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

Skip to comments.

Western Cannibalism (VDH: Rock Solid. Again.)
National Review Online ^ | 4-8-2004 | Victor David Hanson

Posted on 04/08/2004 6:14:02 AM PDT by LincolnLover

This war grows stranger here at home and abroad all the time. Despite the horrific barbarism in Fallujah and the gun-toting and killing by the Shiites, the United States is ever so steadily establishing a consensual government of sorts under impossible conditions in Iraq. Meanwhile the Middle East watches the pulse of the conflict, wondering whether the Fallujah savages and the primordial Shiite extremists will succeed in Lebanonizing Iraq.

Or will the American pressure for democracy and reform reverberate beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to move Libya, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and the Saudis to greater transparency, consensual rule, and an end of their support for terrorists? The courage and sacrifice of thousands of American soldiers now determine whether those who dream of freedom step forward boldly into the light, or retreat meekly into the shadows — and whether we will be safe in our own homes.

Out of all the recent chaos emerges one lesson: Appeasement of fundamentalists is not appreciated as magnanimity, but ridiculed as weakness — and, in fact, encourages further killing. A shaken Spain elected a new government that promised to exit Iraq. In return, the terrorists planted more bombs, issued more demands, and then staged a fiery exit for themselves. France, as is its historical wont, triangulated with the Muslim world and then found its fundamentalist plotters all over Paris. The Saudi royals thought that they of all people could continue to blackmail the fundamentalists — until the suicide-murderers turned their explosives on their benefactors and began to blow up Arab Muslims as well. General Musharraf once did all he could to appease Islamists — and got assassination plots as thanks.

Following the Iranian hostage takeover in 1979, the United States had embraced a quarter-century of appeasement that had resulted in far more American deaths than all those lost during the present war against terrorists abroad — flaming ships, embassies, planes, skyscrapers, and people the wages of its mollifying. And every time in Iraq we have tried to offer conciliation before complete military victory — low profiles, tolerance for looters and militias, allowance for vicious mullahs — we have seen more, not fewer, killed.

The sad truth is that civilization itself is engaged in a worldwide struggle against the barbarism of Islamic fundamentalism. Just this past month the killers and their plots have been uncovered in London, Paris, Madrid, Pakistan, and North Africa — the same tired rhetoric of their hatred echoing from Iraq to the West Bank. While Western elites quibble over exact ties between the various terrorist ganglia, the global viewer turns on the television to see the same suicide bombing, the same infantile threats, the same hatred of the West, the same chants, the same Koranic promises of death to the unbeliever, and the same street demonstrations across the world.

Looking for exact professed cooperation between an Islamic fascist and the rogue regime that finds such anti-Western violence useful is like proving that Mussolini, Tojo, and Hitler all coordinated their attacks and worked in some conspiratorial fashion — when in fact Japan had no knowledge of the invasion of Russia, and Hitler had no warning of Pearl Harbor or Mussolini's invasion of Greece.

In fact, it didn't matter that they were united only by a loose and shared hatred of Western liberalism and emboldened by a decade of democratic appeasement. And our fathers, perhaps better men than we, didn't care too much for beating their breasts about the exact nature of collective Axis strategy or blaming each other for past lapses, but instead went to pretty terrible places like Bastogne, Anzio, and Okinawa to put an end to their enemies all.

Now, in the middle of this terrible conflict, unlike the postbellum inquiry after Pearl Harbor, we are holding acrimonious hearings about culpability for September 11. And here the story gets even more depressing than just political opportunism and election-year timing. After eight years of appeasement that saw repeated attacks on Americans, Pakistani acquisition of nuclear weapons under Dr. Khan, and Osama's 1998 declaration of war against every American, we are suddenly grilling, of all people, Condoleezza Rice — one of the few key advisers most to be credited for insisting on using our military, rather than the local DA, to defeat these fanatics.

Over the last two years, each time a U.S. senator in panicked and wild-eyed passion screamed that we could not win in Afghanistan, she proved resolute and confident. On every occasion that an ex-general, a dissatisfied bureaucrat, or a wannabe journalist-strategist pontificated about what the United States could not do, she was unwavering in her determination to take the war to rogue regimes in the Middle East with a history of hostility against Americans and a record of providing easy sanctuary for terrorists. This present charade would be like holding public hearings on the eve of the 1944 election about the breakdown of intelligence and missed opportunities before Pearl Harbor — and then blaming Harry Hopkins and Secretary Stimson for laxity even while the country was in the very midst of a two-front war.

Then we have the creepy outbursts from commentators and screams from Democratic senators. We are told by Senator Graham that we smashed al Qaeda only to discover that we had hit a mercury-like substance that now has hopelessly scattered. Well, yes, that is what happens when you strike back in war. The alternative? Allow this elemental terrorism to remain cohesive and united? War is not a decision between good and bad choices, but almost always between something bad and something worse — and so it really is preferable to have toxic mercury scattered than to have it concentrated and pure.

Another pundit assures us that terrorists after American action in Iraq are more active now than before. Well, again yes — in the sense that Germany was messier in 1944 than in 1933, or that Japan was more dangerous for Americans in 1943 than in 1935. Danger, chaos, and death are what transpire for a time when you finally decide to strike back at confident and smug enemies.

Senator Kennedy, the past exemplar of sober and judicious behavior in times of personal and national crisis, has gone beyond his once-wild charges of Texas conspiracies to slur Iraq as Bush's Vietnam — his apparently appropriate moral boosting for the young Marines, who, even as he spoke, were entering Fallujah to hunt down murderers and mutilators.

But did he say Vietnam? Apparently the senator thinks that the cause of these medieval fanatics who want to bring the world back to the ninth century will resonate with leftists the same way Uncle Ho's faux promises of equality and egalitarianism swayed stupid anti-war protesters of the past. Or is the real similarity that, once more, as promoters of anti-Communist realpolitik, we Americans are installing a right-wing government rather than promoting pluralism, elections, and the protection of minorities and women — the "dream" of the 1960s? Or perhaps Kennedy's comparison revolves around 600 combat dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberation of 50 million from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and the emergence of proto-consensual governments in less than two years of hostilities? Does all that suggest to Senator Kennedy that we are embarking on a 12-year war, will lose 50,000 men, and are stymied by a bellicose nuclear China and Russia on the borders of Iraq?

Yet Kennedy is right on one count in his evocation of Vietnam. If there is any similarity between Vietnam and the current war, it is not 1963, when his late brother convinced us to commit troops to stop Communist aggression. A better year for comparison is 1974, when Kennedy and other senators began to cut off funding for air support promised to enforce the Paris peace accords, resulting in the collapse of South Vietnam, mass murder in Southeast Asia, and over a million boat people, with more still sent to the Communist reeducation camps.

A New York Times columnist (who before the routing of the Taliban warned us of hopeless quagmire in Afghanistan) chimes in about Fallujah with neat metaphors like "block party" and "slam dance," and then ends by quoting the old tired canard from Vietnam that "We're going to destroy the village to save it" — apparently unaware that the supposed postmodern aphorism was probably made up, was never traced or attributed to any particular military officer, and was more likely the creation of a like-minded journalist also eager for some cute phraseology.

There are plenty of things to argue about and there will be plenty of time in which to do it. In a crisis and with worries about national security, many of us thought it was the wrong time to embark on deficit spending, allow near amnesty for those who cross our borders illegally, and not compromise about the need for both American conservation and exploration of oil, in an effort to wean us off Middle Eastern petroleum.

More specifically, in our postwar paranoia about being too brutal in Iraq, we were too lenient — and thus ultimately will probably be more brutal than we would otherwise have had to be. During the prewar exegeses, there was too much emphasis on WMD and not enough on other legitimate casus belli, ranging from violations of the 1991 armistice agreement and U.N. accords, Saddam's past invasion and assassination attempts, the unending no-fly zones, Baathist mass murder, environmental catastrophe, and bounties for suicide killers.

More troops were probably needed; the Iraqi army should have been immediately reconstituted; and Iraqi officials might have had a more public role in the reconstruction. All these are legitimate tactical issues that could have been discussed and debated within the general parameters that we are at war against horrific enemies who wish to end our civilization, and who cannot be bought off or talked to, but only defeated, and yes, often killed.

Instead, we see more of the same hysteria and invective. It has been almost three years now and many Americans are becoming sickened by this continual procession of collective madness delivered up in doses of twenty-four-hour new cycles. This country has gone from the shouting and screaming about quagmire in Afghanistan, its high peaks, Ramadan taboos, the supposed unreliable Northern Alliance, Guantanamo meals, our failure to get bin Laden — to "millions" of refugees in Iraq, the toppling of moderate governments in the region, an envisioned 5,000 American dead in battle, Saddam and his sons forever uncatchable, worry over legal rights of the Husseins, Bush's landing on a carrier, looting of museums, WMD acrimony, tell-all books from ex-Bush-administration employees, and the present election-year 9/11 inquiry circus.

And this culminates now in the animus toward Condoleezza Rice, who has weathered it all and never for a moment evidenced the slightest lack of resolve. I suppose we are witnessing a sort of American pop version of the French revolution — journalists and politicians on the barricades and guillotines constantly searching for an ever-expanding array of targets, their only consistency blind and mindless fury at the old regime.

So let us get a grip. Bush yet again must remind the American people that we are at war not merely in the Sunni Triangle or in the Afghan badlands, but rather globally and for the liberal values of Western civilization. There is no mythical pipeline in Afghanistan; Halliburton executives are not lounging around the pool in Baghdad chomping on cigars and quaffing cocktails; and in this age of sky-high gas prices there is no sinister cabal that has hijacked Iraq oil. Sharon is not getting daily intelligence briefings about Iraq. The war is what it always was — a terrible struggle against an evil and determined enemy, a Minotaur of sorts that harvested Americans in increments for decades before mass murdering 3,000 more on September 11.

Everything that the world holds dear — the free exchange of ideas, the security of congregating and traveling safely, the long struggle for tolerance of differing ideas and religions, the promise of equality between the sexes and ethnic groups, and the very trust that lies at the heart of all global economic relationships — all this and more Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the adherents of fascism in the Middle East have sought to destroy: some as killers themselves, others providing the money, sanctuary, and spiritual support.

We did not ask for this war, but it came. In our time and according to our station, it is now our duty to end it. And that resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause. So let us cease the hysterics, make the needed sacrifices, and allow our military the resources, money, and support with which it most surely will destroy the guilty and give hope at last to the innocent.


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911commission; appeasement; condirice; iraq; islam; terrorism; vdh; victordavidhanson; victordavishanson; war

1 posted on 04/08/2004 6:14:04 AM PDT by LincolnLover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
Excellent, his best ever, I think.
2 posted on 04/08/2004 6:29:11 AM PDT by jocon307 (The dems don't get it, the American people do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The page cannot be found

The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is unavailable.

Please try the following:

  • If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
  • Open the www.freerepublic.com home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
  • Click the Back button to try another link.
  • Click Donate to help support the best site on the web. Face it, you don't want to sit down to start freeping someday, only to see...


HTTP 404 - File not found





3 posted on 04/08/2004 6:29:53 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (I'd rather be sleeping. Let's get this over with so I can go back to sleep!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
We did not ask for this war, but it came.

Ptrick Henry:

If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death

4 posted on 04/08/2004 6:30:55 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (You can see it coming like a train on a track.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
Although our boys and our allies on the ground face extreme danger and personal peril, I am confident that they will be successful in their efforts.

On the other hand, the Left and its' minions in the media's attempts to portray the War on Terror as "Bush's Folley" or a Vietnam-style "Quagmire" are the real danger. Constitutionally, there's not much that can be done to stop "protests" except for peer pressure and clear-eyed resolve.

"In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North."

The terrorists know that there is no way we can be defeated militarily, or through conventional tactics. Their strategy is to demoralize the population, and enable and support (monetarily and otherwise) those who will put personal agendas, profits, and power lust ahead of the security of America.

In saner times, these people had to hide their intentions, and be extremely careful of their words lest true Americans find them out and, if they were lucky, live to see another day with a bit of tar and feathers to peel of of their miserable bodies.

Now, these very same creatures are given multi-million dollar book deals and are championed as "whistle-blowers". They are lionized in the media, and are ballyhooed by the TV people.

Dangerous times, indeed.
5 posted on 04/08/2004 6:32:33 AM PDT by motzman (Kerry: His slogan is a slogan about the inadequacy of slogans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
bump for later reading
6 posted on 04/08/2004 6:45:49 AM PDT by sanchmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
I thought so too - just spell binding.
7 posted on 04/08/2004 7:01:53 AM PDT by Let's Roll (Kerry is a self-confessed unindicted war criminal or ... a traitor to his country in a time of war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sanchmo
A clear headed article. It is quite possible that mass extermination will be someday inevitable.
8 posted on 04/08/2004 7:04:01 AM PDT by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
All change occurs at the margins. Let's keep this in mind as we ponder what we witness every day, in Iraq and elsewhere. During the days of the American Revolution, the colonists were divided roughly as the American people are now, with a third clamoring for revolution, a third advocating retaining the monarchy, and a third who didn't give a rat's ass one way or the other. It was truly a miracle that the Patriots won. Consider that the Confederates lost their cause. We can only hope that the good Lord will grant us the power to prevail against ALL of our enemies, foreign AND domestic.
9 posted on 04/08/2004 7:23:12 AM PDT by vanmorrison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
Ping.
10 posted on 04/08/2004 8:09:37 AM PDT by Valin (Hating people is like burning down your house to kill a rat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
Bump for later.
11 posted on 04/08/2004 8:12:44 AM PDT by Valin (Hating people is like burning down your house to kill a rat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
Super article. Reading it reinforces my absolute disgust for RATS and the rest of the looney left.
12 posted on 04/08/2004 8:28:04 AM PDT by wjcsux (Charter Member, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover; seamole; Lando Lincoln; quidnunc; .cnI redruM; yonif; SJackson; dennisw; ...

We did not ask for this war, but it came. In our time and according to our station, it is now our duty to end it. And that resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause. So let us cease the hysterics, make the needed sacrifices, and allow our military the resources, money, and support with which it most surely will destroy the guilty and give hope at last to the innocent.

Victor Davis Hanson moral clarity huge BUMP  

[please freepmail me if you want or don't want to be pinged to Victor Davis Hanson articles]

If you want to bookmark his articles discussed at FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/k-victordavishanson/browse

His NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp

His blog: http://victorhanson.com/index.html     BIO: http://victorhanson.com/Author/index.html

Yes, he is listened by the Bush Administration; they like him maybe as much as we do: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1085464/posts?page=6#6

13 posted on 04/08/2004 10:51:25 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Thank you for the ping!

BTTT!
14 posted on 04/08/2004 10:52:20 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
BUMP!
15 posted on 04/08/2004 11:32:17 AM PDT by BayouCoyote (The 1st victim of islam is the person who practices it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
Eagerly waiting for the library to let me know "Ripples of Battle" is ready to be picked up bump!
16 posted on 04/08/2004 11:46:59 AM PDT by PogySailor (Proud member of the RAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover; jocon307
Excellent, I agree, best ever.
17 posted on 04/08/2004 11:57:44 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PogySailor
You're gonna love it. Wait till you get to the epilogue. The rest of the book was pretty much a scholarly exploration of the effects a violent mass confrontation has over the ensuing decades; the epilogue actually applies it to the post 9/11 world. It's VDH at his best. If I weren't afraid of an FR/copyright issue I'd type the whole doggone thing in for discussion.
18 posted on 04/08/2004 12:12:38 PM PDT by Billthedrill (Become a monthly FR donor...or the puppy gets it...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
Bravo VDH, Bravo.

I know he's required reading for Cheney's staff, but is there any chance he can write Dubya's speeches?

19 posted on 04/08/2004 12:18:21 PM PDT by MattinNJ (America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vanmorrison
Very Well Said, and a good reminder at this time.
20 posted on 04/08/2004 4:24:54 PM PDT by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
Bullseyes galore, as usual.

I had the pleasure of hearing Hanson speak on Tuesday. What a powerful intellectual presence. I see several of his lecture points in this article.
21 posted on 04/08/2004 4:38:12 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
I hate his books, but I love his editorials.
22 posted on 04/08/2004 4:45:27 PM PDT by Seydlitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
bttt
23 posted on 04/08/2004 6:58:53 PM PDT by metesky (Think they'll leave that up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
He's a avalanche of sanity!
24 posted on 04/08/2004 11:33:37 PM PDT by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
I saw VDH on the CSPAN-2 Book Notes a while back and realized I had missed an opportunity to listen to him talk about Ripples of Battle and maybe ask him a few questions. The show was recorded at a local book store a week or so earlier. He kept me riveted with his discussion of the book.

BTW, afternoon bump in case anyone missed this memorable column.

25 posted on 04/09/2004 12:59:00 PM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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