~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Saturday, February 14, 2004
All My Problems Are Solved - Again
So I just got a letter from a kind Mr. David Savimbi, son of the late Johnas Savimbi, who "lodged huge sums of money realized from the sales of diamonds and other precious stones/metals in different banks in Canada" (Hey? Isn't that on the other side of the Iron Curtain?) I've heard that these things tend to be scams, but David "guarantees [me my] safety" in a transaction to consolidate these funds and get them out of Canada (where who knows what could happen to them, given the horrible situation there and the despotic government and all). All I have to do is give him my bank account to consolidate these funds and move them from Canada to a secure, undisclosed location in the safety of the U.S.
But my friend Last Toryboy is telling me not to take advantage of this opportunity, and points me to this site on such scams. (The photos here are worth checking out, too). He says that Polly Toynbee went in for this kind of deal several years ago and hasn't been able to live it down. Me, I was wondering if anyone ever got baited by these scams. Now I know.
So like I said right now as I'm trying to find a path to my future I'm doing some temp work. I signed up at the only temp agency in Durango, listing a preference for office work. It's a small-population area, though, and I got called in to work general labor at a construction site. That's what was available.
The temp agency sent a couple other guys over to the site on the same day, but they showed up with bad attitudes and disappeared quickly. They ere White dudes and from what I can tell the temp agency is having a hard time getting people who will actually show up and do this work. Probably two thirds of the people working at the site for the contractors hired to put up these buildings (condos) are Latino. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is highlighting the assertion that maybe there are jobs that Americans don't want to do anymore.
As for me - well, readers can take a stab at what they think I'm better at, working with my hands or with my head. Now, I didn't ask if you all think I'm good at either, but if you were to guess which am I better at? When I was shipping stuff, not much of it was heavy and heavy stuff had to be lifted only briefly. This is a lot of physical labor: Nothing wrong with it but I'm out of shape and definitely need to build up my endurance, especially given what I'm considering.
In any case, if folks have ever wondered why few people who work at manual labor are bloggers, it probably has less to do with intelligence or interest in the world than simply fatigue. By the end of the day I'm so tired. I can't keep up with the news, keep up with what's going on, keep up with the discussion, even keep up with my web-friends who are, out here, my main friends. Like I said, this is a small population area, especially out where I live which isn't even in town (it's an hour each way to Durango and back). How many people do I know here who share my interests? Who are roughly my age and share my interests? Like my Bio says, when I came out here from Madison it was to help my mother with a family business, operating a motel. She worked at Fort Lewis College during the day and I was pretty much tied to the motel. How many people did I know when I came out here? None. The people I left in Madison were college friends, all long gone. I kept in contact with some for several years but gradually that faded. Now I'm working construction and the guys seem cool - I have yet to run into any who I think is an ass.
This isn't a bad job and normally I'd mind it a lot less, but right now my thoughts are filled with where I want to be in my life, what I hope to do. Losing the job I lost is something I've ended up not minding: Another year there wouldn't have gotten me one step closer to where I want to be and I'm looking back on all the time. I could be where I want to be by now if only. . .
Losing my job as a shipper has been a clarifying experience. I used to look at people doing jobs and think "that wouldn't be too bad, having a job like that" but now the thought that immediately follows is "but that isn't what I want to do with my life." I've always known the kind of thing I would prefer to do, but have had trouble pursuing it. It seems so far away.
One of the things I was most proud of is becoming the biggest regret of my life. I worked my way through Uni: no financial aid, no student loans, some parental help but not lavish. I took classes when I could afford to and often bought textbooks late, again when I could afford to. I left the UW and came out here with a couple hundred dollars in debt. But without a degree. I have everything I need for my B.S. in History & Political Science except some foreign language credits, but no degree. Where would I be now if I had only bitten the bullet, taken on some student loans, but got my degree? I might actually be able to land a job like this one (second from the top) "Staff Assistant: Foreign and Defense Policy Studies". How kewl would that be?
As it stands now, in my optimistic moments I'm hoping that five years from now I'll be on the path to reaching my goal. I want to be a scholar, an academic (as funny as that may be to those who don't think much of academics). I want to use whatever intellectual talents I have and work with others doing such things. I'm affected by worry that I'll never get there. I'm not even sure how to get there. I'm trying to live by that old John Madden saying, "don't worry that the mule is blind, just load the wagon", but it's hard.
Right now I'm having trouble even thinking of stuff to post on, write a post about. As I said, I'm not able to get around much and read things, and I'm tired - physically and mentally - and thus finding it difficult to go through the mental processes that lead to a thoughtful post. It does make me realize that these things don't just generate themselves. Whether my posts, my thoughts, my ideas and the way I put them are good or bad, to me it seemed so effortless. I know that at times the writing is uneven at best. It's often stream-of-consciousness, put out quick and dirty because time is limited. But the thought processes always came so easy to me, so easy it seemed like the post just wrote itself as everything flowed forth. When it was working, it was really working and the hard thing wasn't coming up with stuff but holding it back and editing out excess as a surfiet of thoughts came pouring out (well, that and spelling).
Well, it's not easy right now. I try my best but worry that my best isn't good enough. Why do I blog? Because so far it's the closest I can come to doing what I want to do in life and where I think my talents are: Studying things, thinking about them, and sharing that with others. Whatever contribution I make in this world will be in this area. That's what I believe, but I could be wrong.
Someday I’d also like to meet a nice, cute girl with similar interests who I don’t scare off with some faux pas of social ineptitude, but that’s another story and I know that to do that I’ll have to get out of where I am.
My apologies: Blogging tired may be a step down from not blogging at all, after all. The link in the (Instalanched) "Winning the Islamic Culture War post somehow got mixed with an e-mail page. It's fixed now. My apologies to anyone who was inconvenienced by the screw up.
Two Opinion Journal pieces this morning. One on something I've been blogging about this week: Daniel Henninger writes that the '60s Generation has its candidate in John Kerry:
The Democrats, from day one of Terry McAuliffe's year-long nomination rondo, wanted a liberal who would be cast in their own likeness. They never wanted a moderate like Joe Lieberman, a Democrat trying to come to grips with the new political century--its security dangers, efficient global markets and a ragged domestic culture. Mr. Lieberman and those who share his views are secondary Democrats. They don't count. The Democrats who pick the winners in their party's primaries also choose its political course. They are the Primary Democrats. To oppose George W. Bush and his politics, the Primary Democrats want a candidate shaped as they were shaped in the late 1960s and the hard political battles they waged in the succeeding 30 years.
Which seems about right to me.
The other piece, unrelated, is Part IV of Brian Taylor's series on the Liberation of Iraq.
When I wrote the post on what makes them believe this stuff? I forgot to mention one other person who has studied the Left and why it believes what it believes: Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite authors. Like many of the others he was also a Leftist himself once (see his biography, which is well worth reading).
One of his answers, given here for example, is that people believe these things more because it's about them and their self-image as caring people than it is about the ostensible beneficiaries of their vision. One actually often gets this from the responses people give: at least they care (unlike us heartless types). Sure, the program didn't work, but we should try harder because we care. Or the somewhat common bumper-sticker "Democrats Care": It's about self-congratulation. These theories would be nice if they worked so one identifies oneself as a caring person by embracing them and as hard-hearted by rejecting them.
Trent Telenko sends, via e-mail, a link to this WaPo article, which is very much of interest. Key quote he pulls out:
"Thousands of Iranians have visited the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala since the war ended. Many have expressed surprise at the respectful and helpful behavior of the U.S. soldiers they met along the way.
Leila Araki, waiting in the back of a Renault sedan as her husband peddled shoes, recalled that her mother-in-law somehow lost her money on the road to Karbala. She said a U.S. soldier reached into his pocket and handed her taxi
fare back to Najaf.
"This is something quite contrary to what we have been told about Americans," aid Araki, 31, who was told of Americans flashing thumbs-up and saying, "Good, Iranians."
"They were really surprised. I would never be this respected and well-treated even in my country, by my countrymen."
America's best emissaries are often our soldiers, that's just a fact. Read the whole article.
Of course in one sense I don't find it that surprising: the typical Iranian has a much more positive view of America and Americans than their government would like us to believe. . .than their government would want them to have. But people thought that the presence of American soldiers in Shiite Holy Cities would piss them off. Well, that's another bit of pre-war intelligence that didn't turn out to be true, isn't it?
Quite a few folks who were skeptics of the war to remove Saddam said it would alienate Iranians and possibly even make them more supportive of their Muhllacracy and turn them against America. Hasn't happened, has it? But of course some people don't have to answer for their flawed pre-war predictions.
Stephen Green writes, via e-mail, in response to this post from yesterday where I wrote that "Liberals aren't Leftist" to say that I'm wrong.
Of course he's right, but. . .
Liberals are on the Left, it is true. I'm trying to make a distinction between varieties of the Left in a brief way, and there's no perfect way of doing so. I would say that it is often hard to tell the difference because the hard/radical/60s/Marcusanite Left has worked so hard to successfully blur the distinction so that most Liberals are confused. Highly annoying are the Liberals who get all upset when we don't make distinctions between them and the Radical Left but who then turn around and say that they are Leftists. I've written some past posts on this before, and I do think there is a difference between a sincere Liberal like JFK or Truman or Scoop Jackson on the one hand and the radicalized Left that often passes itself off as Liberals today, as part of a maskirovka begun in the late '60s and early '70s by people like Tom Hayden. Even Richard Cohen failed to make enough of a distinction while attempting to make a distinction.
In any case, I would like to see sincere Liberals reclaim their mantle from the Radical Left that too often wags their dog. But this battle is almost parallel to that of moderate Moslems against Islamist Fascists: only moderate Moslems can retake their religion from the radicals, we can't do that for them, and only real Liberals can retake their ideology from the radical Left.
Oh, and both types of Moslems are Moslems, it is true. The radicals are arguably a perversion of Islam, but the radical Left is a perversion of Liberalism, and I'm not talking "Classical Liberalism", I'm accepting post-"Great Switch" Liberalism as Liberal.
Technically, Liberal is a sub-variety of Leftism, but anyone who calls people like Tom Hayden a Liberal, including Tom Hayden, is abusing the term. That goes for a whole bunch of people who are typically descibed as Liberals - often by Liberals (confused ones) and by themselves ("passing"). But I'm against letting them get away with it and believe that it is a distinction with a difference, or at any rate should be.
That's what Peggy Noonan is doing, and so am I. Right now I'm temping at "the kind of job Americans won't do": General labor at a construction site, and yah, Spanish is spoken there at least as much as English. But hey, I ain't complainin: At least I made General.
But back to today's point. Noonan has a challenge for her readers:
Now for our challenge. What should the Bush paragraph [arguing for re-election] consist of? How to make it new? How to make it memorable, and true? Readers, you are invited to wrap up in one paragraph what the Bush campaign should say as it unveils itself anew. The White House reads this site. They'll see it. Take the floor and tell them how to do it.
The Washington Post is editorializing on behalf of Haiti's elected-President-for-Life Aristide and deploring the fact that we're not intervening on his behalf against arm gangs that have risen up against him.
This is something to keep in mind as people argue for quick elections in Iraq. Yes, in the short term it might reduce U.S. casualties. But it may not produce a stable, democratic Iraq. Check out Too Much Democracy? Part I and Part II: Quick-start democracy may not have lasting roots as other things are required to sustain democratic processes.
Sandy Peterson writes, via e-mail, to point out this post over at Critical Mass on Duke's attitude towards diversity when it's not just skin deep.
Ya know, given the sort of place I hope to end up one day, I've gotta hope this sort of thing changes in a few years. Of course, you know what? This part of the Mill quote that Erin O'Connor's reader Tom P. sent to her:
I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
Once again reminds me of the Orwell quote I referenced here. Just the phrasing of the sentence reminded me of Orwell saying "You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man could be such a fool."
Anyhow, there seems to be a good discussion going on at Critical Mass on the Duke Debate. Check it out.
In the "great [or strange] minds think alike" category, Bernhardt Varenius posted a review yesterday of the book by Peter Collier & David Horowitz that mentioned.
While the Blogosphere is aware of David Horowitz because of his site Front Page Magazine, and thus he gets prominent mention, Peter Collier's contributions to Destructive Generation were very good. I just want to make sure he gets the credit he deserves. Especially since he founded and runs Encounter Books, which has rapidly become a publishing house for quality "conservative" books that otherwise would have a hard time getting printed. Collier is more of a "behind the scenes" guy, a fairly private dude from all I can tell. But his contribution to the intellectual debate have been no less significant, if different than, David Horowitz's.
I just wanted to mention that because in the past I may not have given Peter Collier his due. If you take note of what Encounter Books has published over the last several years, though, from Josh Muravchik's Heaven on Earth (read it, own it, it's great) to the American press edition of Jean-François Revel's Anti-Americanism and Victor Davis Hanson's Mexifornia, oh and lest I forget, well I could keep listing them but you should just go check out their site. Encounter Books is making a significant contribution to public debate on issues that otherwise don't get debated.
Well, this post turned into an encomium to Peter Collier. But I think that's fair. Do check out Bernhardt Varenius' review of Destructive Generation. Bernhardt highlights the "Slouching Towards Berkeley" chapter, which was for me the most poignant chapter. In effect it replies the question "Can their be a decent Left?" before Michael Walzer even asked it, with an answer that their was a decent Liberalism - but the radical Left subdued it. When we look at what happened to Joe Lieberman in the recent primaries and the fact that a '60s (really '70s) radical (Vietnam Veterans Against the War spokesman) is going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, well. . .
I've been hoping that actual Liberals will reassert themselves at some point. I guess I'll have to look at it the same way I am with the Packers: Maybe next year.
Somebody needs to do a study of learned (both in the one and two syllable versions of the word) stupidity, as opposed to the natural kind. Liberals today believe things that are remarkably stupid, such as that all people are equally intelligent at birth, or that there is no such thing as intelligence, or it there is then differences in intelligence are socially determined and have nothing to do with heredity. That all differences between the sexes are socially constructed. That social classes are the result of a sort of conspiracy and could be abolished if we voted in the right government. That all "cultures" are equal in value. That the reason the Third World is poor is because of the machinations of the corporations and the US government. That we kinda sorta deserved the attacks on 9-11 because we've hurt the Muslims' feelings with our insensitive attitudes.
Waitresses and truck drivers are smart enough not to believe such patent absurdities. The amazing thing is that the majority of English and social science professors and journalists do believe them.
Reminds me of one of my favorite Orwell quotes, to the effect that some things are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them, no ordinary person would be so foolish. It's a difference between wisdom grounded in common sense on the one hand and theorizing based on ideology detached from empirical results on the other. The later often masquerades as "Scientific", from "Scientific Socialism" to "Social Science". Of course, some Social Science really is empirically grounded, if not what hard-science types would consider science. Ben Wattenberg's work for example.
And of course not all Liberals are as Joe describes. But there are people like that, and eyeballing I would say more and more rather than fewer and fewer. The direct answer is that people have done studies such as Joe suggests - though right now part of my mind is reminding me of all those Lefty "studies" of the pathologies of conservatives (from "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" to the Berzerkely Study that raised hackles last year). We need to keep that in mind as we do our own studies of the other side. Given that the studies of conservatives that are done by the Left often say more about the prejudices and blindness of those conducting the study than they say about the subject, maybe we want to be careful to screen out our own prejudices when we're looking at the other side. I'd like to hope that "we" do a better job than "they" do, but it's pretty much a given that the other side believes they're doing a better job than we would. Especially since they're so smart and we're too dumb to spell "CAT" if they spotted us the "C" and the "T".
That said, people have studied why Leftists believe the things they do despite empirical evidence to the contrary. Have you ever read John Ray's blog, "Dissecting Leftism"? His tomorrow's-post-today (it's already Wednesday in Oz) delves into that some, but his entire blog is devoted to the psychology of the Left.
In my opinion David Horowitz has answered the question, too. People believe these things as a form of substitute religion. "Destructive Generation" (written with Peter Collier) & "The Politics of Bad Faith" are worth reading. I highly recommend that my fellow conservative readers check out the "Slouching Towards Berkeley" chapter in Destructive Generation, because it highlights the distinction between old Liberals and Radicals-in-Liberal-Clothing - the latter being what Joe is describing. We may not share the politics of the old Liberals but there is a distinction between them and the radical Left.
But as far as why some people believe the things they do even if these things are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them, no ordinary person would be so foolish: In the end it's a matter of wanting something to be true and so acting as if it were. I've sometimes in discussions with honest Leftists got them to essentially admit this: that, ok, it isn't that way now, but if humans will just "evolve", then it will be. They tend to use "evolve" differently than a geneticist would, however, and for me it just brings up the old "New Soviet Man" and "Year Zero" stuff, having its origins in the French Revolution and back to an interpretation of Rousseau's concept of "forcing people to be free": people will be made to fit the theory, somehow, and the ultimate recourse is to force. If they don't want to, it's false consciousness - they don't know what is in their interest and those who do will impose the General Will on them till they come to understand it was for their own good. Then all these things that should be true will become true in the Brave New World that will have such people in it.
Let me put it this way: a couple of years ago I was talking to an intelligent friend who had Socialist politics and Marxist sympathies. He's a bright guy, but he went into the whole thing about how it failed because it was attempted in places that weren't ready for it, weren't industrial countries. Then he said "but there's still hope - look at what they're doing in Yemen". He said that without irony and without acknowledgement that he had just, on his own terms said that this theory would fail in a country (like, say, Yemen) that didn't have an advanced industrial economy, but then recommended Yemen's efforts as a wave of the future. By his own terms he should have said they shouldn't be attempting to implement that system until they had passed through the Capitalist phase. But, as one line in Destructive Generation puts it, they refuse to learn from the past because they want to repeat it.
They can't afford to because it would mean they would have to give up the world-views/political philosophy that is vitally important to them. That same thing causes them to believe the other things that just aren't so and indeed to go so far as to believe things that are so stupid only an intellectual could possibly believe them, no ordinary person would be so foolish. Now, again: not every Leftist is like that: Orwell wasn't, and he considered himself a man of the Left. He was able to identify others on the Left who were like that but also a distinction between types of Leftists. And Liberals aren't Leftists, especially properly understood (but that's a whole new can of worms). It may seem a bit precious to make these distinctions, but if one is going to do a proper study of "The Left", then it's important to draw these distinctions.
[Och, it took me so long to post this that it's not only Wednesday in Oz, it's Wednesday here too. No need to write letters pointing that out to me.]
The Army is going to try and keep troops with one unit longer. That's almost certainly a good thing for both retention and unit cohesion/combat effectiveness. Rotating around has its pluses as well, but on balance this is likely to be better for today's more technological Army.
It'll almost certainly be better for retention. What with deployments, some soldiers are moving quite a lot - from their unit's home base to a deployment, then back, then on to their next assignment, rinse and repeat. That doesn't even include schools to be eligible for promotion &tc.
In somewhat related news, people who worry about the Army keeping its strength up will be happy to know that the U.S. Army is currently overstrength and having no problems filling the ranks. The National Guard may be another matter, but the R.A. is doing fine - for now. I still believe the force structure should be increased, however, because line units are in danger of being run ragged. The extention of tours with one unit will help that some, and soldiers who want to move on are still free to put in for a change.
So, as implied in this morning's fratricide post, it's all over in the Democratic Primaries except for the blame game and the crying. They're just playing out the string. If this was the NFL we'd be in "garbage time" now. So on to musings on General Election.
The Buggy Professor posts that the Democrats should remember history and understand that they'll need to win at least some Southern states to win the Presidency. No Democrat has won without winning some Southern states.
That was then. I think I'll have to overcome my prejudices and agree with John Kerry. A Democrat is more likely to win Ohio and New Hampshire than any part of the South.
Gore lost New Hampshire narrowly and Ohio by only a smidgen more. Both states are trending more Democratic at the Presidential level over time. They are still perceived as Republican because they have traditionally gone Republican, but the margins are narrowing. Ohio has also taken some fair-sized manufacturing job losses and could go Democrat this year for economic reasons.
I think the Democrats are only likely to win in the South if they're winning everywhere else anyhow. Other than possibly Florida (possibly), Louisiana is the only state in the South that remains competitive for Democrats - but still would be unlikely to go for a Democrat who is identified with their national party. That is, a Democrat who wins the nomination is unlikely to appeal to Louisiana Democrats. Florida was "weird" in 2000. I'm dubious that it's as Democratic as the results in 2000 would indicate. They're actually going to have a harder time winning it. Thus to pick up Southern states, the "swing" would have to be large enough that they were going to win the election anyhow.
If it's close, they're far more likely to pick up Ohio and New Hampshire than a Southern state. Arguably they're more likely to pick up Arizona and Nevada as well (due to demographic shifts) than any Southern state, but in any case they'd be better devoting attention to Ohio than following a "Southern Strategy".
And I write this as someone who likes Zell Miller a lot more than I like John Kerry. Sen. Kerry is closer to right from a strictly political-strategy standpoint today than Miller is. As for where the Democrats should be on policy and political philosophy and whether the strategy I'm saying would be more likely to win for them this year would help them move in a direction I'd prefer to see them move in, and whether winning this way would be healthy for the country or the Democratic Party, well that's another story.
Just some observations on the primaries tonight. It's pretty obvious from last weekend's results that Edwards and Clark (and to a lesser extent Dean) are hurting themselves more than Kerry. With all of them in the race dividing the vote and attention, none of them is able to become the clear alternative.
Kerry hasn't been winning sweeping majorities. It's just that the "non-Kerry" vote is fragmented and thus no other candidate's share looks that impressive next to Kerry's. Kerry will probably win in both primaries tonight for this very reason. For Democrats who want an alternative, it's clear that the field needs to be pared back drastically. But that isn't going to happen because they all see themselves as the alternative and will not make way for another to be that clear alternative until it is too late and Kerry is the nominee.
This is the real reason why Kerry is likely to sew up the nomination sooner than others in the past. In those primary seasons, it very quickly became a two-man race for all intents and purposes. A four or five man race with one far ahead and the others dividing the "Anyone But" vote creates a very different dynamic.
I've been mentally distracted. That's my lame excuse for why it took me so long to come up with this idea for what to call the genera that Michael Moore is producing, to include not only his upcoming film but the totality of his work and that of similar folks.
It's clear Moore is following in Chomsky's footsteps and recycling the same selective, distorted presentation of historical fact in the method Chomsky pioneered and so many have aped (as Joe User points out). So Manufactured Dissent seems like a good name for all their stuff. I know it's not a single word (it's a phrase). But it's apt, and this contains a good description of the genera (read the whole thing, but if you can't, the second half is the more significant part).
No, no, no. I don't mean Al Gore's latest demonstration of how he's a moderate, sensible, mainstream Democrat who we should have leading us in a sober, responsible way. I mean the economy.
Yes, once again it's time to poke fun at Krugman's thesis. Hey, I just lost mine, shouldn't I be singing his praises? Well, it's true that German unemployment is up, and being of Germanic background, that includes me. But U.S. unemployment is down to 5.4%, a rate that is normally considered low. "Hey, but isn't this a jobless recovery? Doesn't that just mean people are giving up on finding work?"
I'll let you know if I give up. In the meantime, I haven't got the time to go into the whole "which employment figures are best at capturing job growth, the business survey or the household survey?" debate all over again. But when even The Guardian is acknowledging that the U.S. is the dynamo generating global economic growth, we can't be doing to bad. After all, you just know they'd have preferred to attribute all global dynamism to Brussels and embrace the Krugmanite thesis that the American economy is on the verge of collapse (they'll do that tomorrow on the editorial pages where facts don't matter).
Update: Speaking of poking fun, Spengler ridicules one of Al Gore's favorite hobbyhorses in the pixels of Asia Times. Check it out.
The NYT article on the al-Qaeda memo is being extensively discussed throughout the blogosphere, and for good reason. It's one of the best signs in awhile that the war is going well for us.
The strategy of attacking Moslems and provoking a civil war within Iraq is not all that surprising given that, as has been noted before, Islamist terrorism is itself simply the export of a civil war over who will determine what Islam is and what it means to be a Moslem in the modern world.
We can win the war against terrorism and hopefully influence the outcome of this war within Islam for the best, but we alone cannot determine that and thus cannot ourselves win the Islamic Civil War that is a part of the broader war. In the end, only Moslems will do that. We can and should support those voices within Islam that want a more benign expression of their faith, one compatible with modernity and not hostile to the West but maintaining their own identities. Tarek Heggy points out that it is possible as it did exist.
Thus we can, with the help of Moslem allies (or, rather, helping them) defeat the Islamist forces. But we can also lose this war and as I have said the biggest danger on that score is quite possibly that we will fail to fight it aggressively and confidently because of internal doubts. The Moslem Civil War is not the only civil war that is a part of the broader war. We are waging what amounts to a bloodless civil war within the West.
It is very important to emphasize not only that this is a civil war to determine what the West is and even whether the West is worthy of existence and preservation, but also that it is - so far - bloodless. But it is critical none the less and is as key to victory as any other front in this war. It is in a way hard to engage because by and large those on the other side are people of sincere belief themselves, and most of those who are wittingly or unwittingly effectively on the other side of the divide in this internal civil war do not perceive themselves as being "against the West" but sincerely believe that aggressive pursuit of victory in the manner we are going about it is the danger.
I agree with Steven Den Beste that it goes too far to call the likes of Michael Moore a "traitor", though given what he's said about America both at home and abroad I'd hardly call him a patriot or a friend of America. I also agree that people should not be silenced, but rather their views and propaganda combated on the battlefield of ideas. The majority of the people who need to be argued against are not Fifth Columnists in the normal sense. It is hard to find any who want to see the victory of Islamism - though there are more than a few who wouldn't mind seeing America humbled and chastened so we might learn a lesson and change our policies.
There are quite a few who clearly reserve their ire for the leaders of Democratic countries who are waging the war. As the American Spectator piece puts it:
But the general pattern has been that democratic leaders who wage war on terrorists, totalitarians, enemies of freedom, are guilty until proven innocent. Never more so than now, when alleged intelligence failures, alleged deceptions, are all the rage. The Free World turns in, snarling, upon itself.
The same people who may be understanding of the failings of foreign governments given the constraints they operate under are quick to castigate, in the most heated and intemperate tone, the leaders of Democratic societies who make honest mistakes while trying to do the best they can to win a war at which much is at stake for the world. Yes, the world: that may sound melodramatic, but it is true.
Internal debate, dissent, and accounting is one of the West's strengths. The ability to appraise things, criticize actions and propose alternatives, is a benefit, not a drawback. Most of the time. But carried to excess and done in ways that for whatever reason, be it partisan politics grown poisonous or a belief that one's own civilization, far from being worth defending, is the source of much if not all of the world's problems, it can be enervating rather than providing useful and needed corrections.
I believe we've entered a rather dangerous phase thought the West and including in America. Criticisms are less constructively based on real facts and realistic alternatives and more and more on hyperbole, distorted view (or presentation) of reality, and superficial alternatives. They are also quite often based on flawed assumptions, such as that war could be waged bloodlessly if only we followed perfect strategy and tactics, and that perfection is possible and mistakes in war fighting and intelligence rare. A lack of recognition that "Murphy's Law" and its variants are a favorite in military circles for a reason.
This is suggestive of a disconnect from the grubby realities of life "on the ground" in the real world. It's the fallacy that the intellectual classes are easily prone to. I guess they fail to connect their own life setbacks to the larger world in a way that others with more common sense are able to. In that sense Steven Den Beste was not wrong in identifying the dividing lines, though again it was never as bad as it has gotten and academics like Victor Davis Hanson have been some of the most articulate in fighting the "War of Ideas" at home on the same side as myself and Steven.
I am not sure how we're going to win this fight but I will close my post saying that it is one of my disappointments with Bush. On Meet the Press yesterday I believe his substance was right when it comes to the war and the economy (spending is another matter). But he was not able to articulate it well. The contrast was all the more stark when compared with another MSNBC program that aired yesterday, on Reagan's communication ability.
Now, George Bush has given some good speeches on the war, which I have noted in the past, though they haven't gotten a lot of attention in the larger media. But the high profile speeches haven't been as widely praised and have lacked the ability to inspire the persuadable middle. They might nod, but the speeches don't leave a lasting image. Tony Blair can give a rousing speech, but as far as Britain goes, distrust of Blair's glibness has gone mainstream. It can't be characterized as confined just to those on the other side of the House of Commons.
We need someone who can articulate what is at stake in this battle in a way that will inspire more than those who are inclined to support the effort anyhow. The problem is that there doesn't seem to appear to be such a person at this time. To illustrate this, lets look at Kerry for a moment, the likely Democratic nominee and thus alternative to Bush. Ignoring for the moment the substance of what he's said about the war on any particular occasion or policy, and whatever other qualities he may have, Kerry has never been known for inspirational oratory. He speaks "Senate Speak" and the air of aloofness and distance is real, not just an unfair characterization by political opponents or people who don't like him. He has trouble connecting with people.
This is where we stand. Lets remember the beginning of this post, however: the good news is we are winning on the ground, judging by al-Qaeda's own perception of their situation. Rolling back the bad ideas that spawn entities like al-Qaeda and bad ideas within our own civilization that saps our confidence in a way that makes it harder for us to roll back those ideas abroad is another matter, however.
