The Discerning Texan
-- Edmund Burke
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Bush's Magnificent Speech
STORY OF THE WEEK: President Bush to his critics: “You want to play ‘Iraq-is-Vietnam’? OK, fine. We’ll play that. Boat people. Re-education camps. Killing fields. No free speech. No religious freedom. A per capita income 30 years later that’s below every neighboring state. Yea, that was some ‘peace’ the Democrats brought there.”This is a speech that got some newsplay, but not nearly the play it would have gotten had it been a Democrat making the speech. But the President took great care to walk us through history, and argued forcefully for not repeating the mistakes of the past. The speech itself stands on its own quite well (you can also watch a video of the speech here). I've highlighted some particularly powerful portions:
[... I've omitted the portion where the President thanks various dignitaries]
Thank you all for letting me come by. I want to open today's speech with a story that begins on a sunny morning, when thousands of Americans were murdered in a surprise attack -- and our nation was propelled into a conflict that would take us to every corner of the globe.
The enemy who attacked us despises freedom, and harbors resentment at the slights he believes America and Western nations have inflicted on his people. He fights to establish his rule over an entire region. And over time, he turns to a strategy of suicide attacks destined to create so much carnage that the American people will tire of the violence and give up the fight.
If this story sounds familiar, it is -- except for one thing. The enemy I have just described is not al Qaeda, and the attack is not 9/11, and the empire is not the radical caliphate envisioned by Osama bin Laden. Instead, what I've described is the war machine of Imperial Japan in the 1940s, its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and its attempt to impose its empire throughout East Asia.
Ultimately, the United States prevailed in World War II, and we have fought two more land wars in Asia. And many in this hall were veterans of those campaigns. Yet even the most optimistic among you probably would not have foreseen that the Japanese would transform themselves into one of America's strongest and most steadfast allies, or that the South Koreans would recover from enemy invasion to raise up one of the world's most powerful economies, or that Asia would pull itself out of poverty and hopelessness as it embraced markets and freedom.
The lesson from Asia's development is that the heart's desire for liberty will not be denied. Once people even get a small taste of liberty, they're not going to rest until they're free. Today's dynamic and hopeful Asia -- a region that brings us countless benefits -- would not have been possible without America's presence and perseverance. It would not have been possible without the veterans in this hall today. And I thank you for your service. (Applause.)
There are many differences between the wars we fought in the Far East and the war on terror we're fighting today. But one important similarity is at their core they're ideological struggles. The militarists of Japan and the communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity. They killed Americans because we stood in the way of their attempt to force their ideology on others. Today, the names and places have changed, but the fundamental character of the struggle has not changed. Like our enemies in the past, the terrorists who wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places seek to spread a political vision of their own -- a harsh plan for life that crushes freedom, tolerance, and dissent.
Like our enemies in the past, they kill Americans because we stand in their way of imposing this ideology across a vital region of the world. This enemy is dangerous; this enemy is determined; and this enemy will be defeated. (Applause.)
We're still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we do know how the others ended -- and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today. The ideals and interests that led America to help the Japanese turn defeat into democracy are the same that lead us to remain engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The defense strategy that refused to hand the South Koreans over to a totalitarian neighbor helped raise up a Asian Tiger that is the model for developing countries across the world, including the Middle East. The result of American sacrifice and perseverance in Asia is a freer, more prosperous and stable continent whose people want to live in peace with America, not attack America.
At the outset of World War II there were only two democracies in the Far East -- Australia and New Zealand. Today most of the nations in Asia are free, and its democracies reflect the diversity of the region. Some of these nations have constitutional monarchies, some have parliaments, and some have presidents. Some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, and some are Buddhist. Yet for all the differences, the free nations of Asia all share one thing in common: Their governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, and they desire to live in peace with their neighbors.
Along the way to this freer and more hopeful Asia, there were a lot of doubters. Many times in the decades that followed World War II, American policy in Asia was dismissed as hopeless and naive. And when we listen to criticism of the difficult work our generation is undertaking in the Middle East today, we can hear the echoes of the same arguments made about the Far East years ago.
In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom.
Some said Japanese culture was inherently incompatible with democracy. Joseph Grew, a former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman's Under Secretary of State, told the President flatly that -- and I quote -- "democracy in Japan would never work." He wasn't alone in that belief. A lot of Americans believed that -- and so did the Japanese -- a lot of Japanese believed the same thing: democracy simply wouldn't work.
Others critics said that Americans were imposing their ideals on the Japanese. For example, Japan's Vice Prime Minister asserted that allowing Japanese women to vote would "retard the progress of Japanese politics."
It's interesting what General MacArthur wrote in his memoirs. He wrote, "There was much criticism of my support for the enfranchisement of women. Many Americans, as well as many other so-called experts, expressed the view that Japanese women were too steeped in the tradition of subservience to their husbands to act with any degree of political independence." That's what General MacArthur observed. In the end, Japanese women were given the vote; 39 women won parliamentary seats in Japan's first free election. Today, Japan's minister of defense is a woman, and just last month, a record number of women were elected to Japan's Upper House. Other critics argued that democracy -- (applause.)
There are other critics, believe it or not, that argue that democracy could not succeed in Japan because the national religion -- Shinto -- was too fanatical and rooted in the Emperor. Senator Richard Russell denounced the Japanese faith, and said that if we did not put the Emperor on trial, "any steps we may take to create democracy are doomed to failure." The State Department's man in Tokyo put it bluntly: "The Emperor system must disappear if Japan is ever really to be democratic."
Those who said Shinto was incompatible with democracy were mistaken, and fortunately, Americans and Japanese leaders recognized it at the time, because instead of suppressing the Shinto faith, American authorities worked with the Japanese to institute religious freedom for all faiths. Instead of abolishing the imperial throne, Americans and Japanese worked together to find a place for the Emperor in the democratic political system.
And the result of all these steps was that every Japanese citizen gained freedom of religion, and the Emperor remained on his throne and Japanese democracy grew stronger because it embraced a cherished part of Japanese culture. And today, in defiance of the critics and the doubters and the skeptics, Japan retains its religions and cultural traditions, and stands as one of the world's great free societies. (Applause.)
You know, the experts sometimes get it wrong. An interesting observation, one historian put it -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts" -- he was talking about people criticizing the efforts to help Japan realize the blessings of a free society -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts had their way, the very notion of inducing a democratic revolution would have died of ridicule at an early stage."
Instead, I think it's important to look at what happened. A democratic Japan has brought peace and prosperity to its people. Its foreign trade and investment have helped jump-start the economies of others in the region. The alliance between our two nations is the lynchpin for freedom and stability throughout the Pacific. And I want you to listen carefully to this final point: Japan has transformed from America's enemy in the ideological struggle of the 20th century to one of America's strongest allies in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.)
Critics also complained when America intervened to save South Korea from communist invasion. Then as now, the critics argued that the war was futile, that we should never have sent our troops in, or they argued that America's intervention was divisive here at home.
After the North Koreans crossed the 38th Parallel in 1950, President Harry Truman came to the defense of the South -- and found himself attacked from all sides. From the left, I.F. Stone wrote a book suggesting that the South Koreans were the real aggressors and that we had entered the war on a false pretext. From the right, Republicans vacillated. Initially, the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate endorsed Harry Truman's action, saying, "I welcome the indication of a more definite policy" -- he went on to say, "I strongly hope that having adopted it, the President may maintain it intact," then later said "it was a mistake originally to go into Korea because it meant a land war."
Throughout the war, the Republicans really never had a clear position. They never could decide whether they wanted the United States to withdraw from the war in Korea, or expand the war to the Chinese mainland. Others complained that our troops weren't getting the support from the government. One Republican senator said, the effort was just "bluff and bluster." He rejected calls to come together in a time of war, on the grounds that "we will not allow the cloak of national unity to be wrapped around horrible blunders."
Many in the press agreed. One columnist in The Washington Post said, "The fact is that the conduct of the Korean War has been shot through with errors great and small." A colleague wrote that "Korea is an open wound. It's bleeding and there's no cure for it in sight." He said that the American people could not understand "why Americans are doing about 95 percent of the fighting in Korea."
Many of these criticisms were offered as reasons for abandoning our commitments in Korea. And while it's true the Korean War had its share of challenges, the United States never broke its word.
Today, we see the result of a sacrifice of people in this room in the stark contrast of life on the Korean Peninsula. Without Americans' intervention during the war and our willingness to stick with the South Koreans after the war, millions of South Koreans would now be living under a brutal and repressive regime. The Soviets and Chinese communists would have learned the lesson that aggression pays. The world would be facing a more dangerous situation. The world would be less peaceful.
Instead, South Korea is a strong, democratic ally of the United States of America. South Korean troops are serving side-by-side with American forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And America can count on the free people of South Korea to be lasting partners in the ideological struggle we're facing in the beginning of the 21st century. (Applause.)
For those of you who served in Korea, thank you for your sacrifice, and thank you for your service. (Applause.)
Finally, there's Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans. The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.
The argument that America's presence in Indochina was dangerous had a long pedigree. In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called, "The Quiet American." It was set in Saigon, and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism -- and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."
After America entered the Vietnam War, the Graham Greene argument gathered some steam. As a matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people.
In 1972, one antiwar senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life."
The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.
Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."
There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today."
His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."
Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently.
We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating. (Applause.)
If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America. (Applause.)
Recently, two men who were on the opposite sides of the debate over the Vietnam War came together to write an article. One was a member of President Nixon's foreign policy team, and the other was a fierce critic of the Nixon administration's policies. Together they wrote that the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be disastrous.
Here's what they said: "Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences." I believe these men are right.
In Iraq, our moral obligations and our strategic interests are one. So we pursue the extremists wherever we find them and we stand with the Iraqis at this difficult hour -- because the shadow of terror will never be lifted from our world and the American people will never be safe until the people of the Middle East know the freedom that our Creator meant for all. (Applause.)
I recognize that history cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. I understand that. But history does remind us that there are lessons applicable to our time. And we can learn something from history. In Asia, we saw freedom triumph over violent ideologies after the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American lives -- and that freedom has yielded peace for generations.
The American military graveyards across Europe attest to the terrible human cost in the fight against Nazism. They also attest to the triumph of a continent that today is whole, free, and at peace. The advance of freedom in these lands should give us confidence that the hard work we are doing in the Middle East can have the same results we've seen in Asia and elsewhere -- if we show the same perseverance and the same sense of purpose.
In a world where the terrorists are willing to act on their twisted beliefs with sickening acts of barbarism, we must put faith in the timeless truths about human nature that have made us free.
Across the Middle East, millions of ordinary citizens are tired of war, they're tired of dictatorship and corruption, they're tired of despair. They want societies where they're treated with dignity and respect, where their children have the hope for a better life. They want nations where their faiths are honored and they can worship in freedom.
And that is why millions of Iraqis and Afghans turned out to the polls -- millions turned out to the polls. And that's why their leaders have stepped forward at the risk of assassination. And that's why tens of thousands are joining the security forces of their nations. These men and women are taking great risks to build a free and peaceful Middle East -- and for the sake of our own security, we must not abandon them.
There is one group of people who understand the stakes, understand as well as any expert, anybody in America -- those are the men and women in uniform. Through nearly six years of war, they have performed magnificently. (Applause.) Day after day, hour after hour, they keep the pressure on the enemy that would do our citizens harm. They've overthrown two of the most brutal tyrannies of the world, and liberated more than 50 million citizens. (Applause.)
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today our troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers, they're giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and hopeful life.
Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq? Here's my answer is clear: We'll support our troops, we'll support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed. (Applause.)
Despite the mistakes that have been made, despite the problems we have encountered, seeing the Iraqis through as they build their democracy is critical to keeping the American people safe from the terrorists who want to attack us. It is critical work to lay the foundation for peace that veterans have done before you all.
A free Iraq is not going to be perfect. A free Iraq will not make decisions as quickly as the country did under the dictatorship. Many are frustrated by the pace of progress in Baghdad, and I can understand this. As I noted yesterday, the Iraqi government is distributing oil revenues across its provinces despite not having an oil revenue law on its books, that the parliament has passed about 60 pieces of legislation.
Prime Minister Maliki is a good guy, a good man with a difficult job, and I support him. And it's not up to politicians in Washington, D.C. to say whether he will remain in his position -- that is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship. (Applause.) A free Iraq is not going to transform the Middle East overnight. But a free Iraq will be a massive defeat for al Qaeda, it will be an example that provides hope for millions throughout the Middle East, it will be a friend of the United States, and it's going to be an important ally in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.)
Prevailing in this struggle is essential to our future as a nation. And the question now that comes before us is this: Will today's generation of Americans resist the allure of retreat, and will we do in the Middle East what the veterans in this room did in Asia?
The journey is not going to be easy, as the veterans fully understand. At the outset of the war in the Pacific, there were those who argued that freedom had seen its day and that the future belonged to the hard men in Tokyo. A year and a half before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan's Foreign Minister gave a hint of things to come during an interview with a New York newspaper. He said, "In the battle between democracy and totalitarianism the latter adversary will without question win and will control the world. The era of democracy is finished, the democratic system bankrupt."
In fact, the war machines of Imperial Japan would be brought down -- brought down by good folks who only months before had been students and farmers and bank clerks and factory hands. Some are in the room today. Others here have been inspired by their fathers and grandfathers and uncles and cousins.
That generation of Americans taught the tyrants a telling lesson: There is no power like the power of freedom and no soldier as strong as a soldier who fights for a free future for his children. (Applause.) And when America's work on the battlefield was done, the victorious children of democracy would help our defeated enemies rebuild, and bring the taste of freedom to millions.
We can do the same for the Middle East. Today the violent Islamic extremists who fight us in Iraq are as certain of their cause as the Nazis, or the Imperial Japanese, or the Soviet communists were of theirs. They are destined for the same fate. (Applause.)
The greatest weapon in the arsenal of democracy is the desire for liberty written into the human heart by our Creator. So long as we remain true to our ideals, we will defeat the extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will help those countries' peoples stand up functioning democracies in the heart of the broader Middle East. And when that hard work is done and the critics of today recede from memory, the cause of freedom will be stronger, a vital region will be brighter, and the American people will be safer.
Thank you, and God bless. (Applause.)
Bravo, Mr. President. Please continue to forcefully pursue these arguments in the days and months to come.Labels: Afghanistan, Genocide, History, Ignorance of History, Iraq, President Bush, The Long War, Vietnam, World War II
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
July the Fourth and American National Identity
To many Thanksgiving is the day we are supposed to give thanks for all the good things that we have. But Thanksgiving in America is much more about familial and religious connotations; whereas the Fourth of July is about being thankful for one thing and one thing only: that we live in the Greatest Country on Earth--and the greatest experiment in self-governance and greatest argument for the economic theory of Adam Smith in the History of the World. My humble opinion.
And so today I embark on a a journey back to discover why I feel so strongly; and then to then bring that knowledge back around to the danger that the America we love so much faces today; namely being slowly strangled to death by its own media and by a Marxist-based PC theology that has never worked successfully anywhere it has ever been tried, and which has claimed millions of lives in its totalitarian and false utopian efforts to impose that sickness on the rest of us.
I am fortunate, because I had a grandfather who took the time to teach me about History. Starting around when I was a 5 or 6 my grandfather would sit with me and page through a large book which was my own Thru the Looking Glass view of Wonderland. It's title was 'LIFE's Picture History of World War II'. I can still remember him sitting patiently as I turned each page and explained what each picture in this huge book was about, and its context.
My grandfather--after seeing my boyish fascination with the Swastika symbol and the order and pagentry of the photos of the pre-war Nuremberg Party Rallies--helped me understand how Hitler and the Nazis grew from Germany's lost sense of national pride, which had been robbed from it and gutted by the Allies after World War I. My grandfather told me that the Germans were a proud, industrious people, and when they lost World War I, there was a national shame that many (if not most) Germans felt; and that it was because Hitler understood that shame; and the longing of Germans for its lost pride--that enabled this minor corporal from the defeated German Army to become the leader of an even more powerful Germany. The people--out of their need for a national identity that they could take pride in--chose Deutschland Uber Alles over no pride at all. So pride only for pride's sake--with no reason or basis behind it (e.g. "the master race")--is not necessarily a good thing; however if there is basis; if the country is morally worthy of that pride, it can be a unifying force for good. American history is full of such examples. "Nationalism" has been given a permanent connotation by the left of being something bad; I would argue that it is only bad when the nation is not based on freedom, equality of opportunity, democracy, and morality.
Often when leafing through that book, my grandfather would talk about the dangers of appeasement: about how Europe sat by and did nothing while Hitler continued to violate the Treaty of Versailles; while he built an Army and Air Force and Navy much larger than that which Versailles allowed. He also talked about Churchill--how all along Churchill warned everyone about Hitler, but that no one wanted to listen to him that this man was worth fighting; not after the carnage of "the War to End all Wars," World War I. This war, he said was so bloody and so awful that even the Allies did not even want to think about fighting another war--and could not get behind the idea that anyone else--even a bitter defeated former enemy--could contemplate such a thing. So, despite the writing on the wall, Western Europe sat back and watched helplessly as Hitler annexed Austria and marched into Czechoslovakia. And on September 1, 1939, the world learned that Churchill had been right all along.
Then, when we would get to the part in the book about the shooting war: about the invasion of Poland, about blitzkrieg and France falling without a shot, and about the Battle of Britain; my grandfather would talk how he remembered listening to overseas BBC broadcasts during the blitz, and what a great man Churchill was. But also always pointing out that--if we had stopped Hitler earlier--while he was building up his forces, not nearly as many people would have died in that war.
We even dug up a boxed archive of his old 78 records--which I still have--called "I Can Hear it Now", which is an Edward R. Murrow-narrated set of old speeches before and after the War. Here were the voices of the people on the page: Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt... We would play those on his record player and the voices from the book would come alive. These are my fondest memories of childhood--and no doubt they have helped shape my own outlook today.
That LIFE photo book was the first of many my grandfather would talk about with me. He used to also talk a lot about the Civil War; I think he once even told me that we share a distant relative who fought for the Confederacy in Hood's Texas Brigade. But when it came to the Civil War, the man my grandfather talked about most was Lincoln. He talked about how terrible and morally wrong that slavery was, and how Lincoln freed the slaves. He said that because Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, the South formed their own country and went to war (a not entirely accurate explanation of why the war started, but close enough for a child...). And because the South was defending its own territory and had better Generals, it was winning that war, which made Lincoln very unpopular in the North, because so many people died and it looked like no progress was being made with numerically superior forces. He talked about how things were going very badly for the Union, and pointed out that Lincoln who would not give up when everyone else was ready to. He would even bring up Lincoln when he talked about Churchill. He would say that these were men who were examples of people who always did the right thing, no matter what the personal cost to them was. And he said that as long as we had people like Lincoln, America could never become weak.
My initial fascination with World War II led to a general interest in history, and to further discussions of the American Revolution and World War I. We talked about Texas Independence and Sam Houston and William Barret Travis at the Alamo. My grandfather talked about the people that came over from England and Scotland--my ancestors--and how they were fleeing religious persecution over there and looking for a better life. In short, my grandfather provided depth and context to my American experience. It was probably those conversations with him, more than anything else, that instilled a national pride in me at an early age. Because he took the time to tell the story about America's struggles and heroes; about people who sacrificed everything, I came to appreciate that there really was something special about this place. And this was before I even groked things like wealth and economics.
I do remember asking him, though, what would happen if America lost its national pride, and I distinctly remember him saying he didn't think that would ever happen; he did not think America could become like Nazi Germany, because he thought that enough people would always love this country so much that we would never completely lose our national pride the way the Germans did after World War I.
And so, every year at this time when I am looking up on the night of the Fourth, listening to the "1812 Overture" or "Stars and Stripes Forever" and watching the huge fireworks light up the sky, I get the same feeling of awe and thankfulness that I had as a child. To have lived in a place where so many people before me cared so much about this place that they sacrificed everything--including in many cases their lives; to live in a place where anyone can go to school, work hard, and make something of himself where nothing existed before; I could not imagine being more fortunate than to live in such a place.
I can remember sitting in my grandparents' home on Christmas Eve 1968 and listening to the Astronauts read Genesis 1 from Apollo 8 as it circled the moon. And I remember distinctly feeling that pride swell up in my gut. America did that. WE did that. I remember going outside that night and looking up with my father and grandfather at that Orb and just being in complete awe that I lived in such a place where it was possible to achieve such a wondrous feat. All because some men got together in Pennsylvania in 1776 and said: we are not going to take this anymore. To me it is still something that does--and ought to--instill awe and pride in every citizen of this country.
Now I am older, though, and it is hard not to notice how many people living here today do not feel that way about America: rather than awe, they show only scorn and criticism; rather than pride, they act ashamed because we have it better than others do. Rather than all the things we have done--and continue to do right, they dwell only on the mistakes and why the US is not entitled to such prosperity, that somehow the people that courageously crossed an ocean to build something are not entitled to the fruits of what they built, and that America is just another place to live. Bullshit. Show me a better one.
Today America is faced with enemies abroad not unlike Hitler's Germany in the 30's. Plenty of people are warning us that we simply must not allow Islamist Jihadists--who live only for our deaths--to continue to multiply while we preach the gospel of zero population growth. But while authors like Mark Steyn see it, our "intelligensia" is not listening. Many are saying: we cannot allow a rogue state led by megalomaniacal nihilist religious zealots--which is funding with its petrodollars the destruction of all that we have and care about--to acquire Nuclear Weapons, as Iran says it has the right to do. But the elites argue that if we just talk to them, peace can prevail. This is such an eerie parallel to the rise of Nazism that it defies the imagination. But the elites don't want to you get that message--can't have that evil nationalism getting in the way... For if you do hear it, it might interfere with their plans to make us all dependent on them, instead of on ourselves.
The very thing this country was founded upon was a person's right to be what he wanted to be, to rely on himself and his neighbors--rather than on Government--to make his way through life. The left decries things like patriotism and nationalism and wanting to protect what we have as "imperialistic." The Left wants to drown America's national identity; they believe in "Imagine there's no countries..." as some sort of mantra in the way Charlie Manson believed "Helter Skelter" was license to murder. It is nothing of the kind. Is is a cheap utopian pipe dream, even if it does come from my favorite band ever.
To this notion that pride in the American nation is a bad thing, I again call "Bullshit." In the case of America, national pride does have basis. We are arguably the most egalitarian, non-discriminative society on Earth, and we became that way precisely by fighting for the notion that this thing called America and the American Dream was worth fighting and dying for. And so it is. And if better men than me had not died for that dream, I would not be here today.
But that dream is slowly dying, as I see it. It is being denied oxygen by those whose utopian view of the world is not only unrealistic; but it has also led to over one hundred million deaths--all in the name of some global "collective ideal" that never existed and never will. Look at Europe, people. Socialism is either dead or dying virtually everywhere it has been tried. Even the Chinese are having to give it up.
There are still voices who see the tsunami on the horizon--but there are many more who are oblivious to the storm clouds gathering; and still others in our media who promote that oblivion. The Enemy is at the gates, and the Enemy to be feared the most is Internal, not the External ones. Because if we win the Internal War for America's National Identity, the External War will become a foregone conclusion; for we have shown that nothing can stop the will of the American people when we are all working in the same direction. But if we cannot summon that national pride internally, our enemies won't have to kill us, they will only have to outlast us until we surrender that last vestige of pride in the Greatest Experiment in Human History--out of our own complacency and unwillingness to do the right thing, even when unpleasant or unpopular.
We experienced a little bit of what this would be like during the "malaise" and guilt-tripping Carter years. Reagan snapped us and the rest of the world out of that particular funk. But the forces which put Carter there--the same forces which sentenced over two million souls to death by abandoning our commitment to Vietnam (does the term "Killing Fields" ring a bell?)--are still lingering, and they would have you believe they're stronger than ever. If so, it is only because of the success of the Internal Enemy in killing--via the media and Educational institutions--what little pride this country has left in who we are and where we came from.
But it would be orders of magnitude worse should we start losing cities. Because if we haven't won the Internal War for National Identity by then--this is when something akin to the Nazis becomes possible. When millions start dying because no one would listen to those warning of "the gathering storm", a path could then open for someone to come to power who would try and solve our internal problem the way the Nazis tried to solve theirs. And you know those guys are out there too... Is that what we want?
Fellow citizens, the Democrat party as we once knew it is dead. It has become a shell of its former self, and it is now the prima facia public face of our Internal Enemy, because Democrats have officially taken on a dead ideology and a nation-killing cancer of entitlements and political correctness. This is a party which will spend money on anything EXCEPT the defense of the nation and the maintenance of our national identity. They want our sovereignty to be swallowed up by our deferral to a United Nations which both envies and despises us. They call for us to cut the funding for the troops in Iraq so we would then have to abandon a third of the world's oil supply to our murderous Islamist enemies; they vote to defund a working missile shield--which they fought every inch of the way--to protect us from Islamist nuclear missiles, and in favor of obscenely expensive Government-run health care--which is also a proven failure; they argue for unlimited immigration of a largely uneducated class of social dependents, for not protecting our borders, for not taking the fight to our enemies abroad, and for a suicidal no-drilling for oil energy policy while we fund the Islamists' ability to kill us for their oil.
This is a party that does not believe in extending American power to protect America's interests--even where despotic dictators are oppressing their people; yet is eager for us to send troops and money to every single hellhole where human rights violations or poverty exists--with the only caveat seemingly being that America must first have no discernible stratgic or national interest there. This is a party that cares more about being "popular" with the leftist Elites in Europe and the rest of this insane planet, than it does doing what is best for the most benevolent, tolerant, successful, and freedom-loving society the World has ever seen.
One other note before I finish this, and that is about the recent Immigration Proposal, and the danger we all face. It is a fact of life that soon one in four voters in America will be Hispanic. And--while many of us (including myself) argued vociferously against the passage of this horrible bill--the Internal Enemy will portray the reason for its failure as being xenophobia or racism--the same tired argument they have been making since the 60's--but that will register with a lot of Hispanics unless we send the appropriate counter-message. What we must convey to our Hispanic friends is that race is not the reason at all we opposed the bill. It was not about Mexicans--which I can tell you from personal experience are some of the kindest and most civilized people I have met. Rather, we had to defeat this bill because it was going to have the impact of killing our hard-fought American Identity. It will be important to the survival to this country that we are able to explain to these fine people that we are not against Mexicans; rather that we are FOR a strong America. We simply must make the case that their future also lies with Republicans and in protecting America's national interests. Without a strong, focused America, there is no future for them or us.
In a submarine you don't start bailing water until you have plugged the hole. We must be able to explain the logic of that to our Mexican friends. And then we need to set about welcoming the ones who want to join the long line of great citizens willing to fight and die for this place. I would have no problem with providing education and eventual citizenship to any immigrant and his/her immediate family (after a background check) who is willing to join and serve a full term in our armed forces.
On the other hand, groups like La Raza, and other elements of the Reconquista movement have to be distinguished in the American mindset from the average immigrant who--like so many before them--wants to come to America because it is the "Shining City on a Hill" that the Gipper used to talk about. The Reconquistas are the enemies of America; the immigrant who wants to become a part of the American dream is our ally. Let us be mindful of the difference.
And so, here we are. All the history, all those who have given their lives, all those who risk it still--so we can live in the Greatest Nation on Earth. If that isn't a reason to be thankful and grateful, what is?
Happy Fourth.
Labels: America, American History, Border Protection, Fourth of July, World War II
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Lessons of D-Day
Labels: America War Support, Europe, World War II