How to Lose a War


Recommended Posts

How to Lose a War

by Victor Davis Hanson

National Post

July 11, 2005

Thursday's attack in London is the latest blow struck in the war that began on Sept. 11. Its origins are easy to fathom: A minority of Muslim extremists, their numbers in the few millions, resents deeply the erosion of life in the Middle East and other Muslim areas. A globalized communications system reminds them daily how far behind a Pakistan is from India, how much better a South Korea or China is doing than Egypt, or how more humane life is in an Infidel North America or Europe than in Syria or Algeria.

Autocratic regimes, statist economies, gender apartheid, corruption, the absence of a free press ? all that and more retard economic growth from the Gulf to Morocco. In response, theocratic regimes like the Taliban and the Iranian mullocracy blame the West for their own self-inflicted misery and inadequacies. But more often, clever dictators such as a Baathist Saddam, the Saudi Royal family, an Egyptian kleptocracy, or the Pakistani military regime allow Islamicists some rein, if not covert support, to deflect blame from their own failures onto the United States and the "Jews."

A shamed Islamic street ? ill-housed, ill-fed, and ill-informed ? is nourished on the mythology that a purer creed and a return to the 8th century alone can reclaim past glories of the caliphate, and stop the decadent intrusion of Western consumerism and popular culture.

So when terrorists strike in London ? or Bali, New York or Madrid ? they operate on a variety of assumptions. Middle Eastern governments may publicly deplore their methods, but privately sigh relief that al-Qaeda agents are still not yet after their own heads. Islamicist ganglia go deep into the central nervous system of the Pakistani intelligence service, not to mention the House of Saud.

Likewise, the Muslim public in the Middle East may decry terror, but privately often gets satisfaction when Westerners too are humbled. Their schadenfraude is cultivated by the old anti-Semitism ? they can always say the Jews or Israel caused 9/11 or the London bombing ? as well as by a deep shame over their own attraction toward Western affluence and consumerism. So we see the eerie spectacle after a 9/11 or 7/7 of imams assuring us that "Islam does not condone such things," even as bin Laden T-shirts and copies of Mein Kampf sell like hot-cakes on the Arab Street.

A third critical assumption is the deniability of culpability: only al Qaeda or its Mcfranchises in Europe are ever deemed responsible for something like Madrid or London. Apparently, such groups never visit the Pakistani border areas, never take a dime from Saudi princes, never travel through Syria on their way to this or that terrorist camp. And thus no terror-abetting nation ever faces any real accounting. That the attacks are periodic rather than daily, and that most of the world's oil reserves are in the Middle East make it easier for Westerners to live with the bloodshed rather than issue real ultimatums.

Fourth, and most important, the terrorists and their supporters understand that in a strange way the West is not only split, but also increasingly illiberal as well. It has lost confidence in its old commitment to rationalism, free speech and empiricism, and now embraces the deductive near-religious doctrines of moral equivalence and utopian pacifism. Al Qaeda's supporters will say that Thursday's victims were killed because of Afghanistan or Iraq. Westerners will duly repeat the dull refrain that "Bush lied, thousands died" in their guilt-ridden search for something we did to cause this.

And so, rather than focus our attention on the madrassas and the mosques that preach hatred, we will strive to learn more about Islamic culture, as if our own insensitivity were the true culprit. Our grandfathers could despise Bushido ? Japan's warrior cult ? without worrying whether they were being unfair to Buddhists; we of less conviction and even less courage, cannot do likewise.

In short, we now know what to expect from the London bombings and the others to follow. There will be no effort to punish the states that subsidize al Qaeda. Critics will cling to the myth that the British got what they had coming. The primary obsession of many Westerners will be to extend sensitivity to Islam, not the victims of those who kill in its name. And all will be consoled that just a few dozen were harvested this time.

What a strange way to fight a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for me, it's not about extending sensitivity. we don't curb injustice by being sensitive to different cultures. we have to go about it through public consciousness and social discourse, but that also means that we don't justify our own injustices by pointing out other injustices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A minority of Muslim extremists, their numbers in the few millions

Thats wrong. There are more "moderate" passive supporters. Ofcourse they dont come infront of TV cameras and say so but i'm sure they take a perverse delight in the death of "infidels".

I'd even go to say only a few million of them who really want to change things for the better. But they are **** scared of beheadings and torture.

for example Salman Rushdi's [<- British and Muslim] Satanic Verses novel got him a world wide Fatwa [call to murder in the name of Islam] by Iran's Ayatollah.

I'm yet to hear of a single fatwa against bin Laden/Zarqawi for all thier killings from any muslim body. The max we get is a scripted answer about "we condemn terrorism but..."

Its that deafening silence thats striking.

so to win the war on terror:

The Ideology of murdering infidels must be replaced by democracy and freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so to win the war on terror:

The Ideology of murdering infidels must be replaced by democracy and freedom.

Just a note on the "democracy and freedom."

democracy == "The Mob", "A lot of political rhetoric by our leaders"

freedom == "What is that, sounds good wish if we really had that"

what better than democracy???? hmm I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man democracy is democracy it is a great thing, so is freedom and you and I and most people in the western world have it. No I don't agree with Guantanamo but be honest with yourself how many people there are innocent? But we can all do more or less whatever the **** we want with little restriction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I don't agree with Guantanamo but be honest with yourself how many people there are innocent?

I honestly don't know, since few there have been charged or brought to trial after years of incarceration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

Maybe that is a "Justice" issue rather than a "Democracy" one.

but be honest with yourself how many people there are innocent?

Well maybe we should use a system of gulity until proven innocent. or maybe a system of lock them up until they die without a trial. you cant try a dead man.

Taking on IRAQ for WMD WITHOUT UN Approval was one of the most un-democratic thing a democratic country could do. I guess I'm part of the minority as Howard, Bush, Belair all got voted back in.

But we can all do more or less whatever the **** we want with little restriction

Is that necessarily a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said i don't agree with it at all, it angers me that we even have one guy being held without trial in Canada, but to have a full prison like that in which at least one guy got a letter out talking about the mistreatment... it is just messed. But what you are saying has no real bearing on anything obviously guilty until proven innocent is barbaric and rediculous and yes your countries were in the wrong with their illegal war but that changes nothing. Democracy and freedom are still better than royalty and communism...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

well as I said "what better than democracy???? hmm I'm not sure."

We live in a "Democracy", but shouldnt the countries leaders that started the illegal war be charged?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly yes, and they would be if they were less powerful, but the good (relative) guys have a bunch more leeway. But in america at least the democratically elected officials allowed the war to happen so like it or not it was still democratic as it could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.