|
|
|
Subject:
Time to End Totalitarian Islam
sofa
3/25/2007 3:10:27 PM
|
This article is from TOS Vol. 1, No. 4.
"http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp"
link
?No Substitute for Victory?
The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
John Lewis
Author?s note: This article was adapted from a lecture I presented at the Ayn Rand Institute?s OCON conference ?The Jihad Against the West,? in Boston, MA, on October 21, 2006.
The Greek historian Thucydides, writing about the calamitous war that had destroyed his own world, made an important observation about the causes of historical events: Even though circumstances may change, human nature remains the same; and certain human elements?especially moral and psychological factors?are at the root of all wars. We can disagree with Thucydides about the identity of those factors, and reject his pessimistic view of human nature, but we will benefit from accepting his challenge to rise above particular circumstances and focus on the principles of human action that are common to all time. Differences in technology, politics, or economics will always remain secondary to the ideas that motivate aggressors to launch bloody attacks and that empower?or restrain?defenders opposing those attacks.
In that spirit, let us begin by considering an event of cataclysmic proportions, a deadly attack against Americans, and then examine two possible responses to it. This approach will show us that the crisis we face today?a series of highly motivated attacks against the heart of civilization?is not unique, can be understood, and can be ended?if we choose to understand and end it.
The attack under consideration kills thousands of Americans. Foreign governments, well known to us, have sponsored such attacks for years in their pursuit of a continental-scale totalitarian empire. The fire motivating the slaughter is a militaristic, religious-political ideology that values war as a demonstration of loyalty to a deity, demands obedience to its spokesmen, and imposes its edicts over millions of people. Thousands of individuals, indoctrinated as youths, are eager to engage in suicide attacks, and many more are willing to die through acquiescence and submission, should the state so demand. The enemy soldier is highly motivated, thoroughly brainwashed, and willing to die for his god and his cause. The enemy?s children and soldiers memorize words such as these:
The battlefield is where our army displays its true character, conquering whenever it attacks, winning whenever it engages in combat, in order to spread our deity?s reign far and wide, so that the enemy may look up in awe to his august virtues.1
They accept, as moral imperatives, ideas such as these:
[F]ight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and practice our way, then accept them. . . . You shall fight back against those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what God and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth.2
Millions of people embrace such injunctions as unquestioned commandments. Their suicidal attacks continue for years.
How should Americans respond to this attack? Under the pressures of a deadly emergency, American leaders must make important decisions, and the American people must decide whether they will support those decisions. Let us consider and evaluate two options, and ask which we should use.
To set course for one possible response, the President addresses the American people, and identifies the enemy nations involved. He asks for, and receives, a formal declaration of war from Congress. He pledges to achieve victory as quickly as possible, a goal which he defines as the unconditional surrender of the enemy regimes, and a fundamental repudiation of war by those involved.
Americans mount a vigorous offense against the center of the enemy?s power. Waves of bombers obliterate dozens of enemy cities. His food is choked off, his military is decimated, his industry is bombarded, his ships are sunk, his harbors are mined?his people are psychologically shattered. In a single night, a hundred thousand civilians die in a firestorm in his capital. Americans drop leaflets telling the enemy population which cities could be next. Civilians are immersed in propaganda from their government, telling them that they are winning the war?yet they cower defenselessly while American bombers level their homes.
One of our generals announces his personal goal: to ?kill the bastards.? We name our final drive against the enemy, ?Operation Downfall.? A force of overpowering magnitude amasses on the enemy?s borders, as thousands of American bombers pulverize his cities. The President and two foreign allies issue an ultimatum that includes these words:
The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the enemy armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the enemy homeland. . . .
The time has come for the enemy nation to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought them to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason. . . .
Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay. . . .
There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world. . . .
Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established. . . .
We call upon the enemy to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative is prompt and utter destruction.3
When the enemy balks at the ultimatum, atomic bombs are dropped on his cities. He surrenders, thus acknowledging the reality of his defeat and making a political decision to cease fighting. He orders his reluctant soldiers to lay down their arms. The American military occupies the defeated nation. We censor the media, impose reforms on schools, dismantle economic cartels, efface militaristic language from discourse at all levels, and write a political constitution which they are forced to accept. We tell them, pointedly and publicly, that they are defeated, and that we have no obligations to them. When they face starvation, we remind them that their miseries are their own fault. We charge them for many of the costs of the occupation. Not one dime of aid arrives until they demonstrate their complete surrender, in word and in action, including their repudiation of the militaristic ideology that motivated their attacks.
This principled, all-out merciless offense is one possible response to the sneak attack. Now let us consider a second, very different, response.
The President addresses the nation, identifies the enemy as the particular people involved in the attacks, and defines them by the tactics they used. He makes no declaration of war, but pledges to lead us to victory in the war he intends to wage, which, he says, will be long. He defines victory as democracy for the nations behind the attacks. A week later, he reminds us that those who practice the religion of the attackers ?must feel comfortable? in America.4 Two months later, he invites leaders of the religion to the White House, for a prayer meeting.5
Our leaders realize that the particular attackers have bases in a poor, isolated country, so we invade that country, and drive its government into the surrounding mountains. We name our campaign ?Operation Infinite Justice,? but when adherents of the attackers? religion complain, we change it to ?Operation Enduring Freedom.? We drop bombs, but they are precision-guided to avoid hitting civilians and religious buildings. Many of our bombers drop food. The enemy flees to a neighboring country, ruled by a nuclear-armed dictator whom we call an ?ally? and whose borders we do not cross. Within this ?ally?s? borders, schools train more attackers, who flood across the borders, cause more carnage, and kill more Americans.
In search of democracy, and following our desire to free foreign peoples from oppression, we attack and depose another dictator in the area. This secular thug, whom we had once armed, had fought a long war against a neighboring country founded upon the same hostile ideology as those who attacked us. The people we liberate from him establish a government based on that same hostile ideology?which we allow, since our goal was to enable them to vote?and they strengthen ties with other nations founded on this ideology. One of our generals states his own view of our goal: to foster the enemy?s ?ability to compromise on their political goals, accommodate their sectarian differences and demonstrate to ordinary people that a democratic central government can serve their needs.?6 We name our campaign ?Operation Freedom for Them.?
We act with great restraint, establishing rules of engagement that limit the use of force by our military. We apologize when we hurt civilians, prosecute our soldiers if they humiliate prisoners, assign correspondents to military units to monitor their actions, and send lawyers with our troops to ensure that they ?follow the rules.? When captured Americans are beheaded on television, we do not close down the broadcasts or attack the governments financing them?we search for the particular killers. When the enemy acquires nuclear power plants, we refer to the country providing him with those plants as a ?friend? and an ?ally.? When the enemy uses banks to finance his war against us, we call on our lawyers to ?freeze his assets,? but never call on our generals to destroy his capital. We remind the people in his nation incessantly that our war is not with them, but rather with ?extremists? who have ?hijacked a great religion.?
Now, which of these two responses?the all-out, merciless, military offense, or the restrained, diplomatic, semi-military approach, should we choose? Let us evaluate them, according to several ideas widely accepted today.
First, we are told today that only so-called ?proportional? force is morally proper. We need to wage a ?just war,? one founded on altruistic moral principles, using strictly limited force, for strictly limited ends, aimed at the good of others. The well-being of others?including the enemy?s people?must be our concern, and this requires severe self-restraint on our part. That the enemy does not act this way when he kills our people is of no concern. According to these moral views, we must hold the well-being of others as an absolute, regardless of the consequences; we must be willing to place our soldiers in mortal danger in order to protect enemy civilians?even though they often aid and abet enemy fighters. A military offense for our own self-protection would transgress the bounds of a ?just war,? says the accepted wisdom.
This moral obligation to use our force only in limited degrees and always for the good of others raises two questions: What, in this view, is the right amount of limited force? And what constitutes the good of others? These two questions are answered by means of the methodology of pragmatism (i.e., doing what ?works? for the moment) and the morality of altruism (i.e., the morality of ?otherism?). We will use these two widely accepted philosophical positions to direct our response to those attacking us.
Following these principles, we will have to determine our policies and strategies on a case-by-case basis. Our actions must be pragmatic and adaptable, contingent on local circumstances and the consensus of others. The right amount of force is that which does not upset the enemy too much; if we use too much of our power, we will cause hard feelings and a desire for vengeance in the enemy, which will breed a new generation of enemy soldiers. We should, in this view, respond with compassion and understanding, engaging in ?dialogue? with him, building power plants and digging toilets in his land rather than attacking him. This, we are told, will ?win hearts and minds.? Based on these practical and moral considerations, the first option, the all-out offense, must be rejected; the restrained response is best.
Second, we are told that we must not declare war against a nation, only against its leadership or particular miscreants. Most people, we hear, do not want war; there is a ?universal hunger for liberty,? and people will regale us with flowers if we ?liberate? them from oppression. We are told that ?freedom? is ?God?s gift to all people,? and that our ?calling? is to create the conditions by which others can embrace this gift. Their freedom?meaning, we are told, democracy?is the root of our security; and protecting their ?right? to vote?not defeating them?must be our goal. We must grant them the freedom to establish any government they wish?even one akin to the regimes of our attackers?if it expresses their democratic desires. Again, the offensive response must be shunned; the restrained approach is our only choice.
Third, we are told that an overwhelming offense fails to respect the culture of a foreign nation. All cultures are equal, multiculturalism teaches us, and each must be equally respected. For us to claim a sense of superiority over other cultures would reveal a ?Eurocentric bias? that fails to acknowledge ?multi-variant? forms of logic, and the relativism of all values. According to altruism, this means that other cultures are due more respect than our own, since we must subordinate our own people and resources to their needs, even if those cultures actively oppose our own selfish interests. According to pragmatism, respecting their ?right? to ?self-determination? rather than defeating them will make them feel better and thus momentarily quell the violence. Our soldiers must be trained to respect the cultural differences between themselves and the enemy. When enemy soldiers are captured, for instance, they must be given books sympathetic to their own positions, and be allowed to practice their cultural-religious rituals.
(The same strategy, we hear, must be used inside America, against people of the same ideology as the enemy. An American police officer recently told me that he undergoes ?sensitivity training? to ?understand? and ?respect? the cultural basis of rampant domestic violence in a neighborhood he patrols. He is cautioned to avoid ?cultural imperialism? and ?racism,? the sin of thinking that American cul | |
|