The Unavoidable War

Monday, August 14, 2006

Quite by accident, I have found a lengthy, but very good column by Robert Tracinski that is on the RealClear Politics site (which I visit at least once a day), but which I could not find linked from the main page. The column is substantially the same as the edition of TIA Daily I alluded to in a recent post.

Tracinski begins by noting the recent surge of analogies to World War II by pro-war commentators on the right, and then does two things.

First, he shows just how closely the current situation resembles that faced by the West before World War II.

We can't avoid this war, because Iran won't let us avoid it. That is the real analogy to the 1930s. Hitler came to power espousing the goal of German world domination, openly promising to conquer neighboring nations through military force and to persecute and murder Europe's Jews. He predicted that the free nations of the world would be too weak--too morally weak--to stand up to him, and European and American leaders spent the 1930s reinforcing that impression. So Hitler kept advancing--the militarization of the Rhineland in 1936, the Spanish bombing campaign in 1937, the annexation of Austria and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938, the invasion of Poland in 1939--until the West finally, belated decided there was no alternative but war.

That is what is playing out today. Iran's theocracy has chosen, as the nation's new president, a religious fanatic who believes in the impending, apocalyptic triumph of Islam over the infidels. He openly proclaims his desire to create an Iranian-led Axis that will unite the Middle East in the battle against America, and he proclaims his desire to "wipe Israel off the map," telling an audience of Muslim leaders that "the main solution" to the conflict in Lebanon is "the elimination of the Zionist regime." (Perhaps this would be better translated as Ahmadinejad's "final solution" to the problem of Israel.)

Like Hitler, Ahmadinejad regards the free nations of the world as fading "sunset" powers, too morally weak to resist his legions of Muslim fanatics. And when we hesitate to kill Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, when we pressure Israel to rein in its attacks on Hezbollah, when we pander to the anti-Jewish bigotry of the "Muslim street"--we reinforce his impression of our weakness.

The result has been and will be the same: Iran will press its advantage and continue to attack our interests in the Middle East and beyond. The only question is when we will finally decide that Iran's aggression has gone too far and its theocratic regime needs to be destroyed.
Second, he identifies the cause of the current Western paralysis in the face of a threat many correctly regard as obvious. (On the way, he considers a recent column by Nicholas Kristof discussed last week on the Harry Binswanger List.)
Observing the events of today--the hesitation and uncertainty, the stubborn clinging to the fantasy that the enemy can be appeased if we just keep talking and find the right diplomatic solution--I now feel that, for the first time, I really understand the leaders of the 1930s. Their illusion that Hitler could be appeased has always seemed, in historical hindsight, to be such a willful evasion of the facts that I have never grasped how it was possible for those men to deceive themselves. But I can now see how they clung to their evasions because they could not imagine anything worse than a return to the mass slaughter of the First World War. They wanted to believe that something, anything could prevent a return to war. What they refused to imagine is that, in trying to avoid the horrors of the previous war, they were allowing Hitler to unleash the much greater horrors of a new war.

Today's leaders and commentators have less excuse. The "horror" they are afraid of repeating is the insurgency we're fighting in Iraq--a war whose cost in lives, dollars, and resolve is among the smallest America has ever had to pay. And it takes no great feat of imagination to project how much more horrible the coming conflict will be if we wait on events long enough for Iran to arm itself with nuclear technology. Among the horrific consequences is the specter of a new Holocaust, courtesy of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
Tracinski does note that despite the inevitability of this war, it will be fought against an enemy not quite in Nazi Germany's league.

From a military standpoint, this is a good thing. From a cultural one, it is a mixed bag.

Here's what I mean. We face an inferior opponent who does not have the cultural wherewithal to become more formidable militarily. This means we can fight a halfhearted war (as we have) and not get trounced. In the short term, this is good news. It can be bad news in the long term. So long as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other states that sponsor terrorism are permitted to exist, so will terrorism. And so long as this war drags on uncompleted, the West will, as a whole, become accustomed to terrorism or the kinds of restrictions on freedom we are seeing to combat terrorism (but which properly belong only to times of war).

We become less free. Worse, we slowly become used to not being free. At the risk of sounding deterministic, many (including Tracinski himself) have noted a sort of positive feedback of freedom:
The real phenomenon that the phrase "cultural imperialism" refers to is the voluntary adoption of ideas, art and entertainment produced in civilized countries. It refers to the most benevolent kind of "empire" that could be imagined: an empire of common ideals and attitudes; an empire spread purely by voluntary persuasion; an empire whose "conquest" consists of bringing the benefits of civilization to backward regions. Western "cultural imperialism" is the march of progress across the globe. [all bold added]
And a while back, I noted an example of the obverse: a retrogression of culture in France precipitated by a statist attempt to "protect" the French language. In short, because the French government mandates that a certain percentage of French radio programming be in French, nihilistic rappers from its banlieues dominate the French music scene. Thus rather than more benign influences being felt (via radio, anyway) in the slums, their baleful spirit is spread outward.

This kind of "negative feedback" can occur in other areas as well. Consider the humble beginnings of the income tax during the Civil War, when the top bracket was only 5%. No one would have thought at the time that we would eventually amend the Constitution to permit such a tax nor that our top rate would now be over 33% -- or that it had once been 94%! Americans accepted the premise that it was OK for the government to take a "little bit" of their incomes. And then they gradually got used to more and more being taken away.

It is the slow kind of negative feedback -- often illustrated through the parable of the boiled frog -- that is the biggest weapon of our enemy in this war. And this serves to remind us of why this war's main front is in the intellectual arena. At best, commentators like Tracinski might succeed in causing a more vigorous prosecution (and quicker end) to the war. Even with that kind of success, intellectuals will have a role to play: Helping the West rediscover its intellectual roots. Or: Why the West is free in the first place. For without an understanding of what freedom is and why it is good, men will not fight for it.

And that last will be especially true if men grow used to not possessing freedom. Call the worst danger of this war "creeping dhimmitude". If men become used to not being free, and remain ignorant of the danger that religion poses to the intellectual foundations of freedom, they will slowly become brutes again, whether or not they become Moslem.

Fortunately, there is time for a second Renaissance in the West. But the longer we wait to bring it about, the harder it will be to do so. In this respect, the military and intellectual battles are identical.

-- CAV

12 comments:

Apollo said...

"Tracinski does note that despite the inevitability of this war, it will be fought against an enemy not quite in Nazi Germany's league.

From a military standpoint, this is a good thing."

"We face an inferior opponent who does not have the cultural wherewithal to become more formidable militarily."

I think people put too much emphasis on technology and firepower in war, especially in this kind of war. I think it's important to remember that the German Army was technologically, materially, and numerically inferior to the allies.
Despite all that, they owed their amazing fighting power to superior ideas, organizational methods, and the best use of their soldiers.

When it comes to war, we all understand the power of reason when it is used to develop new technology and weapons, but we ignore it's power when it is used to develop ideas such as new doctrines, tactics,organizational methods, etc.

Look at the recent confrontation between Hezbollah and the IDF. With all their technology and firepower you would have thought that the IDF would have done a much better job at beating Hezbollah. Even with the help of Iran and Syria you still can't call them a force that is at the same leage as the IDF, but they they were able to caused a lot of damage against israel in large part because of their methods, not technology.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963869558/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/103-7810150-4613451?ie=UTF8

Gus Van Horn said...

Apollo,

And, on the IDF, see this post if you haven't already.

Gus

Apollo said...

I did, actually, I posted on it(third person). I put up some information about Hezbollah.

Gus Van Horn said...

Apollo,

Oops! I'm pretty sure I did see that when I read the post, yesterday at latest. My apologies.

Gus

Apollo said...

All I can say is that it's a moral crime to put so many restrictions on our soldiers, and at the same time not teach them how to fight in a way that they wont have to depend so much on firepower.

If our soldiers want to learn those skills they have to look for it by themselves(in books) because they propably wont get it in the military. And this is because our military is a technology centerd attrition based army.



By the way, even though I didn't like the reason the author of 'The Tigers Way' gave for using small-unit tactics, I still recommend his book.

http://members.aol.com/posteritypress/tiger.htm

Gus Van Horn said...

Apollo,

You forgot to include a link to your review of same!

Gus

Apollo said...

Not just that, I also forgot to link to the book on my blog, but ill do that tomorrow because im lazy.

Also, what the hell am i doing on the TOS blogroll? Must be some kind of mistake.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.asp

Gus Van Horn said...

Apollo,

We're obviously up at the same time, but this is going to be it for me. I should've gotten to bed an hour ago...

As for your question, I don't know, but I found you first!

Congratulations!

Gus

Anonymous said...

I am begining to wonder whether there is any actual avoiding going on. If we know what actions by the west will convincinly end the war and we know that we are capable of performing those actions but instead refuse, is it possible that the refusal to proscecute this war properly is due to the fact that the west doesn't want the war to end.

Gus Van Horn said...

Jay,

It depends on what you mean by "wanting the war to end". If you mean "wanting to face the task at hand", you're dead on.

Some in the West have other agendas either in line with the terorists (the pacifist left) or that they simply see as more important than the war (e.g., certain Just War theorists, who regard submission to their religious authority the first priority, and fighting the Islamofascists as a minor detail to worry about later.

But if you mean some sort of Michael-Moorian tack of perpetuating war (and I don't think you do), you'd be dead wrong.

Gus

Anonymous said...

"But if you mean some sort of Michael-Moorian tack of perpetuating war (and I don't think you do), you'd be dead wrong"

Can I just ask, are you saying that Michael Moore and that of the antiwar crowd's tack in opposing the war is a direct desire to encourage perpertual war, or are they just products of a bad philosophy. Or are you saying my suggestion makes me sound like Micheal Moore.

I was reading the fountainhead last week again for the first time in a while and I remember a section where Dominique calls Wynand a tank and Toohey a corrosive gas, (and in another section Toohey talks about spreading a chemical to kill weeds etc)I gather that the corrosive gas is bad philosophy, particularly the altruist moral code. I also can be fairly sure that most if not all of the anti-war group are products of that philosophy. I can also see the same philosophy in Bush's Christianity, he's definitely an altruist so I can see that most people are products of bad philosophy and not deliberately perpetuating war so I can't call out the president or anyone specifically an call him a warmonger. The questions I have is who, if anyone is responsible for spreading the corrosive gas, one could say the universities but would it be unfair to simply hold in suspicion anyone who held ideas who's consequences lead to perpetual war.

Finally, I read a book called A Creature Fron Jeckyl Island by G Edward Griffin some 4 years ago and I can't help but feel influenced by it somewhat as well as troubled by both the book, and the fact that I agree with much of it. It talks about the creation of the federal reserve and the income tax and goes all the way back to america's founding to describe america's many battle's with central banking and I can't help thinking that america's original republican's were taken over by the federalists who succeeded in making sure america would rebel only physically but then adopt much of the same system as that which they rebeled against.I think Rand said the movement towards statism was started by big business and not by workers so the question I have is if I can say that univerities are responsible for spreading Toohey's chemical, can I also say the same about the banking system, are they also just products of philosophy or are they contributers in promoting bad philosophy(apperantly creating money to lend to third world countries which doesn't get paid back and then get our govt to bail them out for their bad loans is there policy. Not only is it an example of altruism but a promotion of altruism in it lowers our standard of living which they have to be aware of and therefore promotes more altruism)Do you know of any objectivist who has heard of this book. It basically didn't say the rich bankers were evil capitalists, it said they were evil socialists

I apologize if I took too long or if Im being unfair.

Gus Van Horn said...

Jay,

No. You don't sound like a looney lefty. As for whether they want the war to continue, I would say they don't -- because they want us to lose.

On your Fountainhead question, let me summarize what I think you are asking about. (And fire away if I'm wrong.) You wonder what institutions (e.g., higher education or bamks) might be responsible for the spread of bad philosophy and/or whether they can be products of same. (And I am totally unfamiliar with the other book you mentioned. I thought about speaking to it a little bit, but as my answer isd already long enough and this would bring in even more confounding issues, I'm avoiding it.)


Inidividuals are responsible for the spread of bad ideas, either by promulgating them (e.g., corrupt intellectuals like Ellsworth Toohey) or, through sloppiness or evasion, accepting them (like Peter Keating). We all have free will, after all. On the other hand, various institutions can make it easier or harder to be rational. Colleges full of leftist professors can function almost like indoctrination camps, demanding a high level of integrity and stamina on the part of their students not to emerge completely awash in bad ideas, not to mention failing to provide them with the sorts of mental skills needed to develop and strengthen their own minds in the first place.

Nevertheless, you can go to Brown and graduate as something other than a doctrinnaire leftist, but it will be hard.

Remembering that they are ultimately collections of individuals -- you could say the universities are responsible for spreading bad philosophy in the sense that they employ concentrations of corrupt intellectuals and fail to educate. Of course, they are also products of bad philosophy in the sense that a more rational society wouldn't almost uniformly produce bad universities.

Other institutions will be affected by and contribute to the spread of ideas to differing degrees, depending, I think, on how intellectual they are. Obviously, a university is a highly intellectual environment, as is a publishing house or a newspaper. Banks, businesses, and the like are less intellectual. I would say that they exert cultural influences only indirectly, and perhaps normally take longer to feel the effects of cultural changes. It's a long way, for example, from some Ivory tower philosopher preaching that reality is a social construct and a banker agitating for fiat currency.

I suspect that the confusion -- if I have read you right -- is due to the fact that you grasp that bad ideas can have bad consequences put into practice, and that these can predispose people to accept bad ideas in a sort of vicious circle. The wild card, however, is that man has free will, and can work to oppose such trends. And it is because man has free will that institutions can only figuratively be considered responsible for spreading bad ideas.

Gus