| Submit your comments on this article |
| Olde Tyme Religion |
| The war for civilization |
| 2006-12-30 |
| By SALIM MANSUR Those who may share U.S. President George Bush's anguish in these recurrent winters of our discontent are not many. It is easy to describe Bush as a beleaguered president in a war that a majority of Americans now question as the November mid-term election demonstrated. They want an end to the war in Iraq without having to admit defeat. The agony of Bush is compounded by his knowledge of the enemy. That and the constraints placed, in a free society within the context of our integrated world, on his office and its ability to wage the sort of war necessary to defeat the enemy. U.S. presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt and Truman were also reviled in their times and during their respective winters of discontent. But their circumstances in defeating the enemies of freedom were much different, and less onerous than those Bush has to contend with. The Confederates were slave-holders, bent on destroying the American Union, rather than give freedom to their slaves. Despite doubts about Lincoln during the worst months of the long Civil War, the enemy was clearly visible and victory was precisely defined as saving the Union and crushing the Confederacy. Similarly, Roosevelt and Truman fought the fascist and militarist powers of Germany and Japan who were on a rampage across the world. Even in the darkest moments of World War II their political opponents could not, dared not, publicly doubt the objective of securing the unconditional surrender of these enemies. But the enemy Bush is contending with -- while a majority of Americans and America's allies pretend it doesn't exist -- is not merely an alliance of states or a mix of ideologies or a cause that the United States must fight and defeat. The current enemy is the outcrop of a broken civilization of the past, spewing forth from its rotting bowels an endless horde of militants and fellow-travellers, carrying with them the most atavistic ideas about faith and politics that modern civilization, which Bush represents, hesitates to name for what it is. We have to go back to the declining years of the Roman Empire to find a parallel with our times. Rome had spread civilization far and wide around the Mediterranean basin, but over time it became besieged by barbarians from outside its frontiers and then from within. Civilization is more supple, hence fragile, than the iron and steel from which it is built. It might be likened to a garden, delicately laid out and carefully maintained. When ignored or unattended, weeds destroy what human artifice builds with much labour. Over time, people take their civilization for granted, become careless and unwilling to bear the burden of protecting it. Then its defences are breached, as Rome was, and the city is overrun by those who envy or loathe civilization, bringing ruin in their wake. Radical Islamism and Islamist terrorism have already made a wasteland of the greater Middle East. Where once a great Islamic civilization prevailed, now, in its place, there so often thrives a culture of bigotry and tribal violence, with their effects spreading outwards across land and sea. Rome did not know how to defeat the barbarians before they overran her. Those who endlessly fault Bush for the shape of the world visible since 9/11, will one day cry a river if he and his successors fail to save civilization from its present-day enemies. Michael Novak, a Catholic theologian and philosopher, named Bush "the bravest president" for staying firm in confronting the contemporary barbarians, despite the venom of his peers. In the dark winter nights, some of us will have prayers for Bush, knowing the difference between what he represents and those who would prey upon civilization. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #5 When do we march, and on whom ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-12-30 23:20 |
| #4 Aye - the real threat is domestic. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-30 14:34 |
| #3 .com, no 2012 is not too late, at least as North America is concerned (US, CA). It may be too late for a mighty bunch of people, but not for the western civ overall. I am not so sure as the Western Europe is concerned, the train wreck is coming--almost as predictable as a Hollywood production movie. Central Europe will become the place where European branch of western civ will be preserved, with our help or without. There are, of course, some positive developments on other fronts. In Africa, the Somalian/Ethiopian theater is a good sign, together with the fact that there is an increasing amount of conversions to christianity in many regions--mostly from animistic creeds, but there would not be an alarm sounded from some muslim clerics if the islam-to-christianity conversions were negligible. The main problem, as I see it, is the media. Albeit in decline, it still has the hold on distribution of information--that is what in their view passes for information nowadays. This hold has to be broken in order to have a good chance for reduction of the length of the war, from several decades (~4) to perhaps not more than one. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-12-30 14:30 |
| #2 Is 2012 too late? But that still begs the question of how we will get someone of Churchill's caliber to run, much less win, in the face of the formidable odds posed by the forces arrayed against us, today. The current system weeds out people of character, achievement, and gumption. I hold out some small hope that people like LTC Kurilla will join the political fray and bring their stainless steel honor to bear. It's asking much - perhaps too much. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-30 13:50 |
| #1 Bush's fine, given circumstances, and the unfortunate fact that almost half of Americans would not perceive danger--were it in front of their noses--did present some limits on formulating of his policy. One may argue that in the hindsight, Bush should have been bolder. It was, though, an imperative to try certain options, manifested in Iraq. We still don't see which way the Iraq experiment would unfold. But it had to be done to discern whether its pattern would be a viable option that could prevent an outright full war of civilization against barbarity, with all its nastiness unleashed. What may be the case, considering present situation and the potential trends, is that we need Winston Churchill, soon. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-12-30 13:43 |