This post stems from an earlier post, a book review. The subject book was Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History by Lee Harris. At the time I planned to discuss further some of the subjects brought up in Harris’ book. Here is one of those subjects.
How Ruthlessness Defines the Enemy
Harris posits that the most dangerous enemies threaten civilization because they are utterly ruthless. These enemies will do what ever it takes to win. They are fanatics and proud of it.
As an example, Harris uses the Nazis. Harris discusses the aftermath of World War I and explains the horror that Europeans had of another such conflagration. No reasonable person would risk another such war. Yet in order to get their way, the Nazis felt no compunction against threatening another such war. In effect the Nazis behaved as terrorists. To get what they wanted, they threatened horrifying destruction.
Why did the Nazis behave this way? Why do the most dangerous enemies behave as terrorists? I think the answer is overweening pride and unrestrained pragmatism.
Harris speaks of cultural influences, education, and “fantasy ideology.” His book suggests that the ruthless enemy is anomaly. Nonetheless, in a latter book, The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West, Harris makes it equally clear that the relatively high moral character we expect from the citizens of Western societies is historically unusual, perhaps even a fluke.
Overweening pride is, unfortunately, not unusual. Don’t men normally think first of themselves and their own profit? Don’t men find it far more difficult to think first of the welfare of their neighbor? Don’t we each struggle with our own pride? Isn’t a humble individual, that person who thinks of himself merely as God’s servant, a rarity.
To highlight the importance of ruthlessness, Harris uses terrorism and the possibility of appalling consequences, but why can we not use an example closer to home? Recently we had back to back speeches on our response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. First President Barack Obama spoke (see here), and the former Vice President Richard Cheney spoke (see here).
In his speech, Obama spoke of the flawed policies of the previous administration.
Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people.
But I also believe that — too often — our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.
Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us — Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens — fell silent. In other words, we went off course.
And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for president from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach — one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. (from here)
Did the administration of President George W. Bush sacrifice American principles? Consider a portion of Cheney’s reply.
By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.
Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.
Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “Truth Commission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.
Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people. (from here)
Perhaps the previous administration had been too fearful and therefore too ruthless in the defense of the United States. However, fear is not as dangerous as pride. How can we seriously condemn anyone for striking back a trifle too strongly at a real and dangerous enemy who seeks their life? Nonetheless, Obama condemns the Bush administration for so defending us against exactly that sort of enemy. Seemingly, Obama’s first concern is to foist each and every problem he confronts on the previous administration.
Instead of worrying over much about the previous administration, perhaps we should consider how seriously the current administration takes the principles of American Government.
- Where does the Constitution empower Obama buy and run banks and automobile companies? How does Obama get away with giving 55 percent of Chrysler to labor unions? (from here, here, and here)
- Should we be comfortable with Obama’s criteria for judicial appointments? What about the notion that he would “want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through”? (from here)
- Should we not ask where Obama’s plan to nationalize health care fits into the Constitution? If we don’t, does anyone seriously think he is going to ask?
When people depart from moral principles, what is their favored excuse? Do they call themselves fanatics? Is not the favored excuse pragmatism? Don’t even fanatics usually explain that they are just doing what works?
When terrorists threaten their victims, don’t they expect their victims to give in? Isn’t the seriousness of the threat just what the terrorist believes is required to produce the results he want?
When the terrorists flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, they died. We think of such ferocity as fanaticism, but the terrorists wanted to be martyrs. They wanted the rewards of martyrdom, and in their pride their victims became mere stepping stones. From the viewpoint of the terrorists, the death of their victims was merely a pragmatic necessity.
When politicians seek power, and their supporters seek Utopia, what is the Constitution to them? What are American principles? What are the rights of the American People? What is the truth? If Utopia is our goal — if we know all the answers for everyone else — what can be allowed to stand in our way? What principles can we not sacrifice in the name of pride and pragmatism?
