Clio's Revenge
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
- George Santayana
I find myself once again pondering the relationship of Americans to history. In contemporary terms, that relationship bears some resemblance to that of Tom Cruise to whomever that woman is, frankly. This pondering was prompted by a post on the Intellectual Insurgent blog, quoting an article by Martin Frost, in which he unfavorably compares Tsar George to King George III, and by a comment left on the Roseville Conservative blog, in which said commenter goes into abject hysteria over the assumed danger of Al Qaeda forcing all of us to become Muslims or die.
The comparison between the Tsar and the King is bad enough for the Tsar even if you use the somewhat distorted image George III has in American eyes; it's worse when it's made to the actual historical record, because George III was actually competent and successful. The King ascended the throne at age 22; the Tsar wasn't even sober until age 40. The King hired men like Nelson, Clive and the younger and elder Pitt; the Tsar hired Michael Brown and Don Rumsfeld. The Tsar dragged us into Iraq; the King won the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars. The Tsar does illegal wiretaps; the King established full parliamentary government. The list goes on and on.
As to the hysteria over Al Qaeda, again, a look at the history books is a good antidote. The proper analogy for what is misleadingly called a 'war on terror' is with previous terrorist groups and their campaigns, such as, say, the IRA, ETA, Baader-Meinhof or the like. Al Qaeda is not the Third Reich or the USSR. Osama bin Laden has no army, navy, or air force. He has no ICBMs, let alone tens of thousands of them. Like all previous terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda will ultimately fail. In the interim, it will do damage, and kill innocents - that's what terrorists do. The question isn't what Al Qaeda wants, it is what it can do, and how we respond.
The appropriate response is not the one exhibited by the suburban wingnut commenter. Behaving like a scared little girl - my apologies to the entire female gender for the demeaning comparison - is not the answer. Rather, what this situation requires is some intestinal fortitude, of the kind shown by Londoners during the blitz and New Yorkers on 9/11. The objective of terrorism - hence the name - is to sow fear. It never ceases to amaze me just how well Osama has succeeded in that goal with America's cowardly, ahistorical wingnuts, dishonorably wimpering as they surrender every civil right they have. Thankfully, most wingnuts - there are exceptions - have a deep-seated fear of wearing the uniform; if it were otherwise, we'd all be speaking Vietnamese while living in fear of a Canadian invasion.
History teaches that we will prevail against Al Qaeda, based on the vast disparity in resources alone. The lessons of the past are less clear when it comes to the real danger to America's liberties, which is the incipiently tyrannical regime of Tsar George. Or, as James Madison said: "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy". Unfortunately, the Tsar has far more power than Osama bin Laden ever will. We don't need to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy - the clear and present danger is right here at home.
- George Santayana
I find myself once again pondering the relationship of Americans to history. In contemporary terms, that relationship bears some resemblance to that of Tom Cruise to whomever that woman is, frankly. This pondering was prompted by a post on the Intellectual Insurgent blog, quoting an article by Martin Frost, in which he unfavorably compares Tsar George to King George III, and by a comment left on the Roseville Conservative blog, in which said commenter goes into abject hysteria over the assumed danger of Al Qaeda forcing all of us to become Muslims or die.
The comparison between the Tsar and the King is bad enough for the Tsar even if you use the somewhat distorted image George III has in American eyes; it's worse when it's made to the actual historical record, because George III was actually competent and successful. The King ascended the throne at age 22; the Tsar wasn't even sober until age 40. The King hired men like Nelson, Clive and the younger and elder Pitt; the Tsar hired Michael Brown and Don Rumsfeld. The Tsar dragged us into Iraq; the King won the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars. The Tsar does illegal wiretaps; the King established full parliamentary government. The list goes on and on.
As to the hysteria over Al Qaeda, again, a look at the history books is a good antidote. The proper analogy for what is misleadingly called a 'war on terror' is with previous terrorist groups and their campaigns, such as, say, the IRA, ETA, Baader-Meinhof or the like. Al Qaeda is not the Third Reich or the USSR. Osama bin Laden has no army, navy, or air force. He has no ICBMs, let alone tens of thousands of them. Like all previous terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda will ultimately fail. In the interim, it will do damage, and kill innocents - that's what terrorists do. The question isn't what Al Qaeda wants, it is what it can do, and how we respond.
The appropriate response is not the one exhibited by the suburban wingnut commenter. Behaving like a scared little girl - my apologies to the entire female gender for the demeaning comparison - is not the answer. Rather, what this situation requires is some intestinal fortitude, of the kind shown by Londoners during the blitz and New Yorkers on 9/11. The objective of terrorism - hence the name - is to sow fear. It never ceases to amaze me just how well Osama has succeeded in that goal with America's cowardly, ahistorical wingnuts, dishonorably wimpering as they surrender every civil right they have. Thankfully, most wingnuts - there are exceptions - have a deep-seated fear of wearing the uniform; if it were otherwise, we'd all be speaking Vietnamese while living in fear of a Canadian invasion.
History teaches that we will prevail against Al Qaeda, based on the vast disparity in resources alone. The lessons of the past are less clear when it comes to the real danger to America's liberties, which is the incipiently tyrannical regime of Tsar George. Or, as James Madison said: "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy". Unfortunately, the Tsar has far more power than Osama bin Laden ever will. We don't need to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy - the clear and present danger is right here at home.
posted by Michael at 9:33 AM
<< Home