
Victor Davis Hanson has a fine essay out today called "The Prison of the Present".
I rarely disagree with him and on his many brilliant insights, especially when put so expertly in historical context, as Hanson has again succeeded to do.
The question "..aren't choices usually between the bad and the far worse?.." leads to very relevant historical comparisons, which do not seek to "..excuse present mistakes by citing worse ones from the past--or to suggest that all wars are
always the same. Much less should history's examples be used to stifle
necessary contemporary criticism that alone leads to remedy."
Instead, Hanson believes that "..knowledge of the capricious nature of wars of the past can restore a little humility to our national psyche":
We need it. Ours is the first generation of Americans that thinks it
can demand perfection in war. Our present leisure, wealth, and high
technology fool us into thinking that we are demi-gods always be able
to trump both human and natural disasters. Accordingly, we become
frustrated that we cannot master every wartime obstacle, as we seem
otherwise to be able to do with computers or cosmetic surgery. Then,
without any benchmarks of comparison from the past, we despair that our
actions are failed because they are not perfect.
The key question to me, one which is constantly on my mind these days, is the one concerning the level of the current collective "Confidence" in ourselves as a Nation and whether such confidence or the lack of it, if this is indeed the case, lies at the heart of the acrimonious divide which has beset our nation in the face on the war on terror.
Hanson certainly seems to think so and believes that we as a Nation are less confident than our fathers and forefathers were decades ago under far worse circumstances and he provides very compelling arguments to support his view:
But why did a poorer, less educated, and more illiberal United
States in far bloodier and more error-ridden wars of the past still
have greater confidence in itself? Was it that our ancestors, who died
younger and far more tragically, did not expect their homeland to be
without flaws, only to be considerably better than the enemy's?
Perhaps we have forgotten such modesty because we have ignored the
study of history that alone offers us guidance from our forbearers. It
now competes as an orphan discipline with social science, -ologies and
-isms that entice us into thinking that the more money and education of
the present can at last perfect the human condition and thus consign
our flawed past to irrelevance.
The result is that while sensitive young Americans seem to know what
correct words and ideas they must embrace, they derive neither
direction nor solace from past events. After all, very few could
identify Vicksburg or Verdun, much less have any idea where or what Iwo
Jima was. In such a lonely prison of the present what are historically
ignorant Americans to make of a Fallujah or an Iranian madman's threat
of annihilation other than such things can't or shouldn't or must not
happen to us?
So, of this present war, I think our war-torn forefathers would say
to us that both messy Afghanistan and Iraq are better places without
their dictators even if they never will resemble Carmel or Austin.
They would add that it is not unusual to be confronted with new
crises even after such apparently easy victories. And they would shrug
that however scary Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran now appears, it poses
nothing new or insurmountable to a confident and strong United States
that has dealt with far more serious enemies in the past with its
accustomed wisdom and resolve.
Which begs the question, how would those opposed to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, those opposed to the use of military force to depose dictators no matter how much blood they have on their hands and those who subscribe to the notion of an 'imperialistic' America respond to such history lessons. What would their reaction be, after they'd learned about the immense heroism on both the U.S. side and that of Japan during the Iwo Jima campaign? Would it make any difference?
I fear not. I rather suspect, it would be dismissed outright and all involved derided as 'fools' and 'idiots' at best and 'war criminals' at worst.
Which leaves me in doubt as to whether the lack of 'National Confidence', if indeed found to be true, is in fact an important reason for the opposition and divide. Furthermore, I am not at all sure whether we suffer from a lack of confidence; on the contrary, I believe we suffer from acute selfaggrandizement and individualistic hyperbole, which in the final analysis is nothing but ignorant arrogance as it is both hollow and superficial in all its aspects.
All the more reason why Hanson's call for humility is absolutely key. I just don't believe, that there is anything anyone can do or say that will instill a growing sense of humility other than a growing believe in the power of faith in God the Almighty. And that isn't exactly a convincing argument is it...
In many ways, the term 'Clash of Civilizations' contains the seeds of a most comprehensive truth. I am afraid though that we will have to come to terms with the fact, that the lines will prove to be much more blurred and drawn criss-cross throughout our society. Just when we reluctantly acknowledge the reality of a long-drawn-out conflict centering around religious beliefs; just when we thought that the factions could be limited to those of Judea-Christian beliefs versus Islamic ones, must we realize, that the scope is far wider: Faith versus Skepticism with all its variations such as cynicism, pessimism, disbelief, agnosticism, atheism, and anti-Semitism. In short, the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless, otherwise called Nihilism.
Recent Comments