[lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:42:45 -0000
"Defeat is always worse than any terrible policy that engenders it.
Defeat leads to even more terrible policies, and ever more defeatist
sentiment."
The US invades France because it doesn't like buying French Fries. Bad
policy for sure but Eric's notion of patriotism means that Americans would
have to support the war. Sensible?
Germany kills six million jews because of a racist dictatorship. Bad policy
for sure but...etc.
Where does it stop Eric?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Yost" <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 5:02 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
>>I'm not sure whether Brian agrees with Zinn or Hitchens. But it
doesn't matter.
Sure it matters. It matters because a nation is not insulated from its
defeat. Defeat is never good. Our post-Vietnam defeatist generation may
think that it's good for a terrible policy to be defeated, for the troops
to come home defeated, and for the population to realize they were
complicit in a defeated terrible policy. (As though in some fantasy we
could all sing peace songs together and realize the errors of our ways and
live happily ever after.)
Defeat is always worse than any terrible policy that engenders it. Defeat
leads to even more terrible policies, and ever more defeatist sentiment.
What Lawrence refers to as leftism is basically what I referred to as
"suburban nihilism." a belief in nothing that also believes itself immune
from defeat. As though the water will always run and the electricity will
always be on, the government will always be guilty and wrong, and the
"enlightened" people who dispose of what the "unenlightened" propose will
always be secure enough to do so.
Defeat always makes things worse. The inept policies of Carter for example
(who George McGovern called the worst President of his lifetime) were
born of the defeat of Vietnam.
So the real issue is not leftist or suburban nihilist per se, but the
consequences of defeat, our attitude toward defeat. Should we have gone
into Iraq? That question matters less than our attitude toward defeat.
It's a larger question than whether the neo-con agenda was stupid and
cruel. It's a larger question than whether we can pompously and
self-righteously moralize over prosecution of our elected leaders.
When and if China becomes the new global hegemon, I doubt there will be
such masochist scruples in Beijing. By then, of course, we may have
grasped the significance of defeat, and our whiny little voices full of
moral outrage will be our only defense against our failure. Toy dogs
snapping at the ankles of power.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: