Posted by
e-moore on Monday, April 09, 2007 2:22:08 PM
During the darkest days of World War II, when Great Britain stood alone against the German advance, Winston Churchill asked of the Nazis, “What kind of people do they think we are?” And, for two years, he and the British people showed them their true mettle: a proud, noble race; willing to bear all burdens and defiantly stand against terror, even as all they held dear was reduced to rubble. America is now more than five years removed from the day in which 3,000 of her citizens were slaughtered on live national television, and is daily confronted with images of carnage from half a world away. Though, individually, they are less lethal than the attacks of September 11, these car-bombings, sniper attacks, and beheadings are no less evil. This everyday barbarity demonstrates that Jihadist-Fascism is the most diabolical movement to ever cross the horizon of this world, and one can only shudder to think what would happen if these terrorists were given the means necessary to make their vision for the world come to pass.
What, then, is our response to this enemy? Today, America’s politicians are currently embroiled in a bitter debate regarding the future of our action in Iraq. Certainly, this debate has continued in one form or another since the summer of 2002, when military action against Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist dictatorship was first proposed. However, since the Democrat’s electoral victory in the 2006 elections, the presumably-loyal opposition’s voice has earned a modicum of power and authority – therefore, they can at least attempt to put their rhetoric to action. Three recent events, in particular, have underscored their increased status in the determination of our war policy: first, a memo from the House Armed Services Committee that urges striking all use of the term “Global War on Terror,” in the 2008 defense budget; second, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s confounding conclave with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad; and, third, the stand-off between Congress and the White House over the war’s supplemental appropriations bill. Though the American Republic may well last for a thousand years, posterity can hardly say that this was our Finest Hour.
Certainly, in and of themselves, these points amount to little of significance. A House committee memo amounts to all of nothing in the grand scheme of things, American politicians have attempted to make end-runs around the President’s foreign policy before, and the White House and Congress have always been at odds over something of importance throughout our history – that is the very nature of our government. Collectively, however, they point to something far more insidious – the clear conclusion that a sizable segment of the American population, and her elected leadership, has decided that this conflict can not be won, and should not be fought. What else could be made of a Congress who refuses to acknowledge the very name of the existential struggle of our time, refuses to fight it, and sends its leadership abroad to undermine the Chief Executive’s policy?
Though this is a distressing thought, it is also unsurprising if one seriously studies the conflicts of the past 60 years. The global democracies have, in particular, been poorly suited to waging the “Fourth Generation” style of warfare – an amorphous battlefield without fixed lines or regular armies opposing each other, focusing on counterinsurgency operations against individuals and paramilitary groups. The French experience in Algeria, the American failure in Vietnam, Israel’s response to the Palestinian Intifadas, and the current struggle in Iraq exemplify a common experience amongst the West – a protracted campaign against resistance organizations, growing dissatisfaction with the war’s conduct at home, a cessation of hostilities just when a military victory has been achieved, and a withdrawal before that victory could be secured for posterity.
Put simply, a modern democratic state is rife with endemic cultural inhibitions that preclude the aggressive use of force to achieve political objectives. The war-making authority usually resides in the legislature, not the whims of an autocrat. As such, the threshold for engaging in military action is far higher. (One recalls the months of deliberation and hand-wringing before such relatively “quick and easy” conflicts such as the Falkland Island incident, and the Persian Gulf War.) Usually, war is declared in response to an attack perpetrated by a foreign power, or an imminent threat from said power, rather than a war of aggression; however justified it may be. Also, because these legislators, and the executive, are continually subjected to the will of the electorate, and that there is a never-ending supply of politicians in this world who prize personal power over solidarity with one’s leadership, any momentary setback on the battlefield may be exacerbated to the level of a clarion call to cease the conflict, no matter how righteous the cause. These opposition figures are aided and abetted by an independent, market-driven media that feeds off of the paradigm, “If it bleeds, it leads;” thus highlighting the sensational car bombings, and ignoring the rather boring or routine work of counter-insurgency and nation-building.
This last point is perhaps the most difficult to accept, intellectually: the insurgents of Iraq, the Vietcong, the Palestinian mobs, and the paramilitary resistance forces in Malaysia and Algeria remind many Westerners of our own wars of independence. Though, certainly, Muqtada al-Sadr or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are not the moral equivalents of a George Washington or Francis Marion; many in this world, particularly the leftist filmmaker Michael Moore, can not see the distinct ethical differences between men fighting an occupying force, and are sympathetic to such romantic, if absolutely foolish, ideals. Post-modernists tell us that these cultures and movements have virtue by virtue of the fact that Western Civilization is inherently an imperialist power that fails to recognize the diversity of the world’s peoples, and arrogantly seeks to impose its way on others/ The longer a conflict wears on, the greater the possibility is of such idiocy taking hold in the broader population.
The course of the Global War on Terror will likely continue throughout our lifetime. Rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq will likely take another 25 years; and, meanwhile, jihadists will continue to fight the Coalition at every step along the way. Palestine and Lebanon are in the middle of deep civil strife, and will likely not become stable, much less democratic, at any point in the near future. The reform movements in Saudi Arabia and Egypt have stalled, or are completely dead. And, though a military confrontation with Iran may or may not come, the possibility of a nation in the region obtaining a nuclear weapon is quite probable. Put simply, the technology for splitting the atom has been in existence for over 60 years, and it no longer represents the nadir of human accomplishment. Given that complete schematics for such a weapon are available on the Internet, it should surprise no one that, eventually, seemingly backwards countries may acquire the keys to Armageddon.
One thing is clear, however. These United States can end this conflict, and they can do so in relatively swift order by forcefully using all means of state power – military, economic, and political – to accomplish the objective of a stable and free Middle East. Yet, more than five years after September 11, 2001, our military is still a largely peacetime-sized force, our State Department can not advance American policy with states like Egypt (whom we pay billions of dollars in aid to the Mubarak regime), and many Americans have no understanding whatsoever of the doctrines of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Though a liberal democratic system, an independent media, and our belief in tolerance are virtues to be commended and admired, we have allowed them to cripple our ability to respond to the existential threat of our age. And, all the while, our enemies continue to plot to kill more American civilians, and sate their appetite for death in the interim by gruesomely slaughtering scores of innocent Iraqis. In order to preserve our livelihoods and win this war, we must reacquire the steeliness and determination of our forefathers, and commit to this struggle our lives, our fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.