Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In this war of civilisations, the West will prevail
The Times (U.K.) ^ | 10/08/2001 | John Keegan

Posted on 10/07/2001 4:01:28 PM PDT by Pokey78

PRESIDENT BUSH'S threatened war against terrorism has begun. What is so striking at the outset is the brief lapse of time between its declaration and its outbreak.

The Gulf War, also led by the United States, took six months to prepare. This war, declared on September 11, the day of the atrocities, is in full swing only 27 days later. All the same stages have been gone through - organisation of an alliance, diplomatic preparation, positioning of forces. The first blow has been struck in one-sixth of the time.

Striking quickly, as well as hard, may be a quality of this war deliberately chosen, and with good reason. A harsh, instantaneous attack may be the response most likely to impress the Islamic mind. Surprise has traditionally been a favoured Islamic military method. The use of overwhelming force is, however, alien to the Islamic military tradition. The combination of the two is certainly designed to unsettle America's current enemy and probably will.

Samuel Huntington, the Harvard political scientist, outlined in a famous article written in the aftermath of the Cold War his vision of the next stage hostilities would take. Rejecting the vision of a New World Order, proposed by President Bush senior, he insisted that mankind had not rid itself of the incubus of violence, but argued that it would take the form of conflict between cultures, in particularly between the liberal, secular culture of the West and the religious culture of Islam. Huntington's "clash of civilisations" was widely discussed, though it was not taken seriously by some. Since September 11 it has been taken very seriously indeed.

If I thought Huntington's view had a defect, it was that he did not discuss what I think the crucial ingredient of any Western-Islamic conflict, their quite distinctively different ways of making war. Westerners fight face to face, in stand-up battle, and go on until one side or the other gives in. They choose the crudest weapons available, and use them with appalling violence, but observe what, to non-Westerners may well seem curious rules of honour. Orientals, by contrast, shrink from pitched battle, which they often deride as a sort of game, preferring ambush, surprise, treachery and deceit as the best way to overcome an enemy.

This is not to stereotype Afghans, Arabs, Chechens or any other Islamic nationality traditionally hostile to the West as devious or underhand, nor is it to stereotype Islam in its military manifestation. The difference in styles of warfare is borne out by the fact of military history. Western warfare had its origins in the conflicts of the citizens of the Greek city states who fought to defend the strictly defined borders of their small political units. Beyond their world the significant military powers, however, were nomads, whose chosen method was the raid and the surprise attack. Once they acquired a superior means of mobility, in the riding horse, they developed a style of warfare which settled people found almost impossible to resist.

The Arabs were horse-riding raiders before Mohammed. His religion, Islam, inspired the raiding Arabs to become conquerors of terrifying power, able to overthrow the ancient empires both of Byzantium and Persia and to take possession of huge areas of Asia, Africa and Europe. It was only very gradually that the historic settled people, the Chinese, the Western Europeans, learnt the military methods necessary to overcome the nomads. They were the methods of the Greeks, above all drill and discipline.

The last exponents of nomadic warfare, the Turks, were not turned back from the frontiers of Europe until the 17th century. Thereafter the advance of Western military power went unchecked. One Islamic state after another went down to defeat, until in 1918 the last and greatest, the Ottoman empire, was overthrown. After 1918 the military power of the Western world stood apparently unchallengeable.

The Oriental tradition, however, had not been eliminated. It reappeared in a variety of guises, particularly in the tactics of evasion and retreat practised by the Vietcong against the United States in the Vietnam war. On September 11, 2001 it returned in an absolutely traditional form. Arabs, appearing suddenly out of empty space like their desert raider ancestors, assaulted the heartlands of Western power, in a terrifying surprise raid and did appalling damage.

President Bush in his speech to his nation and to the Western world yesterday, promised a traditional Western response. He warned that there would be "a relentless accumulation of success". Relentlessness, as opposed to surprise and sensation, is the Western way of warfare. It is deeply injurious to the Oriental style and rhetoric of war-making. Oriental war-makers, today terrorists, expect ambushes and raids to destabilise their opponents, allowing them to win further victories by horrifying outrages at a later stage. Westerners have learned, by harsh experience, that the proper response is not to take fright but to marshal their forces, to launch massive retaliation and to persist relentlessly until the raiders have either been eliminated or so cowed by the violence inflicted that they relapse into inactivity.

News of the first strikes against Afghanistan indicate that a tested Western response to Islamic aggression is now well under way. It is not a crusade. The crusades were an episode localised in time and place, in the religious contest between Christianity and Islam. This war belongs within the much larger spectrum of a far older conflict between settled, creative productive Westerners and predatory, destructive Orientals.

It is no good pretending that the peoples of the desert and the empty spaces exist on the same level of civilisation as those who farm and manufacture. They do not. Their attitude to the West has always been that it is a world ripe for the picking. When the West turned nasty, and fought back, with better weapons and superior tactics and strategy, the East did not seek to emulate it but to express its anger in new forms of the raid and surprise attack. September 11 was a declaration of war. October 7 was the declaration of a counter-offensive. The counter-offensive will prevail.

Sir John Keegan is Defence Editor


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 10/07/2001 4:01:28 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
BUMP. Some people do get it
2 posted on 10/07/2001 4:08:32 PM PDT by eclectic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Apparently Britain is less concerned with political correctness than the U.S.. We should look to them and learn.
3 posted on 10/07/2001 4:09:29 PM PDT by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
John Keegan is a brilliant military historian. A very good and thoughtful writer. Anyone interested in World War II should consider reading his works on it.
4 posted on 10/07/2001 4:10:13 PM PDT by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Interesting - I've read a great deal of Keegan's work before, and he is without a doubt the pre-eminent military historian of our times. The man knows whereof he speaks....
5 posted on 10/07/2001 4:10:18 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
This war belongs within the much larger spectrum of a far older conflict between settled, creative productive Westerners and predatory, destructive Orientals. It is no good pretending that the peoples of the desert and the empty spaces exist on the same level of civilisation as those who farm and manufacture. They do not.

Wow! As un-PC as it is possible to be! Great post.

6 posted on 10/07/2001 4:10:29 PM PDT by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Pokey78
Great piece by one of the few remaining world class Military historians. His insight is stark but clear. BTW Pokey thank you for posting Peggy Noonan's latest on "Courge Under fire" the other night. It was wonderful. I cried ... my wife cried then went out and dropped copies off at our local station house. ~S~
8 posted on 10/07/2001 4:37:20 PM PDT by rangerjack173
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Keegan's "History of Warfare" is a must read. Other cultures hit and run and count coups, but Western warfare, once it starts, is implacable.

This is the first real war we've been involved in since Bush senior was in office, and that one was so well handled it turned into a turkey shoot. Clinton, a bully by nature, lacked the will to settle down and fight. He was capricious and cowardly and lacked the credibility to inspire the troops.

Now for something completely different.

9 posted on 10/07/2001 4:47:00 PM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
He was capicious and cowardly. I wish those were the worst things that could be said about him. Appreciate you beginning the list however.
10 posted on 10/07/2001 4:56:24 PM PDT by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I was a huge Keegan fan until Kosovo, where he bought the lie of a "destroyed Serbian military", hook, line, and sinker. He believed the NATO briefings, and has never adequately explained why the Serbian army was intact after the bombing. He just was flat-out wrong in his analysis.

This essay, however, has won back some of my respect for the man.
11 posted on 10/07/2001 5:04:56 PM PDT by horse_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
When asked to comment on Osama bin Laden's statement, Jesus said:

EITHER YOU ARE WITH ME, OR AGAINST ME

No matter what spin, what happens, how long it takes, in the end, this is what it is all about.

This may be hard for some to swallow right now, but eventually the truth must be faced.

12 posted on 10/07/2001 5:07:44 PM PDT by NewLand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
PC environment made the Sept 11 atrocity possible.
13 posted on 10/07/2001 5:22:00 PM PDT by eclectic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
We will win. We must win. But will it be the West that triumphs or the technological civilization that has replaced it?
14 posted on 10/07/2001 5:24:37 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Sir John rocks!

His book The Second World War is the best I have ever read on the subject, outside of Churchill's memoirs.

-ccm

15 posted on 10/07/2001 5:30:14 PM PDT by ccmay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Sir Keegan gets it. These dirty savages are about to be put back in their place. Death to our Enemies! Keep Rolling! Remember the Towers!
16 posted on 10/07/2001 5:31:18 PM PDT by ChinaThreat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
This article was in the Telegraph UK, not the Times. Either way, it was very interesting to me.
17 posted on 10/07/2001 5:51:19 PM PDT by vrwc54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It is no good pretending that the peoples of the desert and the empty spaces exist on the same level of civilisation as those who farm and manufacture. They do not.

I used to not believe this. I used to believe that the differences were simply a matter of traditional culture and development. Now I believe it's something deeper than that. I think their religion has something wrong with it. Looks to me that the religion of Islam tends to promote fanatics.

18 posted on 10/07/2001 5:51:40 PM PDT by TKEman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
Wow! As un-PC as it is possible to be! Great post.

How about this for un-P.C. This is the patron saint of Galicia, Spain, the land of my ancestors before their move to the New World.

Santiago Matamoro (Saint James the Moor-Killer)

The Muslim Moors conquered all of Spain in 711 A.D. except for the Northwest provinces of Galicia and Asturias. The Reconquista (Reconquest) lasted 781 years until 1492 but, as Keegan notes, perserverance is the Western way of war.

19 posted on 10/07/2001 6:03:29 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Fascinating.
20 posted on 10/07/2001 6:06:43 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson