:: Bluestarblog ::

:: Saturday, January 15, 2005 ::

Norman Podhoretz on the War

Every so often an essayist comes around with a piece on the War on Terrorism that reminds me exactly why I don't write more about it myself. It's certainly a topic of interest and after three years of reading, a topic I have become well acquainted with. However, the talent and scope of these writers simply makes it more fun to read than write. They strike that perfect balance between history and current geopolitics while delivering their pieces with enviable substance, concision, and style. Norman Podhoretz has two pieces that fit that description.

The first group of essays I read after 9/11 had to do with the nature of the enemy and the cultures that fostered them. Bernard Lewis' The Revolt of Islam and The Roots of Muslim Rage were among the first, as was Daniel Pipes' The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America, and Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism. Lee Harris' Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology, Michael McFaul's The Liberty Doctrine, Steven Den Beste's Arab Traditionalism/Who is Our Enemy, and Ralph Peters' Rolling Back Radical Islam and a piece he published in the late 90's, Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States, were also some of my favorites. Add to the list anything from Victor Davis Hanson or Michael Ledeen.

While these essays provided insights into Arab terrorism, much of their focus was on renewed American foreign policy and the different theatres of military engagement - real and potential. The second group of essays I explored dealt another front to the war that was equally fascinating though far more subtle. Primarily ideological, the assertion that the West in general, and the U.S. in particular, was the true enemy in the conflict was a view that resonated not only with the Islamist and dictatorial enemies of the West, but also with an alarming number of domestic malcontents. Far from being merely a view, it has turned into a de-facto movement. Rather than seeing terrorism as the result of Arab cultural failure, their focus was squarely on America and its brutal foreign policy.

Those who opposed the war, or large portions of it, generally fell into two categories - those cautious about American strategy and those that simply hate America. While the first group displays the strength of a democracy, the ability and freedom to question the decisions of its leaders, the latter, deluded and bordering on dangerous, exposes its vulnerabilities. Decadent and lazy, they find their current utopia of Western life not really worth defending, let alone fighting for. Whether it was Old Europe or homegrown campuses, articles like Mark Steyn's The slyer virus: The West's anti-westernism, Ralph Peters' Our New Old Enemies (again from the late 90's), Robert Kagan's Power and Weakness, Lee Harris' The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing, Steven Den Beste's Transnational Progressivism, and John Fonte's The Ideological War Within the West and Liberal Democracy vs Transnational Progressivism dutifully exposed the enemy within.

Central to the tenets of the Bush doctrine, America would not remain ideologically passive while others, at home and abroad, propagated the usual myths about its supposed hegemonic, imperialist, colonialist or racist intentions. The United States, as with just about every other nation in the world, will be best served when the Middle East convincingly pursues freedom from tyrants, theocrats, and terrorists. September 11th invited America to play an aggressive role in this change. Podhoretz's World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win and his follow up, The War Against World War IV, exposes both the Jihadist and anti-war forces at play while making the case for American intervention and resolve. Interestingly, the first essay was written just prior to the election, the second one just after. Both pieces make my list of favorite political essays since 9-11.


I found both pieces in Commentary, another terrific magazine I seldom have enough time to read. Their latest issue has a few interesting essays - Joshua Muravchik on Why the Democrats Keep Losing, the related Intifada Comes to Duke by Eric Adler and Jack Langer, Algis Valiunas' Sartre vs Camus match-up, and a piece on Haydn by Terry Teachout.

Kevin Shapiro also reviews Jeff Hawkins' (creator of the Palm Pilot and founder of the Redwood Neuroscience Institute) and Sandra Blakeslee's book On Intelligence. He doesn't seem overly impressed by it, despite the interesting ideas posited about learning and memory. Here's the website for the book.

:: Scot 1:23 PM [+] :: ::
...