what world does the author live in?
Cliff writes "Postmodern Americans and Europeans may believe wars of conquest are obsolete, a discarded relic of the distant past. They may even see war itself as an aberration, an unnatural disruption of what they have convinced themselves is the “normal” state of peaceful coexistence. But our enemies view the world differently. Their perspective is of an older vintage".
I wonder what America and Europe Cliff is writing about, or if he thinks postmodernism begins in a eutopian future instead of the 1960s when both America and Europe had a robust military structure and a combined command structure (NATO) to counter the exact type of threat he thinks the world ignores?
Last time I did a reality check we were still concerned about North Korea making a grab for South Korea and China making a grab for Taiwan; until recently we were worried about Iraq making another run for Kuwait, thus the expensive containment policy we implemented, and now we're engaged in a war against global radicalism, and the list could on and on. The author is the naive one if he confuses the rantings of a few far left leaning professors and their mindless followers with America and Europe who have realistically (not always effectively) foreseen and prepared to deal with the exact types of threats Cliff mentioned in his article.
He's talking about the far left?
"the Western conviction that it is passé to wage war in pursuit of such objectives. Most Americans and Europeans can not imagine fighting other than in self-defense or against severe oppression.
That is admirable; less so the lack of imagination that leads so many in the West to “mirror-image,” to delude themselves into believing that everyone sees the world as they do.
To win a war requires more than boots and bullets. It requires understanding the enemy's motives and goals, and perceiving how intensely he is committed to victory."
I'd say that Clifford May is using those who are the loudest (and most liberal) to represent all American and European thinking. He is incorrect in labeling all of us this way, as there are many who do understand the nature and intent of the Jihadists.
Unfortunately the America that Cliff is writing about does exist and it doesn't take long reading Op-Eds, watching TV talk shows, or browsing liberal blogs to find those who belong to the America he describes. It's not just a few professors on the left either. It wouldn't take much time to build a very long list of professors, pundits, and politicians who belong to the exact same America he writes about.
The immediate calls to pull out of Iraq without any discussion or concern as to the short or long term consequences of such a move come from the America that he writes about; and we know how hard and loud Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Dean, et al beat that drum.
I have personally encountered members of "that America" in the audiences to which I've spoken.
I am thankful that not all of us think that way, that many are aware of the current threats and looking to counter future threats. It would be interesting to have him write on that perspective......
They do exist, but was it written the wrong way?
Bill,
What is your take on pulling out of Iraq prematurely and the message it sends to terrorists groups? Would that embolden them like it emboldened bin Laden after our response to Mogadishu, USS Cole, etc? (Not asking that sarcastically, just wanting to gain perspective without needing another thread).
I'm of the thought that those who are hollering the loudest for our immediate withdrawal from Iraq are the ones Clifford was writing about. They belong to the group which does not have the will to fight unless the threat to themselves is completely apparent and immediate. The specific threat from Islamic Jihadists is usually unclear or uncertain, and we haven't been attacked here lately, so this group loses the will to fight. What they fail to understand is that the threat still exists.
This group was on board after 9/11, but now as things have become gray, vague, fuzzy, sticky, uncertain, unclear (your choice) because we haven't been personally attacked again, they are demonstrating either a lack of conviction to fight or a lack of forethought on the threat, or both.
You then have to question either their concern for our national security or their capability to think about the consequences of immediate withdrawal from Iraq (both as a matter of national security and political longevity).
The Islamic Jihadists hate us no matter what and are going to keep planning and attempting attacks. And we know they are emboldened by our weak response to their attacks or the outcome of events such as Mogadishu. Will pulling out of Iraq prematurely give them yet another encouraging event? If the answer is yes, then you have to question the conviction or thinking of those advocating immediate pull out....that puts them amongst the group of which Clifford May was speaking.
Understood on your views of Murtha, I incorrectly "labeled" him. However, his views certainly gave support to those who advocate our immediate pull out (for their own reasons), even if he didn't mean to have them used that way.
Like you, I don't think naive liberals are taking over, but there is undoubtedly a very vocal group of them advocating actions which many agree would not be in the interest of our national security.
I do agree the author isolated himself in his use of "most Americans" and at the end of his article when he lumped all "postmodern Americans and Europeans" togetherr. Was that his intention or did he just not proof his thoughts before publishing?