What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Buckley, Chambers and the West

Buckley%20books.jpgCall me an eccentric or a crank if you must. Accuse me of tilting at windmills like old Don Quixote: But by all that is holy I will do what I can to insure that so enormous an event as the passing of William F. Buckley, Jr., shall not be swamped by the tormenting transience of the blogosphere, and by so insignificant an event as a presidential election.

Being the eccentric that I am, I had been for almost ten days reading precisely nothing but Buckley (with one brief interlude of Oakeshott-on-Hobbes). Most of the Atlanta Public Library’s collection of Buckley nonfiction is now at my house, though I cannot hope to compete with the beautiful picture presented by my friend Kevin Holtsberry (at right).

So ten days of Buckley — and then Odyssey of a Friend arrived at my local branch, and Buckley retreated (though he never vanished) to make room for the greater man.

Odyssey of a Friend, as most Conservatives know, is a collection of letters, sent by Whittaker Chambers to Buckley during the late 1950s and early 1960s. It was published by the latter, after the former’s death. The rough sketch of a great work of history and philosophy, a book which Chambers never completed, emerges from these riveting epistles. Its haunting lineaments are unmistakable, but most of its specifics are lost to us.

Whittaker Chamber was a prophet, truly. He was granted (blessed or cursed it is hard to say) an image of the future; and awful prescience of things to come, which forever stalked his thoughts. He said that despair led him to Communism: and in a thousand anecdotes of revolutionary fanaticism, committed to memory during those decades of laboring to overthrow the Capitalist and Christian order, he showed us what horrifying determination despair may engender.

It was hope, despair’s contrary and contradictory, that brought him back. And few men sacrificed more for the cause of Liberty, conceived in contrast to the tyranny of Communism, than he. And no one was more convinced that the cause was doomed.

But even with the tremendous transformation, from Despair to Hope, the shrewd analsis of history, the mind trained under revolutionary discipline for perception of objective facts, remained his great asset. He was still a seer, and a superb judge of events.

These letters bristle with insight and that eerie precognition. “Never suppose that the Left has finished with Nixon,” Chambers admonishes Buckley in 1954. For in Nixon the Left sees a man who may be their equal in cunning. “For the Right to tie itself in any way to Senator McCarthy,” he pronounces, “is suicide” — exactly because, alas, McCarthy “can’t lead anybody because he can’t think.” He writes about the differing strategies of Socialism and Communism with such clinical detachment and piercing intuition that the reader is left eyes wide. The purpose of the machinations of Alger Hiss, who was released from prison during the span of these letters, is transparent to Chambers; and you can almost feel the doom closing around him as he describes how powerless he is, and how he must stand alone against this onslaught, lest more important things fall with him.

Dilating on the Hungarian uprising of 1956, Chambers lets loose with perhaps his most remarkable prophecy:

I must try to show why most of the argument about the crisis has seemed to me almost wholly beside the point. Actually, there is more than on point. But one of them has to do with the absence in the West for forty years of a sense of destiny. Power, yes; a sense of destiny, no — and this has found expression in a failure of will, and, to a large degree, of rational hope. Hence, too, by default Communism has been the only force in the world, felt as a force of destiny — its only real strength. This force is not only now corrupt; it is insanely preposterous. It is insane that Communism itself should have destroyed more Communists than all the other governments of the earth taken together; or that, by official record, the last three chiefs of the Soviet secret police should have been traitors to the revolution, intelligence agents of foreign powers all their active lives. And it is insane that the rest of the world could co-exist with, and largely connive at, such insanity. In the absence of any other effective force, there has now emerged, on the Polish and on the Hungarian plains, another force, pathetic in its physical impotence and inequality, but heroic in its purpose which has challenged both the morally empty West and the corrupt Communist power in which, hitherto, destiny has inhered.

Let the reader consider, in this context: (1) just who was doing the Lord’s work out “on the Polish plains,” under the jackboot of Communism, in 1957, and (2) to what office this man would eventually rise. Let him consider the beatific irony of how Stalin’s famous sneer, “The Pope? How many divisions has the Pope?” was answered; and who sat upon the Throne of Saint Peter when the answer came down.

Let him consider, finally, what this piece of staggering prophecy means for our age, where the despair of the West confronts a new antagonist, which is also a very very old one. Let him consider again the ineradicable truth: that even forces “pathetic” in their “physical impotence” may throw down the mightiest empires of this world.

Comments (70)

I'm intrigued but not entirely convinced by Chambers's implication that the West needs a sense of destiny. What exactly would that mean, and how could it be true? My concern about the notion of a sense of destiny is, in part, that too often it conflates "is" with "ought." ("We are destined to do x, therefore we ought to do x.") Moreover, it seems impossible to imagine a sense of destiny that would inspire men that would not be this-worldly and future-looking, along the lines of "We are destined to rule." Merely to say (what is probably true) that the United States has been destined by its example in a number of ways to be a moral light unto the world, to give the world a vision of freedom, etc., is probably not enough to get people feeling really inspired.

Would it perhaps be truer to say that the West needs a sense of its own worth, of the value of what it stands for and what it has been and can yet be?

I would say in context "purpose" might be the closer word. For Chambers the crisis, exemplified in Communism, was so dire that until it could be surmounted, there could be few other purposes for the West. Thus it was, to him, vital to acknowledge this "destiny."

That's a really helpful clarification. And he was right about that, too. Wonder what he would have said about Reagan.

You know, I've been thinking that very thing. Buckley testifies that Chambers was a very lively, humorous and even (if you can believe it) fun-loving man. And these letters testify that he was perfectly willing to abandon his moroseness when events confuted it. The fact that Buckley at the others from National Review stood by him after Hiss got out of prison and began his assault, moved him deeply, and a letter from that time to Buckley suggests a retreat from his gloom -- at least for a season.

I think Chambers would struck dumb at the thought that man who learned of Communism at his feet, through Witness, might one day win every state but one in his reelection as a President. Reagan would have taught him of the reserves of real strength in America that twenty years of skulduggery in the service of Communism can blind you too.

That's an encouraging thought. I was so saddened by the end of Witness, where he more or less says he's just waiting for his children to grow up so he can die. (He attributes the same attitude to his wife, but I wonder. Women are tough.) And how old was he at that time? Not that old. It's the point of view, I think, of a man who had not yet fully understood Christianity, at least not the hopeful part of it.

Witness came out in 1952, I believe; Chambers was in his fifties. He had only nine years left of poor health, heart attacks, and occasional explosions of energy.

His wife is mostly an enigma. But she must have been a strong, faithful and extraordinarily brave woman. In one letter, Chambers mentions that, while watching TV during the Hungarian uprising, she burst out, shouting at the television: "Why don't they stop these terrible commercials? Why don't they just start praying for the Hungarians?"

"he more or less says he's just waiting for his children to grow up so he can die."

Buckley wrote later about the day Chambers' son got married, and they all afterward celebrated together, Buckleys and Chamberses and a few others: how joyous a day it was. Chambers mentioned his statements about living "until my children reach majority," and situates them in those brutal, lonely years in the late 40s during the HUAC testimonies. It is clear enough, in Buckley's telling, that the man died happy, beloved, and stupefied by his good fortune. He even went back to school, studying ruthlessly to learn science!

To me the most encouraging thought is that Chambers was wrong, at least in this detail: Communism did not triumph.

But what a man we had to show us, to really show us, what Communism and revolution were all about! And showing us this mirror of doom was not without its effect, as the Reagan-based encouraging thought demonstrates.

It's the point of view, I think, of a man who had not yet fully understood Christianity, at least not the hopeful part of it.

I'm not one to question Chambers's knowledge of Christianity--who could know the mind of the Lord? But I would defend him. Chambers carried a lot--perhaps too much.

Tolkien seems to have understand something of the sort. Chambers was stronger than a Pippin, maybe even stronger than a Frodo.

A tragic vision comes through understanding. Those aloof from the sad crucifixion of this martyr (Greek for "witness") might not get what a burden understanding is in the face of human impotence.

As for the sense of purpose we have in the west, America has trumpeted it since its beginning -- and in my view rightly so. Ever since Winthrop's sermon aboard the Arbella, we have felt, and articulated, our (at least perceived) calling: We are to be a city set on a hill, a light for the world to follow, and woe to us if we deal falsely with our God and our destiny, Winthrop added.

From that moment, destiny became manifest, so to speak. Nothing is more clear and persistent in the American mind than its sense of calling, as repeatedly urged in the inaugural addresses of our presidents. One of the most enlightening and inspiring studies I can think of is to read through the inaugural addresses. It's fascinating stuff on nearly all levels. It shows our resilient belief that America is the last, best, hope of earth. If anything in America is a public orthodoxy, it is that convinction, and not daylight savings time.

When modern leftism is not in charge, that conviction is strong and politically redemptive. Continental Europe, in its posture of pseudo-sophistication, might consider us the country-cousin in the family of nations, but when they need to be rescued -- often from themselves -- we are there to rescue them. We have done it many times and in many ways, as we have around the world. At enormous cost to ourselves, we have gone into (and out of) dozens of nations in order to make the world a better place -- even those nations that were our deadliest enemies, like Germany and Japan. What MacArthur did in Japan and what the Marshall Plan accomplished in Europe are without historical equals, and they indicate what we think our calling on the planet really is. They also indicate the American penchant for forgiveness and generosity, which surpasses all others -- ever.

Michael Bauman

"It shows our resilient belief that America is the last, best, hope of earth."

Beware of false messiahs, especially when they appear as nations offering salvation through political and economic means. Charged with a "manifest destiny", that nation will not hesitate to bestow it's gifts at gun-point.

Humility is a virtue. May it be embraced by those who live in "The City Upon a Hill".

I don't mind being a city on a hill. In fact, I think it's a good, correct, inspiring image. I suppose I'm right in between the paleos and the interventionists. I'm wary of interventionism, but I do think America has something other nations do not have and that we should be proud of that and see ourselves as a light.

"I do think America has something other nations do not have and that we should be proud of that and see ourselves as a light"

As long as we don't think we have a moral sanction to force that light on others. We do not possess a universally applicable template. Let prudence moderate our pride.

Burke issued the warning long ago;
"Among precautions against ambition, it may not be amiss to take one against our own. I must fairly say I dread our own power and our own ambition. I dread our being too much dreaded.... Sooner or later, this state of things must produce a combination against us which may end in our ruin."

"As long as we don't think we have a moral sanction to force that light on others. We do not possess a universally applicable template. Let prudence moderate our pride."

This sounds about right to me. And it could very well be close to what Lydia meant when she said that she was "right in between the paleos and the interventionists". Or it would be close to what I would have meant if I would have said that.

We don't have a moral sanction to DECLINE our duty to liberate the oppressed and to uplift the poor. We have no obligation to do what we cannot do. But we ought to do what we can. We cannot right every wrong, here or abroad. Nor should we try. But we can, and ought to, right some of them. We will disagree over which ones they are. But as a nation we answer that question the best way we can, then we try to fulfill our obligation as we see it. To date, I think we've done impressively well.

Nobody here is talking about being a messiah nation. We're talking about doing what we can to resist evil in a world where it is rampant. The world needs cops, and no one else is either able or willing to fill the role. Like it or not, ability entails responsibility. And we are, regarding some challenges, able.

PS: As I recall, the "last best hope of earth" comment came from Lincoln. He wasn't thinking of us as a messianic nation, but as a nation with moral obligations.

Michael Bauman

We are to be an examplethen? an example of Self-Government? That is what I make of the City on a Hill image: we shall be an example. Self-Government, meanwhile, shall be the content of the example: the destiny which Willmoore Kendall, citing the Preamble to the Constitution, attributed to us. The City on the Hill is the demonstration that Self-Government is possible.

Now I think very highly of Kendall, and regard him as one of my chief instructors in political science (through his writing of course); yet I also judge the various critiques of "teleological states," states whose very constitutions include an element of cosmic purpose revealed to man, highly persuasive. Oakeshott's teaching on this is particularly profound, and should be very amenable to Mr. Bauman's classical liberalism. (I would also be very interested to hear Lydia's opinion of Oakeshott, if she has read him.)

But even if we accept that America has a purpose, we run up hard against certain problems. One problem is that the idea of a cosmic purpose in politics is a considerable departure from the very classical liberals from whom our tradition is said to derive. The idea of cosmic, city-on-the-hill politics is at variance with Locke, for instance, who argued that the purpose of politics is merely the protection of life, liberty and property. What men do with these things, once protected, is their own business. Politics is demoted in rank, and distanced from the permanent things. Infusing politics with a "redemptive" content, particularly if that content is basically secular in character, is dangerous business indeed -- even someone skeptical of Locke like me will agree with his caution there.

Another problem with city-on-the-hill politics is the assumption it makes of other peoples and nations -- in particular the assumption that they share American optimism. Here Chambers performs for us a great service. How, he asks plaintively, incredulously, can we expect other peoples, some of whom are just emerging from the long night of the most awful tyrannies ever made by man, to share our optimism? Our optimism is emphatically the overlier on the big plotted graph of human experience! and yet we take it as read? What folly.

“The celebrated difference between East and West, which shall never meet, was Hollywood stuff to the difference between the rest of the world and the Americans,” wrote Chambers. “Practicing the pursuit of happiness, we are the mysterious West.” The rest of the world, or much of it, has far profounder an acquaintance with tragedy and horror than with happiness.

Our American assumption that happiness is actually attainable by most people, sets us out, not as a city upon a hill, but a city upon a cloud.

"Another problem with city-on-the-hill politics is the assumption it makes of other peoples and nations -- in particular the assumption that they share American optimism."

So we're very optimistic about ourselves on account of our optimism but we're also quite gloomy about the rest of the world because of their lack of optimism. Quite the position we find ourselves in.

No, we have achieved for ourselves such success and prosperity that we have come to forget the pulverizing fact that not everyone has a similar experience; that, especially in the century just past, Western ideals midwifed regimes inflicting the diametrically opposite experience.

The poverty of our notion of tragedy and the tragic sense of life, blinds us to certain facts.

Right - I wasn't so much disagreeing with you as having some fun with words.

But I do have a question (or comment). To my mind part of what has made America great is a certain sort of realism about the world, particularly with respect to the moral order. We have the ability to draw clear lines of moral distinction, call things evil, fight the good fight and so on. But if your diagnosis is correct than the type of optimism that you say we have (birthed through prosperity and such) seams to undermine that realism. If we have an impoverished notion of tragedy haven't we lost our moral realism (and perhaps this is in fact part of the point you were making).

A City on a Hill is a fine thing, if all that it entails is a nation of exemplary virtue and self-sacrifice for the practices and institutions of self-governance, an example that others may elect to emulate in manners befitting their unique circumstances, traditions, and aspirations. But neither I, nor my children, have any obligation to sacrifice, bleed, and die, so that Iraqis, for example, may enjoy some semblance of what we in America enjoy. I am obligated to sacrifice for my children, as we are alike obligated to sacrifice for our community, and our country, which is to be strictly distinguished from the state, the political institutions and contingent power configurations at any given moment; but, even setting aside considerations of the justice of American foreign policy, one cannot declare cosmopolitan, internationalist works of supererogation morally obligatory.

If other nations wish to emulate such of our institutions as they find admirable, we ought to be flattered; accepting the complement is about the limit of our obligation in this regard.

Mike: I was trying to get at that moral realism point, through the back door as it were, with my comment on Locke. The dilemma works like this: if America does indeed include some notion of cosmic or world-historical purpose, in her very constitution as a nation or people organized for action in history, then we are leaving behind the Lockean politics upon which many of our Optimists base their theory of American identity.

We cannot simultaneously be a nation that has followed Locke and Oakeshott (each is his own way) in demoting politics, and a nation that infuses our politics with world-historical or cosmic significance.

If it reduces to mere example, then the example you set when you decline to fight against colossal evil is itself an evil example. Our moral obligations do not stop with our families or with our borders.

I want to be careful to disassociate myself from certain aspects of anti-interventionist rhetoric. Sometimes one listens to anti-interventionists talk about "invading," "conquering," "trampling on other peoples," "arrogant imposition of our own ideas," "forcing our own light upon other people," and the like and one gets the following impression: America looked around and noticed X country doing moderately well and happily with a fairly benign monarchy. Americans flew into a rage at the very notion of inherited monarchy and the divine right of kings and proceded to invade a relatively happy and peaceful people in an attempt to force democracy upon them.

Mind you, no one says anything quite that blatantly absurd. But it's very nearly the impression one gets. The reality, of course, is far otherwise, and it is quite misleading to speak as if wicked tyrants are anything other than wicked tyrants and as if overthrowing them is in and of itself the same thing as harming "the people"--the people over which they rule _as_ wicked tyrants.

I also want carefully to distance myself from any hint of cultural relativism, more than a hint of which sneaks into much anti-interventionist rhetoric. It is _too bad_ that the American model is not better applicable to other countries, that they are filled not only with tyranny but with crazy ideologies like, say, Islam that make democracy positively a dangerous proposition to introduce to them. It isn't as though our set-up is no better than any other. We're very lucky to have it.

And we were right to jump into World War II (while I'm at it).

But in very many cases, our well-intentioned intervention in foreign affairs is bad _for us_ in many ways, and as a tragic consequential matter, it sometimes unintentionally makes things worse for the very people we wished to help. Them's just facts we have to face, and it is from those facts that some of my isolationist sympathies arise.

You're begging the question. What I want is a set of specifics: are my children obligated to die so that some benighted third-world prolepsis of the apocalypse can enjoy some simulation of representative government? I think not. But those who believe things that entail, out at the margins, that my children might have such an obligation, if the state under which they happen to live and suffer decrees it, never seem to come down to brass tacks and say that. Talking about ambiguities such as colossal evil doesn't get us to the conclusion of an obligation; what is requisite is a demonstration that these particular people, in these circumstances are under an obligation to sacrifice, even to the point of death, so that people to whom they have no discernible relationship, with whom they are not enmeshed in a system of reciprocities, may enjoy some indeterminate benefits.

Lydia, I don't believe that the mere existence of a wicked tyrant generates an obligation on our part to overthrow his rule. So doing would not be, in and of itself, tantamount to oppressing his people, but the mere possibility of doing some work of national supererogation does not rise to the level of an obligation. "Because we can" isn't geostrategy. It ain't even close to Just War theory. I've no difficulty pronouncing the American tradition superior to that of Islam; nothing whatsoever follows from that, save a hope and a prayer that those in the Islamic world might, well, turn from the baleful aspects of their tradition.

"We cannot simultaneously be a nation that has followed Locke and Oakeshott (each is his own way) in demoting politics, and a nation that infuses our politics with world-historical or cosmic significance."

At least some will say that in following Locke (I don't know anything about Oakeshott) our politics is infused with world-historical or cosmic significance. That a government be structured around limited power and natural rights is not somehow draining politics of moral significance and meaning but that the concepts of limited government and rights are themselves morally significant concepts (perhaps more so with rights than limited government).

"I've no difficulty pronouncing the American tradition superior to that of Islam; nothing whatsoever follows from that, save a hope and a prayer that those in the Islamic world might, well, turn from the baleful aspects of their tradition."

I don't want to conflate missions and war here but I have a hard time separating my American hat from my Christian hat here. Christianity has an interventionist streak. More than a streak it has a Great Commission. So the Christian attitude towards the Islamic world is not a hope and a prayer that they might change. Its to get in there and share what we know and what we've got (all the while hoping and praying). For the Christian in general and the individual called to be a missionary in particular this does represent a moral duty. Performing this moral duty may in fact lead to the increased likelihood of war. If we get involved in their business there may be political ramifications. I don't take it that my American hat undermines this reality for me as a Christian in any way whatsoever.

The Great Commission is one thing, and democracy, "free markets", and the whole lot of it, quite another.

Nothing I said about wicked tyrants and such was meant to generate any particular obligation. In fact, that's just where I'm most hesitant. I was merely trying to say that I don't like the way some anti-interventionists talk.

Mike d has a good point about missions, though of course any connection between that and war would be _highly_ indirect and might never arise. (There was one when it came to Britain, I think, in the 19th century. But I'm not claiming to know the rights and wrongs of all of that.) It would be an interesting question to see how a sympathy for interventionism or isolationism in foreign policy coincided, in Christians, with a sympathy or lack of sympathy for Western foreign missions and "proselytizing." I think one might find that _some_ anti-interventionists felt as uncomfortable with "imposing our religion" as with "imposing our form of government," even if the "imposition" took the form merely of teaching and preaching at great risk to oneself. But that is a mere conjecture on my part.

Mike:

It seems to me that you have left Locke behind here. Civil society, for him, is not teleological. Men do not covenant together to create civil society with some moral mandate in mind which shall bind both them and the institution -- the State -- which enforces their covenant. It was precisely all this moral mandate stuff that modern theorists wanted to leave behind, because moral differences (and especially religiously-rooted ones) give rise to unremitting conflict. So the argument goes.

So you're still faced with the old theologico-political problem. It has not been surmounted by the quintessential modern effort to demote politics and leave theology and morality to the private realm.

All this, incidentally, is why I dispute the "Lockean Founding" interpretation of the American political tradition, which, at least for a time, was the conventional teaching. The phrase "we hold these truths" refutes a Lockean interpretation of the Founding. It indicates a clear cognition of the need for moral unity, that moral agreement (not disagreement) is a presupposition of our republic.

"The Great Commission is one thing, and democracy, "free markets", and the whole lot of it, quite another."

Agreed. I do not want to be one those who confuses contemporary American culture for a branch of Christianity. I only mean to bring out a tension that might exist between anti-interventionism and Christianity. At least some anti-interventionist talk seems to profess a total stay out of there type of attitude. Lydia you might remember a similar discussion coming up at Right Reason with Max awhile ago (in that context it was conflict between missions and conservatism generally).

Paul,

I won't pretend to know more Lockean philosophy than I actually do here so I'll just take you as correctly interpreting Locke (and then go study up some more!). But modern theorists may want to leave moral laden politics behind by appealing to Lockean ideas but I say if they include things like natural rights in those formulations than they're dead wrong. And I think you agree here anyway since you interpret “We hold these truths” to be a morally laden statement. But then according to you we aren’t a nation that has followed Locke in demoting politics. That’s not our tradition. Is that right?

I think our tradition of politics owes far less to Locke than most of our professors teach. I think that at certain vital moments, our tradition has reaches backward, beyond the modern theorists, to find its root and meaning. The Preamble to the Constitution, for instance, is just not the sort of preface one would expect from Lockeans. Willmoore Kendall argued that it owe more to mediaeval political theory than modern.

"Natural rights" is certainly a concept within the Lockean orbit. But where is this concept in our great constitutional documents? It appears after "we hold these truths" in the Declaration, thus suggesting a principle of prior communal agreement. The Preamble is in tension with it. It was absent from the Constitution itself until the passage of the Bill of Rights, which latter was only broadened into a kind of John 3:16 of the Constitution in the 20th century.

I do not say that Lockean natural rights have no place at all in the American tradition; I only say that they have been overemphasized, to the detriment of the true richness of our tradition.

"But neither I, nor my children, have any obligation to sacrifice, bleed, and die, so that Iraqis, for example, may enjoy some semblance of what we in America enjoy."

Nor should Iraqis, or anyone else die for a vision conjured up in Washington. Not to revisit the war debate, but Saddam was tied down by the inspection regime and posed less of a threat to his people than has followed their "liberation"

"I've no difficulty pronouncing the American tradition superior to that of Islam;"

But, there there is the prevalent problem of confusing the "American traditon" with Chritianity, or worse preferring it to our faith.

The more we drain Christian substance from our culture the more messianic our politics become. America clothed as Empire is a travesty put forth by those who never loved her in more modest dress.

Lydia writes, "My concern about the notion of a sense of destiny is, in part, that too often it conflates "is" with "ought."

True, that is dangerous. Always good to remember Creon. But this danger is not reason enough to shirk one's destiny.

Chambers uses destiny in the sense that all mankind is created in the image of God and ought to resist the evil of usurping the position of God. The answer, he said, to the Communist's faith is faith in God.

. . . its view of God, its knowledge of God, its experience of God, is what alone gives character to a society or nation, and meaning to its destiny.

The society that replaces "is" for "ought" is a monster indistinguishable from the society who believes "man's mind is man's fate."

America clothed as Empire is a travesty put forth by those who never loved her in more modest dress.

Whence all of those recent neoconservative tomes endeavouring to prove to us that Empire is our tradition. Beyond a certain threshold, one wants to inquire of them, "Why do you hate actually-existing America so much?"

I think that too many modern Americans no longer have a stomach for the moral demands that attach to their calling. I don't know if contemporary leftism is the cause or the symptom of that failure. But I do know we won't admit to our cowardice. (It takes courage to do so.) We disguise our cowardice as something else. Cowardice always masquerades as prudence, but it's just a mask. Despite our posturing on the issue of prudence, it is not prudent to be a coward.

The presence of colossal evil in the world sometimes means that we ourselves, and our children when they are old enough, must sometimes lay down either their lives or their virtue. If they lay down their virtue, they'll do it the way we do it: They'll dress up their failure as something it is not.

Michael Bauman

And here I thought I merely, you know, loved my children. Now, it would seem, I am deficient in virtue because I'd not desire that the government send them to die in some cause utterly unrelated to either their good or the good of their community and country. Obligation exists only in the context of relation; outside relation, there is not obligation, though there may be charity or works of supererogation.

There might be some moral alchemy being practiced here, but I'm not the one dabbling in forbidden arts.

Mr. Bauman, what, precisely, is the "colossal evil" you repeatedly refer to; whose breath of doom chills and subverts us to cowardice, but whose defeat is our calling?

The context is exceedingly vague. Communism is the subject of the original post; do you suppose Maximos has some sympathy for it, or some reluctance to call it wicked? Do you suppose he goes home and curses Reagan the Imperator?

Or is the context Iraq, perhaps? I think it has been a point of dispute with you here, though my memory may be misleading me on that. Was the evil of Saddam's cockroach regime so colossal that thought who oppose the war may be called cowards?

Or is it some other context?

To your point above -- "If it reduces to mere example ... Ect." -- I don't know why the example of Self-Government should be called "mere" anything. It is a huge and ambitious thing in its own right, to announce a "new politics for a new world," as Tocqueville put it.

But the danger of, as you put, "evil example," is precisely the source of our counsel of humility. The West has given the world many great things, but in the early 20th century, the products of her mind were by and large wicked things, terrible things, which unleashed hell upon the earth. There is no possible way to leave America off the indictment for the collectivist tyrannies of the 20th century, though our good sense and great good fortune sheltered us from much of their force.

Max,
No one said anything at all about sending your children "to die in some cause utterly unrelated to either their good or the good of their community and country." That's your hermeneutical alchemy at work.

But I did say that we (our children included, when they are old enough) have moral obligations beyond our family and beyond our borders. We have relations that require things of us -- sometimes the highest things, like life itself -- far beyond the few relationships you mention.

You cannot determine the extent of your moral obligation by checking birth certificates, in order to see who is family and who is not, or by checking passports, in order to see who is American and who is not. You are part of a wider human family that puts claims upon you, and you are part of a global community that does the same. Your family and community obligations are far wider than you yet have acknowledged.

Paul,

"Colossal Evil":

By that designation I mean communism, militant Islam, and abortion at present; Fascism and Nazism in the recent past, other things (like slavery) all the way back to the beginning of history. The world is rarely without colossal evil -- and the moral obligations it lays upon us to resist it as fully and effectively as we can. To set an example of self-government is not a good enough example to set in the face of some of the things I've mentioned above, if setting an example and not more overtly defeating great evil is what one thinks we ought to be doing.

Alright, well you're throwing around a lot of hard words at vague targets.

It is still prudence which must show us the best way to resist whatever evil confronts us. I happen to believe that one of the best possible courses open to us, vis-a-vis the evil of the Jihad, is to proscribe that doctrine in our law, and allow that example of defiance stand before all the world.

Paul,
I don't see how "communism" (China, N. Korea, Cuba, and a resurgent Russia) is a vague term. I don't see how "militant Islam" is a vague term (al Qaeda, Syria, Iran, etc.) I don't see how "abortion" is a vague term. Our response to them might need to be different in each case -- that is where prudence comes in. Merely proscribing jihad at law is hardly defiance and is not prudent.

I suppose the Left will accept the proscription of an Islamic doctrine with equanimity then?

You were full of bluster before you made any specification of what you were talking about. Ergo, my remark about hard words and vagueness.

To set an example of self-government is not a good enough example to set in the face of some of the things I've mentioned above, if setting an example and not more overtly defeating great evil is what one thinks we ought to be doing.

So we should defeat "great evil" with a military response, is that the suggestion? Economically impossible, not even close to prudent from a military standpoint.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1753/

http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2006/08/colonialism-just-aint-what-it-used-to.html

Paul:
Show me one -- even one -- example of bluster.

Show me one -- even one -- example where my position changed IN THE SLIGHTEST in response to your request for specificity.

Your posting is truly unworthy.
Michael Bauman

Just to make sure I offend everyone at least once:

1) I think it _is_ prudent to proscribe the teaching of jihad. A pretty good idea, actually, and quite legal and constitutional as far as I can see once it's understood that jihad does mean, e.g., the violent overthrow of the government and its replacement with one inimical to the principles of our own Constitution, it does mean terrorism and hence the murder of innocents, etc.

2) I do think that some principles or perhaps I should say approaches that more isolationist sorts (even more than I) have expressed about the world today could have been used against obviously legitimate activities of the past--entering WWII and the Cold War, specifically. How many people _did_ accuse Reagan et. al. of belligerance, of spending money against our interests in the arms race, of being unfair to Russia, of trying to be hegemonic, etc.? And (I know, I keep bringing this up, bear with me) Thomas Woods's paleolibertarian treatment of WWII in his American history book for students is shameful, inasmuch as he more or less implies that we did little good by joining it because Hitler had already killed most of the Jews in Europe by the time we got involved anyway, so it would have been better all 'round if we'd maintained our isolationist stance, not "provoked" the Japs by cutting off their oil supply, and never had the excuse of Pearl Harbor to join the war. The prospect that Hitler might have eventually invaded England and slaughtered all the Jews who had taken refuge there, too, plus subjugating the last free nation standing, is treated by him with open contempt. So, yes, the strong isolationist principle that we should never join any war in which we don't have a clear and direct, immediate interest, a clear and present danger to our own selves and our own children, can lead to unacceptable conclusions.

3) I think Zippy has made a good point in the past that the "realist" school of thought in foreign policy seems to rule out the possibility of _friendship_ among nations, leading to situations where we legitimately should engage in foreign wars that may not be strictly necessary in terms of our own immediate national interests.

4) Given all of this, _plus_ my own skepticism about the wisdom of many of our actual foreign ventures (including Iraq), it seems to me that decisions about where to exercise economic and other influence over other countries, when to engage in foreign wars, and the like cannot be made on the basis of sweeping statements either about our worldwide responsibilities _or_ about the the evils of hegemony or the evils of asking our children to die in foreign wars.

Step2

No one said anything of the sort, not even close. No one said great evil ought always to be met with military force. Sometimes it must. But almost never will great evil, like jihad, be effectively resisted by passing a law. I honestly cannot think of a single historical instance where it has been. If you can think of one, then tell me. Communism, slavery, fascism, militant Islam, and abortion, which I call colossal evil, are not turned back that way. Something more aggressive is required. Prudence will determine what that "something more" ought to be in each case. But remember that it takes a force to check a force.

But I did say that we have profound moral obligations, sometimes even obligations of the highest and most demanding sort, sometimes even to the point of laying down our lives -- in the face of great evil, and that this obligation is not limited to our families or our borders. If you'd like to argue against that, then I'll happily read what you write. But if you aren't gong to respond to what's actually written, then I'll not waste my effort.

Seriously, it's time to read the thread, or at least my portion of it, with more precision. I chose my words carefully. Read them carefully.

Michael Bauman

I think that too many modern Americans no longer have a stomach for the moral demands that attach to their calling. I don't know if contemporary leftism is the cause or the symptom of that failure. But I do know we won't admit to our cowardice. (It takes courage to do so.) We disguise our cowardice as something else. Cowardice always masquerades as prudence, but it's just a mask. Despite our posturing on the issue of prudence, it is not prudent to be a coward.

Now I am hardly one to criticize the rhetorical use of the plural possessive, but putting "our" in front of "cowardice" a few times in a row will usually attract some attention. I think bluster, though hardly perfect, is a fair enough descriptor, especially when context was still vague.

I agree with you fully in the context of Communism that failing to call things by their right name was, in part, cowardice. I agree with you at least partially in the view that Jihad enjoins the same forthrightness; and calling things by their right name is precisely my motivation for a Jihad-sedition law. In the context of the West, Jihad is sedition, where it is not treacherous war; let our laws reflect that.

(I had a comment go out into the void here. Hope it doesn't show up twice.)

Actually, slavery was abolished in the English colonies by the passing of a law. No war was necessary, for which I think we can all be grateful. And the way a war got involved in the U.S. was terribly convoluted and hardly a matter of the good guys just starting a war off the bat to free the slaves. The abolitionists generally would have loved to pass laws outlawing slavery. I'd like to fight abortion by passing laws. I'd start tomorrow if I could. Certainly, laws have to be enforced, by force. But we all knew that already. Presumably imams who taught jihad would be forced to pay their fines or go to jail or whatever, too, under the legal situation Paul envisages. There's really nothing wimpy about trying to fight evil with laws. Legislators do it all the time; so do cops.

Bauman:

Beyond all possible doubt, short of our Lord's return, military force will be necessary to resist the Jihad. Beyond all possible doubt.

I do not offer the sedition law modification as a magic wand. I offer it as an achievable feat which would say a lot about our resolve, our stomach to fight, our realism about the enemy; in short about all the things we need, in order to take further steps against this colossal evil of Jihad, which demands our attention.

Paul,

Is this your example of my supposed bluster? Are you are seriously arguing that identifying myself with a common moral failing in America is bluster? Then I suppose we need to agree on a working definition of the word, but none I have ever heard of includes the practice of identifying oneself with a common failure. Nor is bluster identified by employing moral language in a politically or historically non-specific context, as you seem to think. Of course, we also disagree as to what "non-specific" is. I think that naming specific evils and specific countries when asked is quite specific.

Try again, and stop blustering.

Lydia is exactly right that the slave trade in Britain was effectively curtailed by legislation. I fully agree with her point. Sometimes passing enforceable law indeed is enough. Her example clinches it. So I will modify my statements earlier to say that passing laws is rarely enough, though it sometimes is.

Yes, that is my example of bluster. Forgive my presumption.

Are you are seriously arguing that identifying myself with a common moral failing in America is bluster?

Far from it. I am saying that the words "coward" and "cowardice" still contain some bite, even in this honorless age; and that stringing them together in an accusatory manner is the sort of thing is can send arguments to the yelling phase right quickly.

If I have misinterpreted you, adding a note of accusation where there was none, I am sorry; and withdraw the word bluster and all its fell works. I can only plead that my reaction was in defense of a friend, whom I interpreted you to be attacking.

"...cannot be made on the basis of sweeping statements either about our worldwide responsibilities _or_ about the the evils of hegemony or the evils of asking our children to die in foreign wars"

To my mind this is probably the wisest, most prudent statement of the lot. I accept that there are moral claims on me go beyond my roof and our borders. When, where, how, and by what method those claims get cashed in just seem to be incredibly complicated questions best left to be answered in specific situations (not to imply that some of discussion here hasn't in fact been specific).

Seriously, it's time to read the thread, or at least my portion of it, with more precision. I chose my words carefully. Read them carefully.

That's supposed to be a joke, right? You are the one saying all these countries, ideologies, etc. have to be overtly defeated. I'm supposed to think overt defeat involves "aggressively" checking force with force, but it will not typically involve military operations. Do me a favor and please don't bother explaining this nonsense.

I got caught up in my bickering with Mr. Bauman, so let me say that I also think there is much wisdom in Lydia's Four Points.

"Just to make sure I offend everyone at least once:"

Well, you failed in my case. Very good thread, as no one ventured into David Frum territory with a rant about "unpatriotic conservatives", nor was anyone accused of harboring a perverse desire to kill Arab children. Heated, but very civilized and on point.

Michael Bauman does raise a point that should be explored, when he says; "But I do know we won't admit to our cowardice", regarding the alleged failure to respond to our national "calling".

We may be so sybaritic that we are incapable of resisting evil when it entails pain, risk and suffering. Plenty of evidence exists in our day to day lives that demoralization has set in.

Yet, are there any examples in the realm of foreign policy? Is there another country that has as large a military presence around the world, or has spilled more blood in other lands than ours? When have we covered our cowardice behind the fig leaf of prudence? If anything, we seem all too ready to send our people into harm's way.

Or, maybe I mean other people into harms way. A volunteer military dramatically reduces the number of families touched first hand by war. The 535 members of our national legislature and all those belonging to the Executive produced only ONE (1) with a family member in active service at the time of the authorization for the Iraqi war. Not exactly an example of "bear any burden" statesmanship.

There are many ways the confrontation with Islam can be pursued; restrict immigration, deport jihadist-sympathizers, alter our relationships with Islamic oil-producing states and re-adjust our current living arrangements, i.e. live with less. These steps require political will and personal sacrifice. Oddly enough, invading Iraq may have been the easiest, least painful option open to our leaders. So, the charge of cowardice may be valid, just not in the way as originally thought.


No favors, step2.

Yes, (1) communism in China, Cuba, and N. Korea, (2) militant Islam around the globe, and (3) abortion virtually everywhere ought to be defeated. Our too modest approach up until now has not been up to the task. More is required of us. The exact nature and extent of the "more" is a matter of prudence, and about it we can debate if you like. But the "more" would have been less if we had done it in the past than it will be having left it to the future. Whatever else prudence might be, it is not that.

For example, regarding communism, I'm one who thinks that Truman's war weariness and his political cowardice prevented MacArthur from doing what MacArthur could have done and should have done, namely to drive the communists all the way back to the Great Wall of China, as MacArthur said. It would have been an enormously difficult task, and we shrank from it. Because we shrank from it, we face a divided Korea, the northern manifestation of which works to build nuclear weapons and to test missiles capable of delivering them. Because we failed to do what then we ought to have done, we have a Taiwan problem that might bring us into direct conflict with a much stronger China than ever before. Because we failed to do what we ought to have done, we had a Viet Nam problem in which we faced China again and lost again -- because of our lack of national will.

But if we lacked the national will and moral fortitude to defeat this evil while it was more defeatable, then I have grave doubts that we will rise to the occasion later when the challenge is stiffer on all counts. We are not what our fathers or our grandfathers were -- the greatest generation. On this point, I think of us as among the very weakest generations. I am not proud to be a boomer. Our legacy is shameful. I see nothing in generations X and Y to make me think the moral trough and cowardice that characterize America now are just temporary.

Militant Islam is a potent threat to nations around the world. So far, we have not won, nor are we close to winning. Indeed, we might never defeat it. If we do win, it could take centuries to do so, just as it has taken centuries to get even this far. I'm afraid that again we lack the national will and moral fortitude to do what is required of us to defeat this great and deadly evil. I have yet to hear a single politician say publicly about militant Islam what Reagan said was his plan regarding communism even back in the 1940s when he was president of the actors guild: We win; they lose.

The same holds true of abortion. It is a colossal evil, and to it we lose the equivalent of a World Trade Center attack every day. I think that huge failure shows we are immoral and cowardly, but that we dress our failure in the language of prudence.

What more shall we do? Let's debate it and see where prudence leads. But I strongly suspect that it requires us to do a great deal more than we ever have done.

Michael Bauman


Paul,
Thank you very sincerely. I genuinely appreciate your willingness to re-read and to re-consider.
MB

Islam, a millenial adversary, albeit with ebbs and flows, of Western civilization, mandates a firm, unapologetic, and - to use the word of the thread - courageous response. My grievance with the nature of the response made thus far - Afghanistan excepted, since that "nation" haboured those who actually plotted the terrorist attacks - is that it is unrelated to the nature of that threat, tangentially related at best. I really have no desire to debate Iraq for the 109,854,281st time. Suffice it to say that, in my estimation, 'victory' in the struggle against Islam cannot entail the transformation of Islamic nations into East and Central Asian facsimiles of Western 'open societies', both because this is to misapprehend the nature of the threat, which arises, not from material poverty, or even the grotesque oppressions characteristic of that part of the world, but from the sanction afforded by certain Islamic doctrines of great antiquity and authority, and because this objective is not achievable save by means little short of total war, which would be, in addition to impossible, unjust.

I do not gainsay that military action may be required from time to time, and in certain circumstances, as in Afghanistan, or in various other nations, where we have seen the targeted assassinations of numerous jihadist leaders. (Predator drones are pretty cool.) I do not perceive a single instance in which 'regime change' will ameliorate threats, real and propagandized; on the contrary, regime change in two nations bordering Iraq, where the strategy has already proven rather fraught, would only further destabilize the region and imperil those of the region's Christians not already in mortal peril. The nature of the threat, however, is one best approached, in the main, through the traditional means of intelligence, apprehension, and, where necessary, targeted assassinations; the threat is not one of recurrent apocalyptic terror. In that light, our principal strategy ought to involve a reconsideration of the strategy of openness, of that entire fighting-them-over-there meme - in fine, a reconsideration of the legal status of certain Islamic doctrines, and of the Islamic presence generally in the West. Islam and the West are ultimately immiscible, and it is our failure to acknowledge this - which acknowledgement requires the fortitude to interrogate stale liberal dogmas, and the strange, hungover perception that religion is finally epiphenomenal upon a more 'solid' substrate - more than the tyranny of the Ba'ath, the Mullarchy, and the Assads, that threatens us.

When I say that I do not desire that my children should die fighting in some foolish war of foreign conquest or regime change, it is because it would be utterly unnecessary. There is no necessity of converting the Muslim world to a way of life more nearly approximate to our own, if we are to be relatively more secure; there is only the necessity of defending our historic identity as the West and implementing the appropriate policies expressive of that identity.

"But if we lacked the national will and moral fortitude to defeat this evil..."

This recurring theme of national cowardice is tiresome and as yet to be substantiated, other than a bizarre claim that our victory in the Cold War should have somehow come earlier on the battlefield.

A predicate for perpetual war is being set here on the premise to avoid shedding the blood of others is somehow proof of cowardice. Wow!

Max:
I missed it. Did someone on this thread say we ought to convert Muslim countries to a way of life more like our own? I surely did not. I said we need to stop militant Islam from murdering people around the globe they way they do now. We are not close to stopping their relentless slaughter. I don't suspect we'll stop it by diplomacy or economic sanctions. I don't suppose we'll stop it -- or even curtail it significantly -- without force. If you do, then you need to supply specifics. If we do not turn the tide of murder elsewhere, then we'll have to turn it here, if it is not too late to do so by then. That can't be good for your children.

Kevin:
I said specifically where we lacked courage: in Korea, for example, and in Viet Nam. I think we lack it now. And who said that our victory in the Cold War should have come earlier on the battlefield? Not I. We won the Cold War without firing a shot, as Margaret Thatcher put it. The Soviet Union is gone -- but Russian Communism might be resurgent, and that requires something of us as well. And who said that avoiding bloodshed was cowardice? I said that failing to do what was required of us -- including fighting and dying if need be, and then masking our failure in the language of prudence, was cowardice.

Why be concerned with a resurgent communism in Russia? Because they are our enemy, as evidenced in many ways and places. For example, Georges Sada, a former general under Saddam, showed in his book Saddam's Secret, how Iraqi WMDs were shipped to Syria with Russian help in Russian vehicles. He gives specific names, dates, places, and means, if you desire specifics. And if we wish to turn the tide against global terrorism, we can't succeed with a Russia that ships WMDs to terrorist regimes like the one in Syria.

So, Kevin, try not to badly misread and then attribute your misunderstandings to others. The dopey positions you oppose are not views that anyone on this board ever advocated.

If we do not turn the tide of murder elsewhere, then we'll have to turn it here, if it is not too late to do so by then.

No, we will not. They cannot kill us here if they are not here in the first place. That is what repudiating the strategy and fantasy of openness is all about. Beyond this, the statement to the effect that jihadists are killing people in various places throughout the world entails very little, as not every conflict entangles American interests and security.

Why be concerned with a resurgent communism in Russia?

It isn't communism. This is tired, Western agitprop. Russia's government is an authoritarian managed democracy, and the Russian policies that Westerners find so horrifying, such as the exclusion of Western multinationals from Russia's energy sector, are not communist, but are, often, prudent measures intended to prevent a recurrence of the catastrophe of the 90s.

we can't succeed with a Russia that ships WMDs to terrorist regimes like the one in Syria.

I don't place any credence in opportunistic, single-source accounts of the alleged Iraqi WMD arsenal. Those concerned about the anti-Western tone of Russian politics ought to contemplate the reasons Russians might not trust Western intentions, which are not benign. And what, pray tell, do you propose we do about Syria? I'll say only this - my Christian brethren (the seat of my Church's Patriarchate) are not to be regarded as mere collateral damage in the event of regime change, which is precisely what they will be if the Assad regime falls (not that I've any love for the Assads, but those are the realities).

Michael,
"I said specifically where we lacked courage: in Korea, for example, and in Viet Nam. I think we lack it now. And who said that our victory in the Cold War should have come earlier on the battlefield? Not I. We won the Cold War without firing a shot,"

If we actually: "won the Cold War without firing a shot," why were we in Korea and Vietnam in the first place, let alone cowardly in our prosecution of either war?

"And who said that avoiding bloodshed was cowardice?"

You did in the very next sentence;
"I said that failing to do what was required of us -- including fighting and dying if need be and then masking our failure in the language of prudence, was cowardice."

Forget Just War Theory. Your "requirement" for war will suffice. O.k., Can you give us one war or "conflict", not including World War I, you think we should have avoided? Otherwise, I'm afraid we will forever be open to your reckless charge of cowardice.

You claim we lack courage - "I think we lack it now" because we won't rely on a book to do what? Invade Syria?

Sorry to say this, but your criteria for military is too vague, elastic and expansive to be taken seriously. Even the sofa samurai urging the commencement of "WWIV" might blush at your rhetoric.

I'm inclined (this will come as no surprise) to agree with Michael's concerns about Russia, though I suspect that both Michael and Maximos are more informed on the details of that situation than I am. I would add (again, no surprise) to Michael's list of reasons to be concerned about Russia its support for Iran's nuclear program. And I would caution that the general notion that "we are to blame for Russia's hostility," "all that worry about Russia is just Western phobia," "setting up anti-missile sites in Europe is really American aggression" and the like do, to my ears, sound all too uncomfortably similar to rhetoric one would have heard during the Cold War--against our taking the measures we did take to win it.

The Cold War was then; American pretensions to hegemony are now. Different circumstances, different logics and significances.

Yeah, I know that. And I know that, in principle, it's possible that what was factually incorrect and will-sapping for doing the right thing then is factually correct and prudent now. But still, I'm dubious. It's not as though it was all two hundred years ago nor as though none of the people involved now were outright communists then. Nor, for that matter, as though there is no prima facie resemblance between an "authoritarian managed democracy" and elections under a communist regime. And so forth.

Oh, the superficial resemblances certainly exist. My wife and I were discussing, with some degree of passionate intensity, the utter pointlessness of the treatment accorded Kasparov, for whom no one even really desires to vote, affiliated as he is - however nominally - with some or other neoconservative foundation or think-tank. On the other hand, and James Poulos has observed on numerous occasions, Russia represents a new social model of sorts. He terms it the Pink Police State, and emphasizes the glamour and crapulence of the Russian nouveau riches, but the general point is that social and personal freedoms abound, and only the narrowly political freedoms are restricted or, in some instances, abolished. This is actually of some concern in elite foreign-policy circles, with even Kissenger observing in an interview for a German publication that it represents a philosophical threat to the Western social-democratic models, inasmuch as, in certain circumstances, it can deliver material progress more efficiently, sans the messiness of democratic politics. Kissenger avers that the West needs to develop a philosophical argument for democracy, one that does not condition its value purely on material progress - or something to that effect.

Russia, however, after the debacle of the 90s, brought on by the explosive combination of indigenous corruption and grasping, hegemonic Western elites, ha no other option if it was to avoid complete collapse. And it is for this reason that a majority of Russians value their so-called Pink Police State: whatever their reservations, it is a fair sight better than everything else that was on offer.

Or, in Bill Kristol's words, "benevolent American hegemony"--whatever that means. The inner circle at the now-disbanded Project for the New American Century are busy whispering their war plans into McCain's ears, who is all ears.

There are many things to be proud of about America, but let's not allow overblown rhetoric to cloud judgment; those who believe the U.S. has been the great civilizing force for good in the 20th century must morally justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and rationalize our government's propping up of military dictators (the Shah in Iran comes to mind, as does Musharraf in Pakistan) whose oppressive regimes, though friendly to our interests, were hardly models of democracy.

Mr. Baumann,
By all means, let us go after the colossal evil of Muslim extremism; why, then, Iraq? Saddam Hussein was a secular Muslim; he was no friend to al Qaeda, neither were they to him. Whatever terrorism he exported had mainly to do with Israel. But since our attack, the country is swarming with extremists, and bin Laden has been able to recruit in droves.

Since this was originally a post about Buckley:

"Aren't you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons?" Buckley snaps at Podhoretz. He has just explained that he supported the war reluctantly, because Dick Cheney convinced him that Saddam Hussein had WMD primed to be fired. "No," Podhoretz replies. "As I say, they were shipped to Syria. During Gulf War One, the entire Iraqi air force was hidden in the deserts in Iran." He says he is "heartbroken" by this "rise of defeatism on the right." He adds, apropos of nothing, "There was nobody better than Don Rumsfeld. This defeatist talk only contributes to the impression we are losing, when I think we are winning."

This statement was made in June 2007, right as the troop surge Rumsfeld opposed began to arrive and attacks were accelerating towards a historic high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Attack_Trends.jpg

Good idea, Step2, back to Buckley. Tinged with sadness.

"As I say, they were shipped to Syria."

This is a classic two-fer. Absolves the neo-cons for their Iraqi blunder and establishes the pretext for the next invasion. Did Norm brandish his copy of the Georges Sada book at WFB? It would be funny if it weren't so tragic for thousands of American and Iraqi families.

Adding to the pathos; imagine how Buckley felt on that cruise? The men who now hold the mortgage on his beloved National Review were the kind he set out to battle 52 years prior when he started the magazine. It's like "It's A Wonderful Life" ending with the triumph of Potter.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.