You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
STRENGTH: Bill Whittle scores again
2004-05-23
A small taste only - READ THE WHOLE THING
Strength, Part 1
First of all, let’s start this little journey by mentioning The Gloom. Fallujah. Abu Ghraib. Bodies hanging on bridges. Prisoners standing on boxes.

Listen troops, let’s get this straight right off the bat: it’s only a catastrophe. It’s nothing more than a major disaster. I’m not being cynical, or arch, or “ironic.” I am deadly serious.

We have seen two months of what looks like non-stop catastrophe, and we will see more, and maybe worse, before we are through. Here is my well-reasoned, historically researched, deeply nuanced opinion: Tough shit. This war will be over when we say it is over, and not a second before.

When Santa Ana’s men ran up the red flag and his band played the Deguello – “The Throat Cutting” it must have made the men and women in the Alamo sick and weak in the knees. But it did not have the demoralizing effect that the Mexican dictator intended. Rather, it hardened the defenders. They did not run, and we are not going to run either, and Dan Rather and Ted Koppel and the rest can play all the goddam dirges they want to. The Alamo itself was a military disaster, a catastrophe. And when Sam Houston retreated from and kept evading Santa Ana’s army, he was called a coward and a traitor – afraid to fight, not tough enough to do what was necessary. Sam Houston was a deeply flawed man, but he had thick skin and that in itself goes a long way when you are planning deep. Sam Houston didn’t give a tinker’s damn about Glory or Honor. Sam Houston wanted Texas. Like the equally wily and patient George Washington before him, Sam Houston wanted to win. And they did win. And that is why there will be no major metropolitan area named Kerry...

Consider this:

If you genuinely, honestly believe you can compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler, it is only because you are so removed from exposure to the genuine horrors of the Nazi regime – routine street beatings, confiscation and destruction of businesses, homes and property, then deportation and extermination of millions of your own countrymen -- that you are functionally incapable of the most basic and fundamental level of discrimination. If you can compare Abu Ghraib to a Nazi death camp with a straight face then you have never been to either Abu Ghraib, or a Nazi death camp, or either – that is patently obvious, and it would be comically so if the stakes were not so monumentally high. Having never been exposed to genuine evil, you have literally no conception whatsoever of what it looks and smells and tastes like.

(Immigrant Americans from Poland or Russia or Cuba, or Iraq, for that manner, exhibit virtually none of this madness. They know what a real secret police presence feels like.)

Let me clarify this if I may. Senator Kennedy claims Abu Ghraib is simply Saddam Hussein’s torture chambers “under new management – U.S. management.” Taking him at his word – a somewhat iffy proposition right out of the gate – he apparently cannot see the difference between the humiliation and bullying of enemy combatants, which is shameful, disgusting and reprehensible, and the gleeful, mocking murder, torture and gang rape of over 300,000 innocent men, women and children -- which is something worse. So Senator, here is a helpful analogy which you may find useful: The difference is about the same as pulling over and leaving a young female secretary on the curb in the rain, which is shameful, disgusting and reprehensible, vs. leaving her trapped in the car at the bottom of a river while you look at the bubbles and ponder the political repercussions.

Which is something worse, Senator.
Strength, Part 2
The man is truly amazing. When his book comes out (soon), buy copies for all the lefties you know. And one for yourself.
Posted by:Barbara Skolaut

#6  Read ALL his essays. Every last one of them is as good as this one-- and some, IMO, are even better.
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-05-23 7:45:50 PM  

#5  Good God, this is incredible. Brilliant. He's put it perfectly. And I haven't even read the second part yet.

Everybody needs to read this. Everybody needs to understand.
Posted by: The Doctor   2004-05-23 7:41:21 PM  

#4  I've made a point of letting some of my coworkers read these essays most of whom are diehard Labor Democrats. For the most part their reaction is favorable. I don't consider Whittle a Republican or a conservative persee. I consider him more of a realist that sees the world as it really is not as he wishes it to be. All in all I think this is his best eassy since History. I don't know if he could handle the daily writing grind but some body should offer this guy a chunck of change to do a regular column. I don't always agree with what he says but like Voltaire I will defend his right to say it just as much as I will defend the rights of Molly Ivans to say what she has to say
Posted by: cheaderhead   2004-05-23 7:16:21 PM  

#3  Regarding Bill Whittles opening point, a quote from Winston Churchills History of the Second World War, where nothing went right for the longest time:
"War is full of horrible surprises"
Posted by: Grunter   2004-05-23 3:42:36 PM  

#2  "...yet the media simply chose to ignore all the gritty detail like the madrasses,the surmons delivered by Islamic preachers threatning destruction of the west,the Iranian black hats,and probably most importantly lovely law system that is Sharia... I fear the biggest eneamy is our very own media and its constant attempts to divert/hide the truth."

It seems to me there are several factors involved besides "political correctness" and the irrational-- and nonsensical-- belief that all cultures are of equal value.

Another factor, at least for us in the States, is simple politics: the Democratic Party has made a conscious choice to affect an opposition to what the Bush administration is doing in the war, and it is just that: an affectation, a posturing. They could just as well have chosen to support the effort, as the Party leadership is fully aware of the necessity of what we're doing; but their calculus apparently told them there were more votes to be had by opposing the war than by supporting it. Hence Sen. Kennedy's fevered howling. The media, being overwhelmingly Democratic, is merely following the Party line.

Simple denial is yet another factor: I think there is a strong desire to avoid facing the reality that we are in a fight for our very existence against a virulent ideology that seeks, quite literally, the submission of all mankind and which, for now at least, will do absolutely anything to achieve it. We really don't want to think about it, it's too unpleasant and frightening. At some dimly lit level we all know that history's biggest death-match, the one between Western liberalism and radical Islam, is taking shape; but for many people the thought is simply too horrible to contemplate. So they push it out of mind and retreat back into their little September 10th world.

And there's simple laziness, as well. The struggle involves difficult questions, none of which our culture wants to deal with. Why were the 9/11 attacks committed? We know who the actual attackers were, and what organization they were operating in; but who, in a larger sense, really perpetrated the attacks? Why is the Islamic world acting the way it is right now? How can we win this war? What is the "right thing" to do? What actions will benefit us most in the short term? In the long term? What is proper, ethically? How far can we go, what are the limits, in terms of our use of force? These questions, strategic, tactical and moral, are all very difficult to deal with, and a society accustomed for the last half-century to a diet of televised pablum in which simplistic, synthesized conflicts are routinely resolved in neat, entertaining, one-hour packages is ill-equipped to deal with them. So we don't deal with them: instead, we continue to occupy our attention with the customary trivial pursuits, expecting others to ask-- and infallibly answer-- the hard questions.

The final element, and I suspect the one that bothers Bill Whittle the most, is the emergence in the West of a systemic self-loathing, an ennui that has given rise to a chronic cynicism about the very worth of our culture. And it is this self-loathing, I think, that leads to the likes of Sen. Kennedy's asinine notion that the transient abuses at Abu Ghraib are equivalent to Saddam Hussein's quarter-century of systematic horror-- and to the equally asinine belief that the U.S. is becoming a "police state."

If people want to know what a REAL police state is like, just wait til we all live under sharia. Because that's what's going to happen, if we don't get off our asses and get serious about preventing it.
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-05-23 8:58:10 AM  

#1  superb read that, i think he's dead right when he says about people who compare Bush to Hitler,people who make such comparisons are clearly completely oblivious to the history that shaped the world to what it is today. My thinking is that if the people of Allied nations were properly informed about the true nature of Binny and more generally the whole essance of what Islam has become, for far to long we've listended to 'moderate' Islamic 'leaders' telling us Islam is no threat its a religion of peace etc etc.Now we all can quite clearly see that this it not the case and definate and decisive action has to be taken against this huge proportion of the Islamic religion.Are goverments tell us of the deadly threat of Islamic fundamentalists and how wide spread they are in the world yet the media simply chose to ignore all the gritty detail like the madrasses,the surmons delivered by Islamic preachers threatning destruction of the west,the Iranian black hats,and probably most importantly lovely law system that is Sharia,now as you can probably tell im no expert on the subject but at least i know what the threat realy is about and im sure most of you readers do too.The unfortunate truth howerver is that in general the populations of allied countries are fed with over politically correct, non offensive (to Muslims) tripe! I fear the biggest eneamy is our very own media and its constant attempts to divert/hide the truth.
Posted by: Shep UK   2004-05-23 6:16:14 AM  

00:00