The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
On America's Irrational Fear of Confrontation
When Franklin Roosevelt said during the Great Depression those famous words "we have nothing to fear but fear itself," he was speaking to a nation weary, tired of struggle. Today the struggle is much different--but the people are every bit as weary--weary of the media speak, the spin of our enemies and mostly of the bitter partisanship that seems to have robbed America of its very raison d'etre.
Which of course is exactly what our enemies--abroad and at home--want us to feel. Hopeless. Powerless. Afraid.
Here...in AMERICA, for God's sake. Are you kidding me? Are you buying that crap? Me neither. Which is why this piece by Arnold Kling in Tech Central Station resonated so strongly with me:
"As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide."
-- Dana Priest, The Washington Post, April 2, 2006
In the 1930's, the leaders of Great Britain and France tried their best to avoid a confrontation with Nazi Germany. By the time the confrontation took place, it was on Hitler's terms, with German power ascendant.
It seems that the same dynamic is at work relative to Iran. A fanatical, bullying regime is using a combination of threats and grievance-mongering. Western leaders shrink from confrontation, even though delay seems likely to worsen our position. One could argue that the more that America fears a confrontation with Iran, the more likely we are to have our worst fears realized. It will cost less in terms of American lives if we deal with Iran forcefully and soon rather than cautiously and late.
On his Instapundit blog, fellow TCS contributor Glenn Reynolds has pointed out the way in which the recent cartoon controversy illustrates that the West allows itself to be bullied by Islamic militants. The cartoons depicting Mohammed may offend Muslims, but they do not threaten Muslims or incite violence against Muslims. Still, because of violent Muslim protest of the cartoons, our supposedly staunch free press has refrained from publishing them. As the writer Stephen Green put it, "We've seen what American bookstores and publications and universities do when confronted with real fascists: they knuckle under."
Tolerating Abuse
Unfortunately, large segments of American society no longer have the ability to confront real evil. People lack the confidence and moral clarity to stand up to intimidation.
I first became aware of this five years ago, when I read a book called Augusta, Gone by Martha Tod Dudman. With great honesty and clarity, she tells the story of her struggles with her delinquent teenage daughter, Augusta. Even though I admired the mother's willingness and ability to narrate her story, I saw her as a weak person, unable to confront her daughter.
When Augusta violates her curfew, her mother is unwilling to give her any consequences. When her mother finds drugs in Augusta's room, she feels guilty over invading Augusta's privacy, when in fact the mother is entitled (in my opinion) to draw a connection between the daughter's failure to come home on time and the fact that the mother went into her room.
Every day, Augusta's mother makes her daughter's lunch to take to school, and every day Augusta throws her lunch away. One day, Augusta's mother stops making lunches, and Augusta screams at her until she relents. To me, this sums up the entire relationship -- the mother making lunch as a gesture of love and the daughter throwing it away.
In my view, the mother's attempts at appeasement work to her detriment, and probably to Augusta's as well. When people act out destructively, it seems to me that what they need is someone to set boundaries and put order into their lives. Taking abuse from someone is not really doing that person any favor.
However, what struck me most of all about Augusta, Gone was how unusual my reaction turned out to be. While I have not undertaken a formal tally, it appeared to me that the majority of reader reviews on Amazon were sympathetic to the mother. Apparently, there are many people who cannot imagine confronting a troubled teenager and standing up to her abusive behavior. Instead, they can only empathize with a mother who is too caught up in her feelings of guilt to stand up for what is right.
The Guilt Trip
In the 1930's, Hitler laid a guilt trip on the Western allies over the Versailles treaty. Many Westerners rationalized the Munich agreement of 1938 by saying that the Sudetan Germans had genuine grievances against Czechoslovakia. In retrospect, it is clear that Britain and France caved into intimidation, and that the Munich agreement was shameful.
Like Hitler, or like Augusta, today's Islamic militants are able to lay a guilt trip on us even as they abuse us. The result is that there are many in Europe and America who think that throwing Jews under the bus is the way to lift the threat of Islamofascism.
The Washington Post also carried an essay by Phil Sands, a journalist who was kidnapped in Iraq and later freed by American forces. He wrote,
"I harbor no hatred toward the people who kidnapped and threatened to kill me. There was, and still is, a mixture of fear, sorrow, fondness and anger in my sentiments. If I think about them now, in all likelihood suffering the misery of Abu Ghraib, I pity them. They are almost certainly being treated worse by their captors than I was by mine."
It would seem to me that his captors deserve to be "suffering the misery" and "treated worse." Kidnappers belong in captivity. Journalists -- unless they have become the moral equivalent of kidnappers -- do not.
One can view Islamic militants as armed versions of unruly teenagers. We should not feel guilty toward them. We should demand reasonable and decent behavior from them, rather than excuse their tantrums or their crimes.
The Terror Threat
Dana Priest's story seems designed to raise doubts about the wisdom of taking military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Because Iran has terrorists and agents throughout the world, we face retaliation.
A rational response to the threat of retaliation would be to make clear to Iran that the consequences of a terrorist attack would be the end of the Iranian regime. If we are intimidated by potential Iranian terrorism now, then the situation can only get worse if Iran develops nuclear weapons.
Suppose that we refrain from confronting Iran over its nuclear ambitions. What do we stand to gain? Will the Islamist movement outgrow its militant phase and turn moderate and mature? Will our military capability increase faster than Iran's capabilities? Will the Islamists be satisfied with attacks on Israel and Europe, and leave us alone -- and is that acceptable to us? Unless one can give favorable answers to such questions, it seems to me that Iran must be confronted.
Recently, the columnist Mark Steyn wrote
"But there are two kinds of persons objecting to the war: There's a shriveled Sheehan-Sheen left that's in effect urging on American failure in Iraq, and there's a potentially far larger group to their right that's increasingly wary of the official conception of the war. The latter don't want America to lose, they want to win -- decisively."
Put me down for "decisive victory." Probably for Iraq, and certainly for the broader struggle against militant Islam, the defeat of the Iranian regime appears to be the necessary next step. It is hard to see how we can gain anything by failing to confront a WMD-seeking, terrorist-sponsoring regime that is bent on intimidation. If this is not 1933 all over again, then someone needs to spell out the difference.
Which of course is exactly what our enemies--abroad and at home--want us to feel. Hopeless. Powerless. Afraid.
Here...in AMERICA, for God's sake. Are you kidding me? Are you buying that crap? Me neither. Which is why this piece by Arnold Kling in Tech Central Station resonated so strongly with me:
"As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide."
-- Dana Priest, The Washington Post, April 2, 2006
In the 1930's, the leaders of Great Britain and France tried their best to avoid a confrontation with Nazi Germany. By the time the confrontation took place, it was on Hitler's terms, with German power ascendant.
It seems that the same dynamic is at work relative to Iran. A fanatical, bullying regime is using a combination of threats and grievance-mongering. Western leaders shrink from confrontation, even though delay seems likely to worsen our position. One could argue that the more that America fears a confrontation with Iran, the more likely we are to have our worst fears realized. It will cost less in terms of American lives if we deal with Iran forcefully and soon rather than cautiously and late.
On his Instapundit blog, fellow TCS contributor Glenn Reynolds has pointed out the way in which the recent cartoon controversy illustrates that the West allows itself to be bullied by Islamic militants. The cartoons depicting Mohammed may offend Muslims, but they do not threaten Muslims or incite violence against Muslims. Still, because of violent Muslim protest of the cartoons, our supposedly staunch free press has refrained from publishing them. As the writer Stephen Green put it, "We've seen what American bookstores and publications and universities do when confronted with real fascists: they knuckle under."
Tolerating Abuse
Unfortunately, large segments of American society no longer have the ability to confront real evil. People lack the confidence and moral clarity to stand up to intimidation.
I first became aware of this five years ago, when I read a book called Augusta, Gone by Martha Tod Dudman. With great honesty and clarity, she tells the story of her struggles with her delinquent teenage daughter, Augusta. Even though I admired the mother's willingness and ability to narrate her story, I saw her as a weak person, unable to confront her daughter.
When Augusta violates her curfew, her mother is unwilling to give her any consequences. When her mother finds drugs in Augusta's room, she feels guilty over invading Augusta's privacy, when in fact the mother is entitled (in my opinion) to draw a connection between the daughter's failure to come home on time and the fact that the mother went into her room.
Every day, Augusta's mother makes her daughter's lunch to take to school, and every day Augusta throws her lunch away. One day, Augusta's mother stops making lunches, and Augusta screams at her until she relents. To me, this sums up the entire relationship -- the mother making lunch as a gesture of love and the daughter throwing it away.
In my view, the mother's attempts at appeasement work to her detriment, and probably to Augusta's as well. When people act out destructively, it seems to me that what they need is someone to set boundaries and put order into their lives. Taking abuse from someone is not really doing that person any favor.
However, what struck me most of all about Augusta, Gone was how unusual my reaction turned out to be. While I have not undertaken a formal tally, it appeared to me that the majority of reader reviews on Amazon were sympathetic to the mother. Apparently, there are many people who cannot imagine confronting a troubled teenager and standing up to her abusive behavior. Instead, they can only empathize with a mother who is too caught up in her feelings of guilt to stand up for what is right.
The Guilt Trip
In the 1930's, Hitler laid a guilt trip on the Western allies over the Versailles treaty. Many Westerners rationalized the Munich agreement of 1938 by saying that the Sudetan Germans had genuine grievances against Czechoslovakia. In retrospect, it is clear that Britain and France caved into intimidation, and that the Munich agreement was shameful.
Like Hitler, or like Augusta, today's Islamic militants are able to lay a guilt trip on us even as they abuse us. The result is that there are many in Europe and America who think that throwing Jews under the bus is the way to lift the threat of Islamofascism.
The Washington Post also carried an essay by Phil Sands, a journalist who was kidnapped in Iraq and later freed by American forces. He wrote,
"I harbor no hatred toward the people who kidnapped and threatened to kill me. There was, and still is, a mixture of fear, sorrow, fondness and anger in my sentiments. If I think about them now, in all likelihood suffering the misery of Abu Ghraib, I pity them. They are almost certainly being treated worse by their captors than I was by mine."
It would seem to me that his captors deserve to be "suffering the misery" and "treated worse." Kidnappers belong in captivity. Journalists -- unless they have become the moral equivalent of kidnappers -- do not.
One can view Islamic militants as armed versions of unruly teenagers. We should not feel guilty toward them. We should demand reasonable and decent behavior from them, rather than excuse their tantrums or their crimes.
The Terror Threat
Dana Priest's story seems designed to raise doubts about the wisdom of taking military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Because Iran has terrorists and agents throughout the world, we face retaliation.
A rational response to the threat of retaliation would be to make clear to Iran that the consequences of a terrorist attack would be the end of the Iranian regime. If we are intimidated by potential Iranian terrorism now, then the situation can only get worse if Iran develops nuclear weapons.
Suppose that we refrain from confronting Iran over its nuclear ambitions. What do we stand to gain? Will the Islamist movement outgrow its militant phase and turn moderate and mature? Will our military capability increase faster than Iran's capabilities? Will the Islamists be satisfied with attacks on Israel and Europe, and leave us alone -- and is that acceptable to us? Unless one can give favorable answers to such questions, it seems to me that Iran must be confronted.
Recently, the columnist Mark Steyn wrote
"But there are two kinds of persons objecting to the war: There's a shriveled Sheehan-Sheen left that's in effect urging on American failure in Iraq, and there's a potentially far larger group to their right that's increasingly wary of the official conception of the war. The latter don't want America to lose, they want to win -- decisively."
Put me down for "decisive victory." Probably for Iraq, and certainly for the broader struggle against militant Islam, the defeat of the Iranian regime appears to be the necessary next step. It is hard to see how we can gain anything by failing to confront a WMD-seeking, terrorist-sponsoring regime that is bent on intimidation. If this is not 1933 all over again, then someone needs to spell out the difference.
