better grasp of how precarious our democracy is, how the world is filled not with Rousseau’s noble savages, but with Grendal-like monsters who do merciless things to those victims that come into their clutches.
And perhaps we’ll even reinvest somewhat (not romantically, but soberly) in the culture of the warrior–and we’ll be grateful, not contemptuous, when heroes declare their willingness to defend us…as did Beowulf to the Danes:
Beowulf spake, bairn of Ecgtheow:–
“This was my thought, when my thanes and I
bent to the ocean and entered our boat,
that I would work the will of your people
fully, or fighting fall in death,
in fiend’s gripe fast. I am firm to do
an earl’s brave deed, or end the days
of this life of mine in the mead-hall here.”
Carter & Israel:
Carter indeed should look into the mirror of shame & self-mockery. How pathetically foolish & selfish he appears as he annoyingly begs to stay relevant by jumping on the bandwagon of slander & vilification of Israel, especially while Iran’s president dangerously habituates the world to his plans for Israel’s apocalyptic annihilation.
Carter fuels the flames of anti-Semitism w/ his bogus claims of apartheid Israel. If anything, the Sharon government exercised “reverse-apartheid” when it evacuated 10,000 Jews from their Gaza homes of 30 years. And what did the Palestinian Arabs do now that Gaza is free of Jews & the IDF? Surely this was an opportunity for the Palestinian Arabs to cultivate the lettuce farms and flower greenhouses that the Jewish Gush-Katif residents left behind. Instead, the Palestinian Arabs burned-down the synagogues, looted the greenhouses & turned the area into a terrorist haven to launch Kassam rockets at Israeli civilians. (In addition, after the disengagement, Gaza has become an Al-Qaeda stronghold. This thanks to the pressure our neophyte Secretary of State Rice placed on Israel to transfer Gaza’s Philadelphia Corridor to Egyptian & European auspices…meanwhile, literal tons of weapons are rolling- in.) Carter would have you believe that it’s Israel’s fault that the Palestinian Arabs prefer embracing a suicide bomber’s nihilist mentality instead of one that encourages them to help themselves, starting w/ maintaining the oasis that the Jewish evacuees left them.
It is indeed an Orwellian world where we indulge the likes of Carter & his privileged liberal cohorts w/ their shallow kumbaya-delusions about the world. The stakes are too high (especially for Israel, which has no margin for error) to deal in a passive, hands-tied, Judeo-Christian/democratic manner when faced w/ the evil incarnate that has no qualms about annihilating Israel first, & then the rest of us. Five years after 9/11, it’s way past the midnight hour for Israel & Bush to ruthlessly & offensively fight our common enemy. At the very least, Bush should stop trying to placate the “moderate” Muslims & unambiguously, unreservedly define the enemy, as the 200 million Islamofascists running-burka-clad-rampant to threaten us all. There is no place for nuance in an existential battle against the barbarian Jihadists at our front gate.
Ref: Can’t we all just get along? I have great respect and regard for you. Hope, however, you didn’t miss James Webb’s piece in a recent Wall Street Journal, wherein he reveals himself to be one of the boldest, triangulating, socialistic, class-warriors on the national stage. Get along? Don’t think so.
Dont’ hold your breath for much of anything to “benefit the country” from the current leadership on either side of the aisle. Your “few new ideas” are conservative ones that should work, are reasonably acheivable and would greatly enhance prestige with the American people. This is what we expect from REPUBLICAN leadership but they fail us. Democrats will continue to thrive in spite of themselves.
Thanks for the great post!
What Judith said.
Prof. Hanson, a minor correction. Most of the Sephardic Jews who were forced (by threats of pogroms after the State of Israel was created) out of the Arab and Muslim countries left between 1948 and the mid 1950s, not the 1960s.
“Suddenly the beloved press is looking again into John Murtha’s questionable ethics—and wondering whether we can really leave Iraq so easily.”
Oh, really? NOW the media’s questioning Murtha’s ethical mishaps? Do our ideological opponents on the left really need to sink any lower than they already have? On the other hand, if they really are willing to commit political suicide, their current positions may very well mean that they’ll take this country down with them. We need every prayer we can get from the Presidential Prayer Team and other willing Christians still left in the United States of America.
Mr.Beloit’s views Sen. Webb like I do after reading his commentary.
As to wars. We knew and recognized the enemy during WWII, and said so. We know the enemy now but are afraid to say so. Why is that? I just marvel at how we’ve let PC destroy our ability to say what needs to be said.
Islamofascists is probably the most astute definiting of our enemy, but yet the President of the US will no longer say it. Such self inflicted blindness only aids our enemy as we get weaker and weaker within.
When you write about Israel as being “a humane liberal society”, is that not offset by perserving that piece by waging asymetrical warfare against less well developed and civilised Arab countries. Is this an accurate definition of humane and liberal or does this only apply to what a country does within on it’s own land?
The more one looks back at contemporary arguments in American history over its various wars at the time, the more one realizes this is still the same basic country. Backbiting, political maneuvering, ideological extremes, and some Americans testing the very limits of treason.
Victor has mentioned a number of times (and I believe he needs to make it a regular theme) that this populist, volatile, media-driven America should terrify the rest of the world, but not for the reasons it thinks.
Should large sections of American cities start disappearing in mushroom clouds, or hundreds of thousands of Americans start dying of weaponized bubonic plague – the American response would be predictable and awful beyond imagining. The world should shake in fear at the idea of a catastrophic attack on the United States.
Why does the world keep falling for the idea that we’re soft? That we’re decadent and beyond being able to see a war to the end? Why do they make the same exact mistake others made about us in th past?
If the “international community” were in any way rational, they would be totally committed to the war on the jihadists AND to the war in Iraq. Because anyone who WANTS to antogonize the United States to do its worst – is a menace to the entire world. Any sense of self- preservation would make the international community our allies.
God forestall the day America must add another total victory to its history. It’s not a war any of us would want to see.
An excellent tour d’horizon. Thank you and don’t stop.
As a former Democrat, the tack to the center that most of the successful Democratic candidates took in the recent election heartens me. Still, much goes unanswered as to how the triumphant Democrats will address foreign policy. As I reminded some of my celebratory liberal friends here in Iowa-hating George Bush is not the same as having a policy. The delusions of the Left, the faction which is the American Socialist Party in everything but name, is what drove many of us Truman/Kennedy Democrats from the party and hopefully it appears that their time in the sun is about over. My generation, the “Boomer Generation”, the Generation-That-Can’t-Quite-Get-Over-Itself, may actually grow up as their ponytails turn gray and realize that the world is a messy, dangerous place, and the utopian pipe-dream is just that.
What escapes me about the left’s “abandon Israel” cry is their inability to comprehend how many Arab lives are saved by a muscular US guarantee of Israel’s survival.
Do any of them think that Israel, abandoned and standing alone against massed Arab armies, who are armed to the teeth with Russian, Chinese and in all probability French weapons will go quietly into that good night? Our current policy, while imperfect, keeps many Arab capitals from being reduced to radioactive ashtrays.
re: Cousin Jimmuh…every time Jimmy Carter opens his mouth, he makes me ashamed that he hails from the same state as I do. Ashamed he’s from the same country as me, for that matter.
re: getting along…I agree with Dr. Bishop. Nothing good will come from the current leadership of either party (or from our current politcal structure, period, I’m afraid). Has there ever been a time in the entirety of this nation’s history – much less a period as desperate as the one we live in – where good/sensible political leadership has been so sorely lacking? If there has been such a time then I’m glad I missed it.
“Our ancestors apparently had quite a lot more eyeballs than did their lesser sons and daughters.”
Not to be entirely crass, but “eyeballs” appears to have a few too many letters to aptly describe what much of this generation is lacking.
As for the grandstanding, Logan Act violator who apparently has morphed from a bunny-fearing pantywaist whose trembling hands evolved into paralysis when courage and leadership were needed most…into a strange blend of Don Quixote, Chauncey Gardiner, and Garfield Goose.
Carter acts as if he has the imprimatur of the American public to act on their behalf and wanders around in his bathrobe and slippers howling at the moon, until the anarchists and Socialists aiming to overturn the current form of government, parade him out as “a beacon of wisdom”, and the first “King of the United States”.
Carter then spews his typical venom and bile toward Israel, and against that portion of the American public that is not Socialist-minded nor looking for anarchy…and his fawning sycophants put him up for awards, trophies and accolades so much the better to fortress himself from the truth…that he’s a pathetic figurehead of a failed and puny groupthink cult.
He is used and he uses in return. Each side getting exactly what they need while delivering the groupthink vacuous homilies, littered with just the appropriate amount of sanctimonious breastbeating.
When you peel away the veneer all that’s left is an empty shell of a very weak, despicable turncoat and his mindless handlers who by day, appear as his fawning supplicants and by night seek yet another way to suck the energy and resolve of a nation desperately seeking itself.
We have one true friend in the Middle East and if we, as a people, have even the most remote sense of ourselves and who we want to be, we should not, we absolutely must not…turn our backs on Israel.
Israel is about to be whipsawed by a pernicious leftist movement led by the BBC, Reuters, AP, NY Times, NPR, Chomskyites and Kos Kidz and their ilk, … and mindlessly parroted by NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN lemmings in their zeal to become “world populists”….and the isolationist rights in the Scowcroft/Baker mold.
We have long ago abandoned, apparently, any shame in not standing by our word, not believing in loyalty, honor, and devotion to what is right.
We allow ourselves to be led by men and women of weak wills and easy virtue. We seek the expedient path of least resistance. Our word, our handshake, our signature, our covenant are merely tools to get what we want at the moment.
As long as we are going to let Israel twist in the wind, perhaps we should simply carve out an equal sized piece of land for them here. Let’s say starting in the Pacific Northwest and following down the coast to Northern California. We can deed to Israel a new homeland, and salve our conscience. Let her live here, in peace. Let the “Palestinians” have what the world gave to Israel. Let them take it…not by force, but by decree.
And let’s build a new Israel here on the banks of the Pacific. A full, free sovereign nation carved out of our own landscape. 50 years of trying to live in peace with Arabs, we now can admit…is impossible. They have proven they are incapable of such a thing. Let’s remove the canard of their “rage” and see what happens.
The movement for world peace starts with one great act of charity. Bring them to peace and safety in our tent. Let the world live in peace and harmony.
After the Holocaust, the world gave these long suffering people a homeland, after a third of their number had been exterminated. Let’s avoid another Holocaust. Let’s give of ourselves the MOST we can give, not the least.
Instead of surrounding Jews with people who hate them, let’s bring them into the cradle of our breast and hold them to our hearts.
In assessing which of these two ideas…abandoning them and our word…or giving in the ultimate show of honor…which would we choose? Not even a serious question. We will abandon them and ourselves. We have long ago given up on our honor.
So you are saying that when a less developed and less civilized country decides to wage war on a more powerful, more developed and more civilized society, the more advanced society should not respond with effective warfare. War, particularly the existential wars that Israel faces (since her enemies truly want to destroy her), is not bowling or golf, that have a handicap system.
What you are suggesting is a bizzaro-world mirror image of “Chicago rules”: if he brings a knife to a gunfight, I’m not allowed to respond with superior force.
Charles Frith,
The world is not governed by playground rules– as you must know. There are victims of extremist violence on every continent. Would you tell their families we are responding with calibrated moral restraint because we are so much stronger? Such strength is currently struggling to prevent aggression and murder.
Or perhaps we should just crash explosive laden jets into Sadr City hoping to fry and mame as many civilians as possible. Or, we could just set off bombs at weddings. Sitting on your comfy couch with laptop– get a clue!
Israel:
The United States cannot abandon Israel, hence it cannot abandon Iraq. To do so would betray the greatness of the men and women of the United States who in years past, in two great wars, fought on the side of freedom and against oppression. To abandon either area would be a betrayal of the very spirit which brought about the founding of our country.
Actually, it’s an accurate definition of how any decent, sensible country fights a war. How would you have them fight, with tanks and jet fighters or in bright orange jumpsuits with water pistols? (Don’t answer.) In general, the more quickly you end a war, the fewer the casualities on either side. And the more powerful you are and the more willing you are to use force when necessary, the less likely you are to have to fight.
The real problems are not in how Israel fights. It’s the venality of Arab terrorist groups taking them on in the first place, along with all the toading-to-terrorism news services (AP, Reuters and AFP) that let them get away with using civilians as shields. Remember, it is the Arab radicals who want little Arab children to die, not Israel.
What bothers me is that so little as changed since the 1930s with respect to the value given to Jewish lives. Look at liberal politicians (the silent FDR then and all-too-talkative Carter now), international agencies (League then, UN now), and the ever wimpy Europeans (appeasement then and now). For all those groups, Jews aren’t worth as much as other people.
Hence this absurd call for Israel to fight poorly, Carter’s increasingly anti-Semitic rantings, rampant press bias, and the all-too-obvious hostility toward Israel building a wall & fence to keep out suicide bombers. Nothing has really changed since Krystalnacht. Nothing at all. Jews are still Untermensche.
Personally, I don’t think the move into Lebanon was a good idea. I’d have preferred that they hit a major terrorist supporter like Syria hard, targeting anything that helps terrorists in Lebanon or Iraq. (The US might have been willing to slip them targeting data about the latter.) Lebanon is in too much chaos to be held accountable. There’s no chaos in Syria. But I am delighted that the old ghetto Jews is no more, that Jews now fight and in most cases fight well and with powerful weapons. That’s the sort of humane behavior I appreciate.
Perhaps someone should do a t-shirt along the lines of the “Don’t Mess with Texas” bumper stickers. It’d show some of the weapons Israel uses to fight asymetrical warfare and be captioned, “Don’t Mess with Israel.”
–Michael W. Perry
Editor of Dachau Liberated
How could Carter ever worsen his legacy? I thought he’d long ago passed Millard Fillmore and comfortably settled into the darkness and ooze at the bottom.
Buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride. Our pals at the UN are talking about making our Jimmy Carter the head of a UN Human Rights “Fact Finding” commission for Israel. Won’t that make us proud! The convergence of the UN and Human Rights serves one purpose alone: to bludgeon Israel, while ignoring the terrorism perpetrated against Israel. The “new and improved” version of the UN Human Rights Commission, the UN Human Rights Council, has ramped up their efforts to uphold human rights. Yet they have condemned but one country in their entire tenure: Israel. Thus, the choice of Jimmy to head up this UN commission would be an apt union of anti-semites. And American taxpayer dollars funneled to the UN finance it. Wonders never cease!
What a platform! Where do I sign up for your campaign?
Sacrifice and service. Your reference to WWII made me think of my father, and other fathers like him, in terms of sacrifice and service. He grew up in the depression and fought for three years in the Pacific against the Japanese. He came home, got educated, never complained, lived modestly, worked hard, and loved his country.
We are in a different kind of war but with the same stakes as WWII. How will we now face the enemy in what will be a protracted, ever bloodier war? Most people don’t seem to realize that our civilization is at stake. Will we expand our volunteer military? Will we institute a draft? Are we willing to make the sacrifices necessary that were all too clear to the greatest generation?
The last line was classic.
cfbleachers:
“A new Israel on the banks of the Pacific…”
I’m not sure how literally you meant that, but if the Israelis would consider relocating from their ancestral homeland (not likely), I prefer my proposition: in exchange for solar-generated electricity, give them the lower 15 miles of the United States. Roughly twice the size of the current Israel, the strip would have access to two oceans, and it would at once solve the conflict in the Middle East, our oil dependency, and our border porousity problem. They can build solar panel manufacturing plants in whatever number necessary, and there’s plenty of sunshine.
I have a 20 year old son. Personally, I would not celebrate his going off to fight for democracy or any other ideal. My father, like some of yours, fought from Normandy to Germany. But, in a more general sense, I would understand the need. I have great contempt for Charles Rangel’s not so subtle attempt to hold hostage the children of the middle class against their parents’ acquiescence to enter another political war.
When Gordo above asks, “Are we prepared to make the sacrifices” I must ask if he is a parent or a young person. So far, in our contemporary less-than-total wars, sacrifice is not evenly distributed.
I have great sympathy for those families who have invested life and may well lose whatever sense of worthiness their very real sacrifice has given them as we lose interest and a sense of purpose in this our current war. Unless we, te parents of the young who fight can have faith in our government’s resolve to fully pursue their rhetoric….why would we docility and dumb faith give up our children? Patriotism gives way to contempt and cynicism. Much as it always has.
Charles Frith–re asymmetrical warfare:
During WWII, the US was in important ways a much more developed society than was Nazi Germany. We had a huge automotive industry, which proved convertible to the manufacture of planes and tanks. We had a large number of people who understood mass production and were able to apply these techniques to things like ship construction. We also had substantial domestic supplies of oil, which Germany lacked.
Should we have declined to use these advantages in order to play fair?
Thank you, especially for this:
It is a constant wonder to me that people who express paranoia about the religious right look back at me blankly when I talk about the other side of American Christianity, equally important in the settling and forming of America and still active today. None are as deluded as Carter, sporting his supercessionist delusion of moral perfection. I thing your question: What’s wrong with just being good? is the big question of the day partly because the mind-set is what is shared between the jihadis and the Moore/Sheehan lunatics and partly because of the appalling lack of confidence the West has in itself after so many decades of navel-gazing and petty criticism as sides face off for political power. Hopefully the (reasonable) left will be bucked up by power (and humbled) and be able to stop looking so negatively at their culture and begin to see that, though imperfect, it’s pretty darned good compared to many of the alternatives.
It is wonderful to read such beautiful English.
I don’t know how it is with you guys, but I can’t look a Civil War monument in the eye anymore. We are dwarves and wiill have the country we deserve.
Erudite analysis and discussion. Brilliant, as usual.
DJK – Chicago, IL
Carterism as new age Christianity and the rest of the new age lefties,while professing compassion for every “victim” they can dredge up, including the ever “victimized” Palestinians, the entire Arab world and every last person in New Orleans that got wet, is really deeply and irreversably anti-semetic. The anti- black and anti-semetic “rage” expressed by Mel (the devil drink made me do it) Gibson and Michael(the devil Bush made me do it) Richards, is really ample proof of the undercurrent of this disgusting anti-semitism. It is barely held in check by a thin veneer of post-modern liberalism, elitism and its annoying need to at least be seen as compassionate. Its true nature of profound anti- semitism informs most of its discourse and certainly all of its “rage”. The early Christian church needed its myth of a divine and compassionate Jesus, but it desperately needed the myth of his death and resurection. This seemed to demonstrate the possibility of salvation and triumph over chaos. To have power, the myth needed both separation from and the demonization of Jews. Jews were accused of not only denying the divinity of this Jesus (who was a decent Jew and never clainmd divinity) but also that Jews, not the Romans were responsible for the death of Jesus and most importantly, all the chaos in the world. These myths hold sway today as much as ever and so we see the fragile and ever paraded “compassion” of the Christian Carterites and the elitist “progressives” turn into vile anti- Israel sentiments when it comes to the chaos of the Middle-East. History and realism is ignored in favour of hatred of Israel. They do not readily admit it but all Jews are included in this hateful discourse on Israel. It is called anti-semitism. Pure and simple. This river of poison runs beneath the expensive fabric of Western Society only to raise its ugly head at the slightest prod. Michael Richards in his pathetic “apology” attributes his “rage” to the Bush administration and its “war”. Gibson attributes all the world’s “wars” to Jews… but for the Jews there would be no chaos. Israel stands in the way of their pathetic elitist lives. Bush is just messing up their right to keep their cozy and expensive lives uncomplicated by reality. Oh they’ll send somebody’s kid to Darfur but…Iraq? No. Israel? absolutely not. Every anti-semite walking knows that without the US military in the Middle-East, Israel may be brought to its knees. Or worse. The Carterites and the “progressives” all know very well that Iran threatens the existance of Israel and every Jew. They just don’t see it as a problem. Israel is alone but Jews are in their own country and not just because the Balfour declaration gave it to them. They are exactly where were from time immemorial and where they belong and they are exactly who they are supposed to be. And, they are not helpless. The Carterites are just going to have to get used to it.