Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Would Churchill Say? - The phony silence before the storming.
National Review Online ^ | 10/01/2001 | Victor Davis Hanson

Posted on 10/01/2001 1:58:47 PM PDT by Fury

What Would Churchill Say?
The phony silence before the storming.

By Victor Davis Hanson, author most recently of Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power.
October 1, 2001 1:35 p.m.

 

e are entering a surreal parenthesis, not unlike the brief but phony quiet of the "war" that characterized the French-German border between September 1939 and May 10, 1941. The destruction of the World Trade Center, the downing of four airliners, and the ravaging of the Pentagon — like the ruin of Poland in 1939 — of course will not go away. Thousands of our countrymen are dead; we accept that the world can never be quite what it was.

So, like the French of 1940, we accept that war has been unleashed upon us. Yet the same counterfeit voices of good, but weak and therefore very dangerous men that arose in the false calm between the destruction of Poland and the Blitzkrieg through the Ardennes — "Perhaps if we do not invade Germany…"; "Maybe if we redouble our border defenses…"; "Possibly moderates in Germany can make headway with Hitler…" — are still with us. Like the Greek city-states in the path of Xerxes's terror, or Athens in the shadow of Macedon, they wonder whether there is an escape from the ordeal ahead, through moderation and conciliation. There is none. The hesitancy of France led to the collapse of the last democracy on the mainland, and unparalleled killing of the innocent. Salamis, not envoys and ambassadors, halted Xerxes. Philip II was demanding not alliances or neutrality, but servitude.

But as the ghastly cloud over Manhattan thins, far too many of us hope for a reprieve that we really know shall not — and should not — come, cloaking that paralysis of resolve in the slogans of sophisticated enlightenment ("One could argue…"), religious tolerance ("Let us not…"), or occasional self-loathing ("It is because we…"). The voices of appeasement make themselves feel better by worrying more about purported racial profiling than about the fate of those who leaped into the great void from the Twin Towers — profiled for their murder by virtue of living in America. Pundits are now showing concern about European approval, not about the incineration of our infants in day-care centers. We are bombarded with images of the fanatical in Kabul and Islamabad; less common are words of outrage over our stewardesses who were tortured and murdered. Do our university presidents, anchormen, and theologians say of the Taliban, "What kind of people do they think we are?"

States that a few weeks ago harbored terrorist killers now cry that the operational name of our planned response "Infinite Justice" is offensive to Muslim ears, and it is abruptly changed — even though the name reflected perfectly our American creed to accept responsibility, in the here and now, to right wrong to the bitter end. Our spokesman at the Department of State was asked inanely whether the Taliban were involved in the recent destruction of our abandoned embassy in Kabul — as if we, who have lost 7,000 in our streets, should care much about an empty shell of a building or the motives of our enemies who torch it. The hesitant supreme NATO commander in Europe asks for greater proof of bin Laden's guilt, as if we, the offspring of Normandy and Okinawa, are to be reduced to mere barristers parrying at the Hague.

The voice of pained experts on the screen saturate us with so many worries: germs, small nuclear bombs, nerve gas, crop dusters, and hazardous waste from biological dumps, all of which may obliterate us in our sleep. Apparently, not a pundit is to be found who will recall a beleaguered Churchill's acceptance of the nature of the new war with his Nazi foe — "the latest refinements of science are linked with the cruelties of the Stone Age."

Military experts advise us that Afghanistan is both landlocked and mountainous. Are not caves there impenetrable? Will it not be soon snowing? Worse still, our foes are not traditional enemies and so immune from the laws of war of the ages! Do any of us shrug back, "No one can guarantee success in war, but only deserve it"? Other sirens beckon in the false melodies of Iranian, Syrian, or Sudanese friendship. Few leaders step forth to cut it off with, "We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who do your wicked will. You do your worst — and we will do our best."

Rallies on our campuses, in our churches, and on our streets are calling for American restraint — seeking doubt within ourselves, and so with it perhaps escape from further ruin. The vocabulary of courage, victory, and triumph is not in our lexicon, but indeed is said to be more likely proof of brute savagery and ignorance. We have forgotten: "You ask, what is our policy? I will say: it is to wage war, by sea, land and air, and with all our might. . . . You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory. . . . Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival!"

Without mass funerals to remind us of our dead, three weeks later, some now worry whether our initial ultimatums were too obdurate. Perhaps the biological arsenal of Iraq has been put away? Or might not be used? Or was but a figment of our imagination? Or is none of our business? They forget that such momentary doubts are inevitable and human, but must be countered always by, "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never — in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."

So we in this country have forgotten the essence of Churchillian humanity, itself the age-old definition that demands our sacrifice and courage to eliminate the evil that kills the innocent. We must act to end this scourge, without worry about the censure to come from the universities, the Europeans, the moderate Arab nations, and our media. Indeed, we must welcome it all, and always with confidence that these terrorists must fear us far more than we do them. We must be happy that it now our task, not our children's nor their children's, to end this terror:

Do not let us speak of darker days; let us rather speak of sterner days. These are not dark days; these are great days — the greatest days our country has ever lived; and we must all thank God that we have been allowed, each of us according to our stations, to play a part in making these days memorable.

And so they are, and so we shall.



TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 10/01/2001 1:58:47 PM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fury
Bump.
2 posted on 10/01/2001 2:03:07 PM PDT by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fury
mega bump
3 posted on 10/01/2001 2:16:04 PM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fury
Just remember folks, the war in Europe wasn't even over but victory was in sight when the British voted Churchill out and the leftists back in

Just like the Good Old USA voting Bush out and Clinton in after Desert Storm
4 posted on 10/01/2001 2:32:59 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fury
this is one of the best articles on the war so far. please read.


5 posted on 10/01/2001 5:41:36 PM PDT by mcollins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fury
infinite justice bump
6 posted on 10/01/2001 6:15:53 PM PDT by mcollins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fury
Wow, great stuff. If anyone is interested in Churchill, read the first 2 volumes of William Manchester's biography-- a truly amazing leader. (third volume isn't finished, and probably never will be due to Manchester's ill health, a great pity.)
7 posted on 10/01/2001 6:34:08 PM PDT by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fury
Incredibly prescient, as we face off with Saddam, given that it was written three weeks after 9/11.
8 posted on 02/27/2003 6:35:43 PM PST by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XEHRpa
This is what the just war doctrine is based on:


The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Excerpt from:
http://rosaries.com/justwar.html
also see:
http://www.mnchurches.org/peace/justwar.html

Our congressman recently wrote a personal letter to a member of our family in clear certain terms: the dictator in Iraq "is evil, and I support President Bush's proposal to remove him from power. The threat of Iraq launching a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies is real and imminent. Launching a pre-emptive strike would protect our families, our nation, and our allies..."

The time for discussion and debate is over.
9 posted on 02/27/2003 6:54:31 PM PST by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FlyingEagle
Amen!

My pastor, an Army reserve chaplain, recently taught a Sunday school course on the Just War doctrine.

How so many clergy "fail to get it" I just don't understand.
10 posted on 02/27/2003 7:27:09 PM PST by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: XEHRpa; FlyingEagle
I meant "other" clergy, not my own. He understands the doctrine just fine.
11 posted on 02/27/2003 7:28:53 PM PST by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fury
The following remarks came from one of Ronald Reagan's last public speaking appearences, an RNC Annual Gala, held on Feb. 3, 1994.

"The Democrats may remember their lines, but how quickly they forget the lessons of the past. I have witnessed five major wars in my lifetime, and I know how swiftly storm clouds can gather on a peaceful horizon. The next time a Saddam Hussein takes over Kuwait, or North Korea brandishes a nuclear weapon, will we be ready to respond? In the end, it all comes down to leadership, and that is what this country is looking for now."

A word to wise is sufficient.

12 posted on 02/27/2003 7:33:35 PM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson