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

Skip to comments.

A Real War: Fighting the Worst Fascists Since Hitler
National Review ^ | 12/5/03 | Victor Davis Hanson

Posted on 12/06/2003 5:19:31 PM PST by bdeaner


A Real War
Fighting the worst fascists since Hitler.

Saddam's Baathists recently blew apart Japanese diplomats on their way to a meeting in Tikrit to discuss sending millions of dollars in aid to Iraq's poor. Their ghosts join those of U.N. officials who likewise were slain for their humanitarian efforts. On the West Bank, three Americans were killed: Their felony was trying to interview young Palestinians for Fulbright fellowships for study in the United States. In turn, their would-be rescuers were stoned by furious crowds — not unlike the throngs that chant for Saddam on al Jazeera as they seek to desecrate or loot the bodies of murdered Spanish and Italian peacekeepers in Iraq while the tape rolls. All this, I suppose, is what bin Laden calls a clash of civilizations.

Jews at places of worship are systematically being blown up from Turkey to Morocco — along with British consular officials murdered in Istanbul, American diplomats murdered in Jordan, and Western tourists, Christians, and local residents murdered by Muslims in Bali, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The new rule is that the more likely you are to help, give to, or worship in the Middle East, the more likely you are to be shot or blown up.

Most of the recent dead were noncombatants. All were either attempting to feed or aid Muslims, or simply wished to be left alone in peace. Their killers operate through the money and sanctuary of Middle East rogue regimes, the implicit support of thousands in the Muslim street, and the tacit neglect of even "moderate" states in the region — as long as the tally of killing is in the half-dozens or so, and not noticeable enough to threaten foreign investment or American aid, or to earn European disapproval.

But when the carnage is simply too much (too many Muslims killed as collateral damage or too many minutes on CNN), then suspects are miraculously arrested in Turkey or Saudi Arabia, or in transit to Iran or Syria — but more often post facto and never with any exegesis about why killers who once could not be found now suddenly are. No wonder Pakistani intelligence officers, Palestinian security operatives, Syrian diplomats, and Iraqis working for the Coalition are all at times exposed as having abetted the terrorists.

Yet it hasn't been a good six months for the Islamists' public relations. Billions the world over are slowly coming to a consensus that the Islamists' killing has cast as a shadow over the Middle East — a deeply disturbed place, better left to stew in its own juices. Only its exports of oil, religious extremism, and terror — not its manufacturing, science, medicine, banking, tourism, humanitarianism, literature, research, or philanthropy — seem to earn global attention. This is all a great tragedy, but one that, after September 11, gives us no time for tears.

Remember, even apart from all the killing in Israel and Iraq, all of the deadly terrorism since 9/11 — the synagogue in Tunisia, French naval personnel in Pakistan, Americans in Karachi, Yemeni attacks on a French ship, the Bali bombing, the Kenyan attack on Israelis, the several deadly attacks on Russians in both Moscow and Chechnya, the assault on housing compounds in Saudi Arabia, the suicide car bombings in Morocco, the Marriott bombing in Indonesia, the mass murdering in Bombay, and the Turkish killing — has been perpetrated exclusively by Muslim fascists and directed at Westerners, Christians, Hindus, and Jews.

We can diagnose the cause of this new fascism's growth — which has very little to do with the old canard that racism, colonialism, and the CIA are to blame. Instead, corrupt thugs in the Middle East have for years looted state treasuries. They have imposed Soviet-style state autocracy on tribal societies. And they have stripped basic human rights from a skyrocketing population — one that has received just enough Western medicine and technology to ensure an explosive birth rate, but not enough to encourage the commensurate social, economic, and cultural reform that would prevent such growth from making life in a Baghdad or Cairo desolate.

The demise of the Soviet Union left a terrible legacy — one rarely acknowledged by our own Middle East specialists. Its Stalinist machinery was left in place to kill and torture in awful places like Libya, Iraq, and Syria — but without the coercive force of the Soviets to ensure that such deadly antics did not expand across borders to draw the Russians into unwanted confrontations with the United States. In turn, without Communists to worry about, so-called moderates in places like Egypt and Jordan — excepting, of course, the petrol states of the Gulf — had very little in common, or much leverage, with the United States.

So with the demise of the Cold War, these pathologies came to full maturity. Globalization enticed the appetites of the impoverished — as cell phones, the Internet, and videos, along with fast food and cheap imported goods, gave the patina of prosperity. In fact, internationalization only reminded 400 million that they could have the junk of the West, but without its freedom, material security, education, health care, and recreation. It is one thing to call a friend on a cell phone, and quite another to realize that one's society cannot make the phone, cannot fix it, cannot improve upon it, and cannot even use it as desired — and is reminded of these failures by the very fact of the imported device's daily use.

If the onset of democracy in India, Malaysia, and Indonesia suggested that Islam was not incompatible with consensual government, that hopeful message apparently did not catch on in much of the Middle East. Far from attempting to end the endemic problems of sexual apartheid, illiteracy, religious intolerance, polygamy, and everything from "honor" killings to state-sanctioned legal barbarism, most autocracies in the region allowed Islamic extremists and apologists to champion just such "differences" — as if the existence of such Dark Age protocols and endemic anti-Semitism were proof that the Arab world suffered none of the weakness and decadence of a soft West. Enough fools in the West were always around to nod rather than to challenge such Hitleresque romance — and even to invite such fascists from the Middle East to speak in Europe and the United States to the "oohs" and "ahs" of a few stupid and spoiled self-hating elites.

Into this vacuum stepped the Islamists — fed by Saudi money, blackmailing dictators as they saw fit, championing the poor and dispossessed who found their messages of hatred against the United States and Israel a salve for their own wounded pride and misery. It did not hurt that their enmity of the West was about the only topic of free expression allowed in censored state media.

In their defense, the mullahs in the madrassas at least realized that if it were left to corrupt tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Khadafi, and Assad to offer alternatives to the West, the Arab world would soon be caught up in the same liberalization that had swept Asia and parts of South America and Africa — to the chagrin of the patriarch, imam, and warlord, whose currency is deference received rather than freedom granted.

This strange new fascism explains why millions in the Middle East who in theory do not like a Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin laden still find consolation in the unrelenting opposition of these killers to the West. Kids whose parents were butchered by Saddam Hussein and are now fed and protected by American money and manpower nevertheless dance upon a burned out Humvee while shouting for Saddam to return. The same is true of those on the West Bank who have their capital looted by the Palestinian Authority, their relatives jailed or murdered, and their votes and speech curtailed: They will still praise Arafat to the skies — if he at least mutters some banality about hating the West. Because these are irrational responses — people acting from their appetites and impulses rather than their heads — we here in the United States, in our arrogant worship of our god Reason, with no confidence in or appreciation of our singular civilization, have gone about things pretty much all wrong.

Remember the worry about "getting the message out"? We all know the tiresome refrain: If the Arab world just knew about all the billions of dollars we give; all the Muslims we saved from the Balkans to Kuwait; all the censure we incurred to ease Orthodox Russians' treatment of Muslims in Chechnya, to stop Orthodox Serbian massacres of Albanians, or to discourage Chinese attacks on their own Muslim tribes; then surely millions of the ill-informed would reverse their opinion of us.

Sorry, the truth is just the opposite. The Arab street knows full well that we give billions to Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinians — and are probably baffled that we don't cut it out. They also know we have just as frequently fought Christians on their behalf as Muslims; they know — if their voting feet tell them anything — that no place is more tolerant of their religion or more open to immigration than the United States. Yes, Islamists all know that opening a mosque in Detroit is one thing, and opening a church in Saudi Arabia is quite another. Hitler wasn't interested in Wilson's 14 Points or how nicely Germans lived in the U.S. — he cared only that we "cowboys" would not or could not stop what he was up to.

No, the message, much less getting it out, is not the problem. It is rather the nature of America — our freewheeling, outspoken, prosperous, liberty-loving citizens extend equality to women, homosexuals, minorities, and almost anyone who comes to our shores, and thereby create desire and with it shame for that desire. Indeed, it is worse still than that: Precisely because we worry publicly that we are insensitive, our enemies scoff privately that we in fact are too sensitive — what we think is liberality and magnanimity they see as license and decadence. If we don't have confidence in who we are, why should they?

To arrest this dangerous trend requires a radical reappraisal of our entire relationship with the Middle East. A Radio Free Europe, though valuable, nevertheless did not free Eastern Europe; nor did Voice of America. Containment and deterrence did. As long as governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and many Gulf states encourage hatred of the United States, we must quietly consider them de facto little different from a Libya, Syria, or Iran. For all the glitter and imported Western graphics, al Jazeera and its epigones are not that much different from Radio Berlin of the 1930s.

We had also better reexamine entirely the way we use force in the Middle East. We did not drive on to Baghdad in 1991 out of concern for the "coalition" — and got 350,000 sorties in the no-fly zones in return. We chose to worry about rebuilding before the current war ended, and let thousands of Baathist killers fade away, and in the aftermath allowed mass looting and continual killing before our most recent get-tough policy.

In fact, anytime we have showed restraint — using battleship salvos and cruise missiles when our Marines were killed, our embassies blown up, and our diplomats murdered; allowing the killers on the Highway of Death to reach Basra in 1991; letting Saddam use his helicopters to gun down innocents — we have earned disdain, not admiration. In contrast, the hijackers chose not to take the top off the World Trade Center, but to incinerate the entire building — proof that they wished not to send us a message but to kill us all, and to kill us to the applause of millions, if the recent popularity of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen in the Arab street is any indication.

We had better rethink the entire notion of dealing with the mythical moderates within regimes like Iran and Syria. I am sure that they exist, as they existed in Saddam's Iraq. But we see the moderates now in Iraq and — with all due respect — they are not exactly the stuff of Ethan Allan, Paul Revere, or the Swamp Fox. In fact, in the Middle East, tens of thousands of democrats are more passive in their desire for freedom than are a few hundred fascists in their zeal for tyranny. We should accept that dissidents would never have toppled Saddam on their own — and are not quite sure what to do even in his absence. Victory alone, not stalemate or a bellum interruptum, will free the Arab people and extend to them the same opportunities now found in Eastern Europe.

In short, there is no reason for any American diplomat to have much to do in Teheran or Damascus — the haven of choice for many of the killers who bomb in Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. "Getting the message out" to a Syria is like traveling to Warsaw in 1950 to convince the government there how nicely Poles are treated in Chicago; sending peace feelers to Teheran is analogous to doing the same to Cuba in about 1962; discussing policy with Saudi Arabia is like talking to Gen. Franco about the perils of Mussolini or Hitler; incorporating Jordan in our resistance is like counting on a France circa 1940.

Peace and harmony will come, but only when the Middle East, not us, changes-which, tragically, will be brought along more quickly by deterrence and defiance than appeasement and dialogue. President Bush was terribly criticized for his exasperated "bring them on," but that was one of his most honest, heartfelt — and needed — ex tempore remarks of this entire conflict.

We are not in a war with a crook in Haiti. This is no Grenada or Panama — or even a Kosovo or Bosnia. No, we are in a worldwide struggle the likes of which we have not seen since World War II. The quicker we understand that awful truth, and take measures to defeat rather than ignore or appease our enemies, the quicker we will win. In a war such as this, the alternative to victory is not a brokered peace, but abject Western suicide and all that it entails — a revelation of which we saw on September 11.

Despite some disappointments about the postbellum reconstruction and the hysteria of our critics, our military is doing a wonderful job. We should understand that they have the capability to win this struggle in Iraq and elsewhere — but only if we at home accept that we have been all along in a terrible war against terrible enemies.



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: ageofliberty; baathists; fascism; iran; iraq; islamist; middleeast; syria; terrorism; truthaboutwar; victordavishanson; war; warwar; warwarwar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last
A Hanson slam dunk. This is one of the best editorials on foreign policy in the Mideast that I've read in a loooong time. Appeasement will get us nothing but more trouble. Period.
1 posted on 12/06/2003 5:19:32 PM PST by bdeaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
Victor Davis Hanson (hero of the Free Republic) bump

2 posted on 12/06/2003 5:36:51 PM PST by an amused spectator (1,700 innocent civilians saved by United States troops in November, 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: GatekeeperBookman
Very good point. Thanks for the reminder of the fascists in our midsts -- who, not surprisingly, have attempted all along to undermine this war, which only gives to prove your point.
4 posted on 12/06/2003 5:49:32 PM PST by bdeaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
We had also better reexamine entirely the way we use force in the Middle East. We did not drive on to Baghdad in 1991 out of concern for the "coalition" — and got 350,000 sorties in the no-fly zones in return. We chose to worry about rebuilding before the current war ended, and let thousands of Baathist killers fade away, and in the aftermath allowed mass looting and continual killing before our most recent get-tough policy.

In fact, anytime we have showed restraint — using battleship salvos and cruise missiles when our Marines were killed, our embassies blown up, and our diplomats murdered; allowing the killers on the Highway of Death to reach Basra in 1991; letting Saddam use his helicopters to gun down innocents — we have earned disdain, not admiration. In contrast, the hijackers chose not to take the top off the World Trade Center, but to incinerate the entire building — proof that they wished not to send us a message but to kill us all, and to kill us to the applause of millions, if the recent popularity of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen in the Arab street is any indication.

No discussion concerning the survival of Saddam Hussein without mentioning the role of former General Colin Powell's poor advice to President Bush and Bush's ill-advised decision to end the original Gulf War on February 28, 1991--before the surviving core of the defeated Iraqi army (mainly two divisions of the Republican Guard with most of their equipment) could be cut off and destroyed, or captured and disarmed.

Bush made his decision at the forceful behest of General Colin Powell, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Powell reportedly told Bush and the rest of the White House "High Command" that the remaining Iraqi army was totally defeated and in full retreat and that further attack would be a slaughter, both "UN-AMERICAN and UN-CHIVALROUS".

General Norman Schwarzkopf and his generals were collectively against the premature cease-fire, estimating one to three days more would be needed to cut off and finally trap the Republican Guard survivors (keep in mind we're not talking about going to Baghdad, but only blocking the road from Basra to Baghdad, which the U.S. 24th Mechanized Division and 101st Airborne were poised to do). But unfortunately, Schwarzkopt did not push this view to Bush, to whom he reported directly, a serious error of omission. No more Iraqis needed to have been killed. They had only to hoist a white flag or simply abandon their vehicles and equipment, and walk away. Powell knew all of this.

The Brits were furious about the cease-fire. So were the Saudis, Qataris and other Arab Gulf countries. In fact, Newsweek reported British Gulf commander Gen. Sir Peter de la Billiere went "ballistic" and British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd--who happened to be in Washington--jumped Bush about it immediately, unfortunately to no avail. Had the Guard and it's equipment been finally captured or destroyed, the Shiite rebellion in the South would probably have succeeded. Combined with the simultaneous Kurdish insurrection in the north, it was highly likely that Saddam would have chosen to take a hike and would not be a problem today. Had that happened, thousands of civilian lives would have been spared.

Saddam's survival led to the continued UN sanctions on Iraq. These have grievously persecuted a population that was powerless to overthrow a tyrant that the U.S. allowed to stay in power. Pre-Gulf War, this population greatly admired America and Americans.

5 posted on 12/06/2003 5:57:14 PM PST by Mel Gibson (Colin Powell is living proof that affirmative action is a failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
Hanson is a Democrat and gets it.

Why don't the others?

6 posted on 12/06/2003 5:58:04 PM PST by Gritty ("The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only religion"Omar Ahmad {CAIR})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
In contrast, the hijackers chose not to take the top off the World Trade Center, but to incinerate the entire building — proof that they wished not to send us a message but to kill us all, and to kill us to the applause of millions, if the recent popularity of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen in the Arab street is any indication.

We've got a choice: Do we want flush toilets, or do we want to crap behind a rock?

The Dixie Chicks, Eminem and their like, apparently enjoy the prospect of using the nearest handy rock.

7 posted on 12/06/2003 6:10:42 PM PST by an amused spectator (1,700 innocent civilians saved by United States troops in November, 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
You just gave me an opening to preach. And I am grateful for any such opportunity.

8 posted on 12/06/2003 6:35:27 PM PST by GatekeeperBookman ("The War does indeed have many facets; http://aztlan.net/ Look at your enemy." Listen to Tancredo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mel Gibson
No question. Saddam interpreted the First Gulf War as a victory, not a defeat. And he was right.

Powell persuaded Bush I to end the war three days early. For every life that was saved among Saddam's corps of brutal killers, two lives were subsequently lost among the Marsh People and others who unwisely showed their support for us.

These people only hate us more when we try to "help" them. The first order of business is to break the back of the Islamic terrorists. In Iran. In Syria. In Sudan. In Saudi Arabia. And anywhere else where they continue to operate.
9 posted on 12/06/2003 7:15:38 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
I have an idea of what fascism is but could someone give me a small summary of it is? I was recently at a rally to support the troops where I live and one of the few idiots who drive by and yell slurs at us patriots called us: Fascists! I was just wondering how supporting our troops makes me a fascist. Thanks.
10 posted on 12/06/2003 7:28:18 PM PST by LoudRepublicangirl (loudrepublicangirl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
Bump for later.
11 posted on 12/06/2003 7:34:50 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LoudRepublicangirl
From Miriam-Webster On-line Dictionary

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
12 posted on 12/06/2003 7:50:25 PM PST by bdeaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mel Gibson
"Had the Guard and it's equipment been finally captured or destroyed, the Shiite rebellion in the South would probably have succeeded. Combined with the simultaneous Kurdish insurrection in the north, it was highly likely that Saddam would have chosen to take a hike and would not be a problem today. Had that happened, thousands of civilian lives would have been spared."

This is essentially speculation with little basis in fact. The goal of Op Desert Storm was to kick Iraq out of Kuwait while destroying most of its military equipment. The goal was not to completely destroy the Iraqi army because this would have left Iraq vulnerable to invasion by Iran. The first Bush Administration was hoping that the remaining Iraqi army officers would turn on Saddam and remove him from power. Unfortunately, the army didn't rebel and Saddam stayed in power.

13 posted on 12/06/2003 7:53:40 PM PST by defenderSD (I remember when America was truly free and people believed the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
I keep thinking WMDs. Our lives and livlihoods would be changed in an instant.

We are certainly in a global struggle for Western Civilization.

14 posted on 12/06/2003 7:56:47 PM PST by DCPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cateizgr8
ping. awesome essay.
15 posted on 12/06/2003 8:21:10 PM PST by Britton J Wingfield (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
RE: "fascists in our midsts"

And more.

Yes, back in the U.S. it's politics as usual. "Guns and butter;" massive space programs; Great Society++, i.e. unlimited government services for millions and millions of ILLEGAL immigrants and more millions on the way; 24/7 inspiration for our enemies via Democrat presidential aspirants; 24/7 inspiration for our enemies via our mainstream media "reporting"; 24/7 inspiration for our enemies via "anti-war" demonstrators; 24/7 inspiration for our enemies via "American" Muslim rights groups; 24/7 inspiration for our enemies via Hollywood; 24/7 inspiration for our enemies via the anti-Israel folks; 24/7 inspiration for our enemies via those who counted the "16 words;" 24/7 inspiration for our enemies via politics as usual -- gotta draw down them troops before election.

Yes sir, Vietnam war era all over again. Politics over victory.

Mr Hanson advises that we had better rethink the entire notion of dealing with a host of matters in the Middle East.

"we are in a worldwide struggle the likes of which we have not seen since World War II."

How many ways can that be said? Here's another. "In my view, the stakes are much higher in the war on terror than in anything we've faced since World War II, and probably World War II as well," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers.

We had better rethink the entire notion of 24/7 freedom to destroy our own Country.

16 posted on 12/06/2003 8:45:41 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GatekeeperBookman
I agree. I am pre-occupied with this problem.
17 posted on 12/06/2003 9:47:47 PM PST by At _War_With_Liberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LoudRepublicangirl
Also, you should read this essay:

Authoritarianism is Leftist, Not Rightist
By John J. Ray

That leftist who called you a fascist? Next time, you'll know what to say. Another example of leftist projection.
18 posted on 12/06/2003 9:50:08 PM PST by bdeaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
Most people are only exposed to two historical aspects of Nazi Germany - WWII military campaigns and the Holocast. This book eloquently and thoroughly presents the most important aspect of the rise of Fascism in Germany, which is in fact the development of the philosophy and world-view of progressive, anti-Judeo-Christian European high-culture.

Needed repeating.

19 posted on 12/06/2003 9:51:52 PM PST by ladyinred (The Left have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
Hanson is brilliant.
20 posted on 12/06/2003 9:52:18 PM PST by ladyinred (The Left have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 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