And the sooner we realize this, the better. This is a war that, at the moment, stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean--but, in full, stretches from Lebanon to Gaza to Baghdad to Kabul to London to Madrid to Bali to Seoul to Lower Manhattan, where a cousin of mine sat in the last subway car ever to run beneath the Towers--right before, its driver being informed of some commotion above, the subway rolled to the next stop and my cousin stepped out, intact and alive, and well-prepard to sprint uptown when the second plane hit.
Early in World War II, Churchill adopted the two-fingered V as his symbol, and the first bar of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony--the most famous bar in the history of music, three shorts and a long, Morse Code for V--as his standard. Think of it: Winston Churchill adopted a bar of German music for the countries fighting Germany. But, as George Will wrote, Churchill knew what he was doing. He knew that our side was on the side of civlization, a civilization of which Beethoven was an exemplar. It was a war worth winning.
So is this. If we would go ahead and win it. Else, as might happen to Israel, we become martyrs so the world will think well of us.
Have we become so sensitized that we will accept annihilation to condemnation? How much longer will we give Iran? Are we blind to the new Syria-Iran pact, and blind to the historical precendents?
Lebanon should resemble Berlin, 1945, by now.
Read this and doubt me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Well Mr. TexasYank, much here to repsond to, but I'll lead-off with pointing out that Beethoven's work if it examples anything political is an early rapture than disillusion with Napolean (read out-of-control executive power) and represents a pre-modern state Germany. I'm just not sure if we dig up Mr. "Ode to Joy" and dress him up in a black suit with a cigar in his mouth that we are doing anything but creating mighty strange propaganda. However if we can fight the war with dueling musicians I am all for it. Also, maybe you can enlighten me as to why my conservative friends have so many wet dreams of Churchill.
John: Rapturous music can be used in any context; like painting, it separates itself. Beethoven's admiration for Napoleon I can dismiss as the dumb admiration so many artists have for tyrants (see Castro, Fidel). People said "On the Waterfront" was Kazin's apologia for naming names in front of HUAC. It's still a great movie.
Churchill used a language to save a civilization; refusing to see Hitler as a result of a complex world, he saw him as the dark side of his Manichean worldview. Like a lot of conservatives, he was criticized for being simplistic. Right: he didn't do nuance.
Well My NY Yankees loving friend, it appears the historical analogy is WWII equals the Middle East 2006, and which quite possibly might have a certain logic--but I would have to see the work done to prove it. Nuance might get in the way of oversimplifications or hasty generalizations, but if you and I are interested in building consensus in a democracy, well then those pesky nuances become grounds for believing a claim. Of course I'm assuming that we decide to fight this war and keep pesky things like rational discourse and democracy; if not, well then bombs away it doesn't matter whatever we blog. But our side is reasonable . . . right? So there must be away of proving the rhetoric besides using more rhetoric. Maybe? Also, check out Beethoven's String Quartet Op. 132, I'm sure Churchill would love to sit in a comfortable leather armchair, drink a glass of Talisker, and smoke a cigar . . . hey, so would I.
Joe,
I love that you have a blog. I got one just so I could say hi. Maybe I will use it.
Of course, I disagree with you. You mention 911, which of course was planned and sponsered by Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi terrorist. We trained him, we chased him (correctly) through Afghanistan, even had him, but enabled his escape. Afghanistan is now in the midst of battle between the Taliban and Nato forces. We did not make the peace. And whether he is in a cave or not, he is still wealthy, and is still a potential threat. At best, he is merely an inspiration to many angry and motivated people.
Iraq: no WMDs; no waiting for UN inspectors; manipulated evidence. It was a blind rush to war for cynical and misguided reasons. There was no "post-war" planning. The country is in chaos, with the Shiites now allied with Iran. Our army is slowly collapsing. Al Qaeda is growing. The country will certainly collapse into three states and sectarian strife will continue. All of these results were predicted by liberal pundits.
Israel is our ally. We inflame Muslim hate against us by single-handedly blocking a cease fire. We bungle diplomatic possibilities by allowing, even encouraging, the bombs to fall where they may. We refuse to speak with Iran. Hezbollah claims victory because it is not destroyed. They gain credibility in the region, and gain fresh recruits.
It is becoming one big war, as you say. Osama prayed for it, and we are giving it to him.
And hello Prof. Langston.
We can have it out here, if you like; I've cultivated an audience in the tens, from as far away as Australia. And I'm linked to by the Irish Trojan, a 24 year-old tyro who--by virtue of his warnings about Katrina--has gotten some national attention.
So to work.
9/11:
"We trained him"--lesson #658 that alliances shift as the world does. We were allied with Stalin when it suited our purposes, and correctly.
"even had him, but enabled his escape"--I've heard varying accounts of this, the delicate situation that exists between the US and Pakistan, and will consign that to the fog of war, of using tactics one thinks are appropriate at the time, tactics that turn out to be incorrect. Brooklyn Heights, First Bull Run, Gallipoli, Dunkirk, Market Garden, Antwerpe--history is filled with military blunders committed by those on the side of the angels. Certainly John Kerry's snarky comment, "We outsourced it to the warlords" (as if everyone's war record but his were subject to scrutiny) added little to the debate. Gotta run an errand.
So much of what comes yet we simply have to disagree on:
"Whether he is in a cave or not, he is still wealthy, and is still a potential threat. At best, he is merely an inspiration to many angry and motivated people."
I think we have the second-best of all possible worlds: OBL not brought to heel, but certianly is on the run, and not liking his situation, or else he would not have released the Michael Moore-esque video right before the 2004 election clearly designed to humiliate Bush and throw the election to Kerry.
"At best, he is merely an inspiration to many angry and motivated people."
Who hate us because we are free, because we are not Muslim, because we are Israel's allies. I don't see what we ever could have done in the first two instances. Number three in a minute. I mean, with OBL we are in a no-win situation. Kill him? Oh wow, you've created a martyr: more terrorists. Arrest him? Now you've given him a platform: more terrorists. Miss him? Now you've inspired him: more terrorists.
Iraq: Well, we'll disagree about this forever, I guess. On one level, though I cared about WMDs, getting rid of Saddam was enough for me--not because I thought he had any direct connection with 9/11, but because I could view him through the prism of 9/11. Two things are important. First, one could not view the invasion in a vaccuum, as invasion or go home; the US presence was there, by necessity, North and South, the sanctions were in place but circumvented, and Oil-for-Food, the greatest monetary scandal in the history of the world, was starving Iraqis and perpetuating his regime of torture, mass graves, and child prisons. As signatories on Oil-for-food, we were complicit.
Add to this the order of missiles off the rack from North Korea (orders that Kim canceled in March, 2003, wonder why) and the pursuit of uranium in Niger (which Joe Wilson was eventually driven to admit he'd never refuted, check out his letter to the Senate Committee, slightly less than half of which would have been happy to nail Bush, Cheney and Rove to the wall) and you have what I felt was an overwhelming case.
Aside from all of this, Saddam is no longer feeding people into plastic shredders or putting children in prison or digging mass graves, if you need it.
The "post-war planning"--well, we probably agree, though for different reasons. It has become clear that the cut-off-the-head doctrine of warfare does not exist, that what must take place, for long-term order, is the overwhelming defeat and humiliation of the enemy. Never again will the US military defeat a head of state and simply march into the capital. It may be necessary to decide to wage all-out war, or none at all, and thereby choke off the inroads of Al Qaeda Which Has Nothing To Do With Iraq In Iraq Which Has Nothing To With Al Qaeda.
And the inspectors had 12 years to do their job. And President Clinton made "regime change" the official policy of the US in 1998; one might state that Bush's invasion was, well, Clintonian. Certainly his wife agreed.
As for Israel . . .
"We inflame Muslim hate against us by single-handedly blocking a ceasefire." As opposed to what? Forcing a ceasefire? Would they like us then? You think? Starting tomorrow or next week? Or isn't it more likely that Hezbollah would look upon a cease-fire as a chance to catch its breath, replenish its rocket supply, and laugh at the stupid and weak Americans.
"We bungle diplomatic possibilities by allowing, even encouraging, the bombs to fall where they may." Wait. Which side is pushing its population into bomb shelters, and which is pushing its population into the streets? Which side is hiding behind women and children? Which side is setting up its rocket launchers in residential neighborhoods, near schools and hospitals, in the hope of drawing enemy fire, in the hope of causing its own civilians to die, simply for the PR value? Which side, conversely, is warning the civilian population to flee, even at peril to its own military?
An Israeli civilian death is a Hezbollah victory. A Lebanese civilian death is a Hezbollah victory.
"We refuse to speak to Iran." And what, pray tell, would Iran have to say that we would be interested in hearing, or even trust?
"Hezbollah claims victory because it is not destroyed." Precisely. Precisely. And in terms of popular and elected support, Hezbollah and Lebanon are one and the same. So fly 3,000 sorties over Lebanon, then 3,000 more, turn the buildings to rubble, then the rubble to dust. Leave not a stone upon a stone.
This is how countries react when they are invaded, and rightfully so. And if this was what Osama wanted, fine with me.
"We inflame Muslim hate against us by single-handedly blocking a ceasefire." As opposed to what? Forcing a ceasefire? Would they like us then? You think? Starting tomorrow or next week? Or isn't it more likely that Hezbollah would look upon a cease-fire as a chance to catch its breath, replenish its rocket supply, and laugh at the stupid and weak Americans."
Dr. McDade, an excellent point that I find hard to make to others, that you have done so well.
I love when people say to me..."This whole Iraq thing has made the Muslim world mad at the U.S. This could lead to violence towards Americans."
What?! You mean like a couple of planes filled with hundreds innocent people flying into buildings filled with thousands of innocent people?
911 followed 8 years (let's say '92-'00 for giggles) of relative non agressive, try to negotiate type tactics in dealing with terrorism. Save, a few "midnight missles" thrown into the darkness towards a "factory."
I know that I've simplified a very complex situation. But I'm sure you understand my point. As did I, yours.
Time for bed, everybody. I'll post on Israel tomorrow and we can resume.
Post a Comment