Troy Senik
Staff Writer
Harry Truman once said that “the only thing new in the world is the history that you haven’t learned yet.” The chronicles of time might not repeat themselves in perfect “Groundhog Day” detail. Certain constants do, however, ring out across the ages — factors that can’t be traced to localized context or time, but instead to the indelible aspects of human nature. One such lesson is the danger to societies, great or small, who don’t take the perils of war seriously.
It is fitting that the United States, the logical successor to Greece and Rome (and later, Britain) as the defender of western civilization, can trace the origins of its current confusions to these two legendary powers. Like the Greeks before us, we have no appreciation for the full gravity of war. In a parallel with the Romans, we expect the fruits of victory to be served at little cost because of our overarching strength. Like both, we face the very real prospect of our expectations crippling our potential for success.
Americans, simply put, do not take the current threats to our nation and the civilized world seriously, and a number of factors can, to some extent, provide a reasonable excuse for why.
Like it or not, the war in Iraq has been particularly unfortunate as it has muddied the philosophical waters of the current global conflict, creating an atmosphere in which we now talk about a “war of choice” only five years after the most one-sided opening act of any conflict in history. Color-coded terror alert systems and Sept. 11 conspiracy theories have likewise poisoned reality’s well.
But even the sober-minded among us have succumbed to some of the temptations that accompany an understanding of this war as an abstraction instead of as an existential crisis. Foremost among these pernicious truisms is the supposed importance of multilateralism, with advocates declaiming that every exercise of American power should be met by the international community with the kind of unadulterated joy usually reserved for baby showers.
Never mind that the United States is spearheading broad-based diplomatic efforts with North Korea or Iran, or that it is now NATO that is primarily responsible for the security of Afghanistan — it seems as if the gnashing of Togo’s teeth would be enough to invoke the fear that our strength is not being consistently used to render America the most popular kid in the international class.
Several insights quickly defang this facile analysis. The first is a basic principle of logic: namely, that an “appeal to popularity” has long been considered as constitutive of fallacious reasoning. The second is a simple moral insight, peddled around Sunday schools from time immemorial: doing what’s right and doing what’s popular are often diametrically opposed. The only concern left, then, would be a logistical one. And rest assured, the unchallenged power of the United States is sufficient to retain our place in the world, with allies welcomed on the basis of their hearts and not their ammunition count.
Peering one last time into antiquity, Americans should take to heart the words of the ancient Athenian general Pericles: “To be hated and disliked in season has been the situation for all alike, whenever any have claimed the right to rule over anyone else; but whoever gains unpopularity for the greatest ends is well advised. For hatred does not last long, but the brilliance of the moment and glory in the future remain in eternal memory.”
09-14-2006