The Surrender Option - The cry of the Paleo.

If you are a reader of right-wing opinion websites, you will by now have heard the voice of the Paleos, loud and strong.

That last one is from Pat Buchanan, who will be on TV a lot these next few weeks, and whose royalty statements (the bit of paper your publisher sends you twice a year to let you know how much money your books have earned you) will be bringing great cheer to the Buchanan household for a while to come.

Now, I don't mind Paleos. I understand the appeal of their vision: A busy commercial republic, minding her own business, with no troops stationed beyond her shores, the champion of liberty in every land, but never its guarantor. Heck, I used to belong to a Paleo e-mail list. I know all the arguments. (Pur-leeze don't send me reminders.) The strongest one, so far as I am concerned, is the one that says you can't maintain liberty as the Founders understood it when you are practicing Empire. You'll be hearing this a lot, too, over the next few weeks. In calling for their government to better protect them against these horrors, many people won't much mind if, in order to do so, the government closes down some of our liberties. Yes, yes, I know the arguments.

I dropped off that Paleo list, after much thought, because I just didn't share that vision. I say again, I see its appeal, and I have a lot of sympathy for it: I just don't share it. For one thing, it would be sort of dishonest, at a personal level, for me to do so. If not for the U.S.A. having been willing to send troops abroad to fight, I should not now be here writing this. If alive at all, I should be out working in the fields under some Gauleiter für Ostmittelengland. To a lot of us raised in the rest of the world, having America as a remote, self-absorbed champion of theoretical liberty is all very well; but we kind of like the guarantor stuff, too. Sure, the United States is under no obligation to pander to our preference, however gratifying she may find it: but there are some strong practical reasons to favor American interventionism, too. Would the world have been a better, or a worse, place this past few decades, if America had stood aloof from the world wars? Would America herself have been safer, more secure, more prosperous? It seems pretty plain to me — though certainly arguable (but again, please don't post me the arguments, I've heard them all) — that the answers are: "worse," and "no."

There were other things, less substantive things, that turned me off the Paleos. For example, though most of them are thoughtful and rational people, there is quite a high proportion of lunatics among them. (There is a certain proportion on any email list, of course; I am just saying the Paleos have more than average for an intellectual discussion list.) And even setting aside the lunatics, there was a sort of crabby, ill-mannered, claustrophobic atmosphere about the whole thing that started to grate on me after a while. No, I'm not a Paleo. Republic or Empire? Empire, please.

I understand, of course, that Americans at large, even those who have never even heard of the Republic vs. Empire debate, are schizophrenic about the matter. Huge numbers of Americans couldn't care less about the world beyond their shores. They want nothing to do with it. They go to Florida for their vacations, or at the very furthest Hawaii. Passport? Who needs it? I am talking about un-intellectual Americans — decent, good-hearted, Christian family-loving folk, who just can't see why the affairs of Albania or Zimbabwe are any damn business of theirs, much less why they should send off their beloved children to be killed in such places.

Yet there are other Americans who understand, what I believe is true, that the Republic option is, at bottom, an empty fantasy. Public opinion supported the Vietnam War almost to the end of it; it was the elites and the intellectuals who turned against it, not ordinary Americans. People understand, I think, that however much Americans might wish to leave the world alone, the world will not leave America alone. Great wealth and great success generate great envy and great hatred. And America's high ideals, if clutched jealously to America's chest, while those abroad who believe them are hunted down and slaughtered without help, will whither and die. Idealism, like terrorism, has — can have — no borders. We know that our way of life is far superior to Islamic Fundamentalism, Chinese Communism, "Big Man" Kleptocracy and Bureaucratic Welfarism. Knowing that, the urge to assist — assist by some practical means — those in other places who believe the same thing, will sooner or later prove irresistible to a bold, fearless, liberty-loving nation. (And if those adjectives no longer apply to this country, I have made a major life error.) American idealism cannot be contained.

To fall back on my own origins again, I come from a nation that actually did practice Empire, very successfully, but eventually decided it was too much trouble and cost, and gave up on it. Certain things followed, one by one. For example, we lost the ability to defend ourselves. From WWI onwards, we were essentially a U.S. protectorate, and still are today. For another, my country sank gradually into a mentality of fatalism and defeat in which no vigorous action against our enemies became possible. To see what I mean, look at Britain's response to Irish terrorism, about which I have written many times in this space. Here I was banging away on NRO last June, for example:

The fault for that tragedy [i.e. a fascist takeover of Ireland] will lie squarely with politicians in London, Dublin and Washington, who for thirty years have refused to do what the leaders of civilized nations must do when faced with terrorism in their own jurisdictions: hunt it down and exterminate it, without pause or pity or quarter or apology.

Why have those politicians refused to do that thing? Why are IRA terrorists, who have done the foulest and most beastly things — the kinds of things, though not on the kind of scale, we saw on Tuesday — walking around free in the streets of Belfast and Dublin, having been let out of jail in return for a few vague and empty promises from those who give them their orders? The fundamental reason is not hard to find. Britain, having forgotten its responsibilities as an upholder of civilization, no longer cared to confront civilization's enemies in the way they must be confronted. They put their trust instead in "peace processes," in legalisms and trials, in panels of international do-gooders blathering on about "human rights," in the State Department. They did not put their trust in the thin-lipped, hard-faced, soft-talking men and women who do civilization's dirty work for it. To fall back on Kipling again (I am sorry; but at times like these, Kipling is indispensable), they made mock of the uniforms that guard us while we sleep.

The option that the last few British governments have taken — the Surrender Option — is available to America, too. It may even be taken. I was dismayed to hear the President speak about his instructions to find "those responsible" and "bring them to justice." Mr. President, these are not traffic violations; these are acts of war. Justice must go by the board for a while, as it did when we firebombed German and Japanese cities, incinerating helpless babies and old folk who wished us no harm. Where was the justice in that? Oh, and by the way: "those responsible" are already dead. They killed themselves attacking your country, and were proud and happy to do so. Some Americans — I speak as the father of two Americans — will have to get killed attacking their countries. (Oh, yes, they have countries.) Some of those Americans, likewise, will be proud and happy to do so, on behalf of the nation they love. Dirty business, running an Empire. Dirty business, defending civilization against barbarism. Barbaric business, sometimes — there's a paradox to ponder... But don't think you're the first to ponder it. It was a Roman who said oderint dum metuant, and a Roman who rebuked him for saying it. Dirty business, dirty business. But then, there is always the Surrender Option.

I assume the author is British? No wonder he craves empire.

I would assume that the author is more a corporate globalist.
He seems more intent on establishing transnational fascism than national security.

Why don't you vounteer as a mercenary to help out the Northern Alliance, or are you not yet convinced?

I bought the gov't line about Vietnam and then reality hit. You need a more direct experience, that will make you wise up.

One thing you need to keep in mind. The First Ammendment only guarantees you the right to speak your opinion, it does not assume responsibility for your opinion. If what you have to say sparks disgust or even hatred amongst your citizens that is your problem, not the Constitution's.

There's your problem, you can't tell the difference between Vietnam and what is happening now...nothing will make you wise.

You missed my point, the gov't lied in the past and could well be lying today, it pays to have healthy skepticism and seek the truth. Marching lockstep to the war fever has never been a good idea. If you are still in the military Chief Warrant Officer, you should be glad that civilians try to check the power of the gov't to send men to their death. As a soldier, you can't dissent or question, all the more you should be glad that your gov't is held accountable. That is our job.

I don't care if you or someone else disagree with my views, but at least you should see the value of dissent and trying to force accountablilty to the truth.

"...and could well be lying today..."

And somehow I get the mistaken impression from your posting that the goverment is lying. Maybe we're making some progress. Next you might actually demand real evidence before accusing the President of selling out the nation.

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.