A Nation of Monks?

Not long after he posted his ninety-five theses on the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral, Martin Luther began writing about how society should be reformed.  One of the subjects he addressed was marriage, but he did so in a very idealistic way.

In his book The Reformation, Dairmaid MacCullough off-handedly remarks that this was because Luther was, at the time, a monk who had no personal experience with marriage.  What then is Barack Obama’s excuse?  He has been in the White House for nearly six years.  Why hasn’t he learned the ways of the wicked world?

Leon Panetta is perplexed as to why the president has not handled our foreign policy more realistically.  He believes that Obama is both smart and courageous, yet has not dealt with the threat of radical Islam firmly or decisively.  Why is this so?

There are many reasons, but one is that our chief executive is a born-again idealist.  He has the heart, if not the mind, of an eternal adolescent.  Although no longer a community organizer by occupation, he remains one by emotional commitment.

Consider the fight against ISIS.  Our commander-in-chief would like a totally antiseptic war.  It would be one in which none of our soldiers was injured.  Not a single one would be shot at because none would have boots on the ground.  With respect to those in the sky, they would be in-and-out so quickly that the enemy could not touch them.

As for civilian casualties, they would be reduced to zero by rules of engagement so restrictive that only the occasional tank caught on open ground would be in danger.  This sort of rinky-dink operation would go on for years until the caliphate laughed itself to death.

Now I understand why students at Harvard believe that the United States is more of a threat to world peace than ISIS.  They are young and inexperienced.  Although they are convinced that they understand how things work, they know and have witnessed far less than they imagine.

But the president of the United States?  His generals have explained what needs to be done if our forces are to prevail.  Why won’t he listen?  The only thing that makes sense is that he doesn’t want to win militarily.

And why doesn’t he?  Because he thinks we don’t deserve to win.  For him, if we are not the Great Satan, we are at least the Great Despoiler.  We mess up whatever we arrogantly touch; hence the world would be a better place if we minded our own business.

Those Harvard students assume they are enlightened because they realize that George Washington did not cut down the cherry tree.  They assume this awareness makes them sophisticated.

Unfortunately they do not know how much they do not know.  Yes, history, including American history, is strewn with untoward events.  Countless bad things have happened.  Nonetheless many of these are deemed immoral because we are measuring them by an idealistic yardstick.

Thus, most marriages would look like disasters if we expected them to exhibit eternal harmony.  In fact, many are very good—considering that the spouses are human.  The United States is likewise a wonderful country given that it is inhabited and governed by humans.  Our history is one of improvements, not of decline.

For Barack Obama, however, this is insufficient.  His hoped to change us into a fairytale land of complete equality and everlasting peace.  We would lead by example rather than impose our parochial values by military might.

Obama’s allies, and there remain tens of millions of them, are as militantly naïve.  They too hope that if we sing Kumbaya in unison, the sun will break through the clouds and the doves will fly overhead.

Still, those of us who have not taken the tonsure have a right to be skeptical.  We may not be perfect beings, but at least we know enough to realize that idealism has its limitations.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Whack-A-Mole Doctrine

Samuel Huntington’s theory about a clash of civilizations is finally gaining traction.  With the advent of ISIS and its sister organizations, people are becoming aware that we are in a generational conflict with Radical Islam.  The question is: What shall we do about it?

Barack Obama has favored a passive approach.  He believes that if we refrain from an aggressive confrontation, our adversaries will mellow.  They will realize that we do not have hostile intensions and will relent.

Opposed to this was George W. Bush’s strategy.  He proposed to take on the Islamists in armed combat and soundly defeat them.  With this evil excised, it would be possible to implant democracy in the Middle East.  Moreover, because democracies do not like war, the threat to us would be alleviated.

So far neither of these policies has been a resounding success.  Bush’s belligerence did not crush Islamist ideals, while Obama’s docility only projected weakness.  How then are we to proceed?  Do we really believe that a few pinprick bombings will do the job?

I propose a different idea.  Call it the whack-a-mole doctrine.  In this game, whenever a mole pops up, he is knocked down.  Why not do the same with Islamist challenges to our nation?

How would that work?  To begin with, we have the finest military in the world.  In a head-to-head collision with any army or insurgency, it is capable of prevailing.  Lest we forget, our forces took Baghdad in a matter of weeks, while suffering relatively few casualties.

The problem came afterwards in trying to change the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.  Given their culture and lack of egalitarian traditions, they were not receptive to our efforts to teach them how to be democratic.

So why don’t we forget about the second part of this equation and concentrate on the first.  When a group—or nation—threatens our integrity, why don’t we go in hard and fast to quash their aspirations?  Why don’t we then—in most cases—withdraw with equal speed leaving the indigenous peoples to clean up the mess?

If we developed a kind of flying wedge that had the capacity to strike virtually anywhere on the planet, couldn’t we wield it as a hammer to suppress menaces to our interests?  If we invested in the appropriate planes, tanks, and ships, wouldn’t these, along with a strong national will, intimidate most potential enemies?

 Of course, sooner or later a renewed challenge would likely arise.  We would then need to whack it down…and on, and on.  This would be a generational strategy that in the end rendered adventurism unappealing.

Could this work?  I submit that it already has—right here in the Americas.  The clash between European interlopers and the indigenous Indians lasted for hundreds of years.  There was not one battle, but many, many until it became clear that the native people were not going to prevail.

This, it may be argued, was unfair.   And it was.   The Europeans were clearly the aggressors.  Then again, the natives were not exactly pacifists.   Still, that is not the point.  What is, is that a forward strategy of periodically striking at the Indians in their home territories eventually succeeded.

When it did, the indigenous tribes became demoralized.  They ceased fighting, not because they suddenly found Western civilization attractive.  They did because they realized they could not win.

In time, and we are talking about generations, some of the Indians assimilated into the larger culture.  The Cherokees, for instance, despite having been shabbily treated, established a vigorous presence in Oklahoma.  They were forced to adapt, but they also managed to maintain their dignity and elements of their heritage.

Couldn’t the same be true of Islam?  After centuries of sporadic conflict, might not its Jihadist elements be tamed?  Islam does not have to disappear.  It can remain true to itself—as long as it relinquishes its designs against us.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Mercenaries

Bill O’Reilly has proposed a mercenary army to root out the radical Islamic threat.  He assumes that a skilled fighting force led by American and European officers will have the staying power and the motivation to dedicate the many years it may take to accomplish the job.

While I respect O’Reilly and admire the courage he has shown in standing up to liberal bullies, this is a dreadful idea.  Although he seems to assume this approach can overcome America’s ambivalence about going to war, it reveals some deep-seated problems.

First, mercenary armies are dangerous.  Their history is a chronicle of treachery and barbarism.  O’Reilly could begin exploring this drawback by reading Barbara Tuchman’s book “A Distant Mirror.”  She explains how after medieval armies for hire fulfilled their contracts they did not disband, but instead went into business for themselves.

The same thing happened when the Romans hired barbarians to defend their borders.  After learning the niceties of Roman military organization, these German ruffians turned their arms around and undermined the Empire.

Centuries earlier, conquerors, such as Caesar and Pompey, had used armies in their pay to cease control of the Republic.  Soldiers, loyal to them and not the central government, were only too happy to set their leaders up as dictators.

 Mercenaries also have a nasty habit of ravaging the lands they occupy.  Because much of their income derives from pillage, they habitually rape, murder and steal.  Sometimes at the behest of their generals, but often as freelancers, they plunder the communities at their mercy.

O’Reilly seems to believe that modern mercenaries can be controlled by a democratic officer corps.  American captains and colonels, because they are presumably subsidiary to civilian leadership, would routinely do the bidding of the politicians who sent them into battle.

This is utopian thinking.  Any band of condotteiri that is strong enough to defeat a worldwide scourge is also strong enough to defy their pusillanimous civilian bosses.  Their officers would have the clout to do what they wanted, irrespective of what their alleged bosses desired.

One of the great accomplishments of the modern era has been the evolution of civilian armies.  During the Middle Ages, most fighting was done by aristocrats.  Nevertheless these professional knights fought primarily for themselves.  They conquered territories so that they could rule over them.

Ordinary peasants might be conscripted at the point of a sword, but they did not fight for the sake of the nation.  Not patriotism, but fear of their leaders kept them in arms.

The modern nation state, led by figures like Napoleon Bonaparte, changed this.  Ordinary people came to believe that the government served their interests and hence if it succeeded, they succeeded.  This is how the nationalism that we take for granted was born.

Because of it, millions of men and women could be mobilized to fight in the two world wars.  They did not relish the idea of combat, yet they put their lives on the line to defend their countries.  As a result, these heroes are still admired.

The fact is that if we hope to defeat Islamic terror, we must resurrect such patriotism.  Civilian solders, even if they are professional volunteers, need to identify with the interests of their nation.  They must be prepared to fight for it, rather than themselves.

We can continue to have some mercenaries—indeed we do.  Today we call them contractors and they have guarded places like the Benghazi CIA Annex.  But they are always small in number and an auxiliary to civilian forces.

The Romans taught us an important lesson.  A people who are not prepared to defend their freedom, lose it.  Those, who, out of a misguided tolerance and/or a desire for absolute peace, refuse to fight, inadvertently throw away their heritage.  Enfeebled by luxuries and arrogant in their power, they smugly squander hard-won liberties.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Patriotism

Last week, when my wife and I were visiting Savannah, we happened upon a ceremony honoring America’s POW/MIAs.  A brass band played, a color guard marched, a bevy of officers and NCO’s stood at attention, and a Viet Nam vet who lost three of his limbs gave an inspiring speech under the live oak trees.

Afterwards I remarked at how extraordinary Southern patriotism is.  That a part of the country, which once was in rebellion against the Union, is now so effusive in our nation’s support is surely a phenomenon.

  But why not!  This is a wonderful country!  Which got me to thinking about patriotism in general.  As Linda and I were discussing it over breakfast, I recalled my attitude when in High School.  Back then I was a socialist who favored a single world government.

My outlook then was similar to Barak Obama’s now.  I had concluded that people all around the globe were equally human and therefore equally deserving of my respect.  No one was exceptional and hence everyone was worthy of the same respect.  Why was the United States entitled to anything better?

Well, now I have an answer.  Patriotism consists of two parts.  The first entails protecting our homeland from harm.  The second applies to embracing the traditions for which it stands.  Together these affirm FDR’s D-Day speech lauding the nobility of our cause.

As to the first: If we do not protect our shores, who will?  Nevertheless by our shores, I do not mean a string of forts at water’s edge.  An adequate defense can, as the circumstances dictate, be a forward defense.  This means being willing to destroy ISIS in the Levant before it arrives here.

According to this standard, Barack Obama is not a patriot.  He is doing as little as he possibly can to counteract the radical Islamist threat.  Worse yet, he has been prodded into this by political considerations.  Instead of looking to promote our needs, he is focused on this own.

As to the second aspect of patriotism, America may not be perfect, but it is the land of democracy and freedom.  Despite its flaws, it pioneered government of, by, and for the people and has defended it around the globe.  In this regard, we are exceptional.

The belief of multiculturalists, such as Obama, that all cultures are equally valid is absurd.  ISIS cuts off heads.  ISIS stones adulterers.  It took Western civilization centuries to develop the tolerance that is our hallmark.  Do we now wish to deny it because others disagree?

Tolerance allows people to be themselves and to take pride in who they are.  But it does not countenance every sort of conduct.  It must not abide a neo-Nazi determination to kill anyone other than their kind, nor sit idly by when innocents are forced into slavery and degradation.

Genuine tolerance must honor and defend itself or it ceases to be.  The United States has been a melting pot that assimilated peoples of all colors and creeds.  It did so, in part, by respecting their traditions and also, in part, by insisting that they adopt our democratic values.

I find this utterly admirable and embrace this stance as my own.  I am grateful that so many other people have been willing to put their lives on the line to safeguard it.

The progressives want to change America.  I don’t!  I want to improve and build upon it: I don’t want to throw away our glorious heritage!

Capitalism made us rich and free.  Democracy provided dignity and opportunity for millions.  Why would we want to trade these in just so that we can pay deference someone else’s half-baked traditions?

Let me add one more thing.  Freedom and democracy presuppose individual and collective responsibility.  True patriots are not so permissive that they allow anyone to do anything.  True patriots put in the effort to defend our borders and to live up to the standards we proclaim.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University