View Full Version : Suicide of the West? - Thomas Sowell
Posted today on FrontPage Magazine:
Suicide of the West?
By: Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Britain's release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi— the Libyan terrorist whose bomb blew up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 270 people— is galling enough in itself. But it is even more profoundly troubling as a sign of a larger mood that has been growing in the Western democracies in our time.
In ways large and small, domestically and internationally, the West is surrendering on the installment plan to Islamic extremists.
The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put his finger on the problem when he said: "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles."
He wrote this long before Barack Obama became President of the United States. But this administration epitomizes the "concessions and smiles" approach to countries that are our implacable enemies.
Western Europe has gone down that path before us but we now seem to be trying to catch up.
Still, the release of a mass-murdering terrorist, who went home to a hero's welcome in Libya, shows that President Obama is not the only one who wants to move away from the idea of a "war on terror"— as if that will stop the terrorists' war on us.
The ostensible reason for releasing al-Megrahi was compassion for a man terminally ill. It is ironic that this was said in Scotland, for exactly 250 years ago another Scotsman— Adam Smith— said, "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."
That lesson seems to have been forgotten in America as well, where so many people seem to have been far more concerned about whether we have been nice enough to the mass-murdering terrorists in our custody than those critics have ever been about the innocent people beheaded or blown up by the terrorists themselves.
Tragically, those with this strange inversion of values include the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder. Although President Obama has said that he does not want to revisit the past, this is only the latest example of how his administration's actions are the direct opposite of his lofty words.
It is not just a question of looking backward.
The decision to second-guess CIA agents who extracted information to save American lives is even worse when you look forward.
Years from now, long after Barack Obama is gone, CIA agents dealing with hardened terrorists will have to worry about whether what they do to get information out of them to save American lives will make these agents themselves liable to prosecution that can destroy their careers and ruin their lives.
This is not simply an injustice to those who have tried to keep this country safe, it is a danger recklessly imposed on future Americans whose safety cannot always be guaranteed by sweet and gentle measures against hardened murderers.
Those who are pushing for legal action against CIA agents may talk about "upholding the law" but they are doing no such thing. Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the Geneva Convention gives rights to terrorists who operate outside the law.
There was a time when everybody understood this. German soldiers who put on American military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge were simply lined up against a wall and shot— and nobody wrung their hands over it. Nor did the U.S. Army try to conceal what they had done. The executions were filmed and the film has been shown on the History Channel.
So many "rights" have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don't meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn't protect you. If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed to American citizens do not apply to you.
That should be especially obvious if you are part of an international network bent on killing Americans. But bending over backward to be nice to our enemies is one of the many self-indulgences of those who engage in moral preening.
But getting other people killed so that you can feel puffed up about yourself is profoundly immoral. So is betraying the country you took an oath to protect.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36162
"If you don't meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn't protect you. If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed to American citizens do not apply to you."
Article 4A Part 2 of Covention III covering P.O.W. treatment:
...(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
I'm no genius, but that right there say's they met the terms. So since they operated outside of the Convention, we did also. Anyone with 5 minutes and a brain could see that. Why then all the cries of "unfair treatment" and "torture" of these terrorists from our own people? At least some people get it. Thanks for the article SF-TX.
The decision to second-guess CIA agents who extracted information to save American lives is even worse when you look forward.
Years from now, long after Barack Obama is gone, CIA agents dealing with hardened terrorists will have to worry about whether what they do to get information out of them to save American lives will make these agents themselves liable to prosecution that can destroy their careers and ruin their lives.
This is not simply an injustice to those who have tried to keep this country safe, it is a danger recklessly imposed on future Americans whose safety cannot always be guaranteed by sweet and gentle measures against hardened murderers.
<snip>
So - as I read the arguments - the CIA (or specific individuals associated with the CIA on a case-by-case basis) should never have to consider being held accountable if they decide to operate outside the laws by which the rest of us - including OBTW the DOD - operate? :confused:
I generally enjoy economist Thomas Sowell's opinions - however, I think his arguments, as he makes them here, are dangerously flawed and misleading - and, therfore, disagree with his stated position. I - for one - do not desire to see a resurrection of the policies of The Inquisition (http://galileo.rice.edu/chr/inquisition.html).
Richard's $.02 :munchin
....... I - for one - do not desire to see a resurrection of the policies of The Inquisition (http://galileo.rice.edu/chr/inquisition.html).
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I disagree.
I think nothing we did ever came close to The Inquisition and for you to try and support your position by linking the two is a bit of hyperbole. Maybe you should have used pink.
I disagree.
I think nothing we did ever came close to The Inquisition and for you to try and support your position by linking the two is a bit of hyperbole. Maybe you should have used pink.
I did not infer we (those in service to our nation) did - just to consider where such thinking has led others in the past. My point was to go beyond the current pop acceptability of such an argument as presented by Professor Sowell and point out a historically relevant consequence. So, I'd argue that yes, nothing we've done comes close to the actions of The Inquisition - yet - but maybe so should have Mr Sowell in his hyperbolic thinly disguised swipe at the POTUS. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
...Professor Sowell and point out a historically relevant consequence. So, I'd argue that yes, nothing we've done comes close to the actions of The Inquisition - yet - but maybe so should have Mr Sowell in his hyperbolic thinly disguised swipe at the POTUS. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
You need to reread what he wrote. I see him pointing out that what the CIA did was legal under the orders and guidence they were given by the government at the time they did the actions.
So now in the future the CIA is given new guidence and gets a new high value individual. How they use the new techniques available - of don't use because of fear of a later investigation - will be based on what Holder does now.
Just another symptom of a disease. Hopefully, Darwinism, Marxianism, and Freudianism under the banner of liberalism is running its last course. People, 50 years from now, will look back and wonder how we didn't see the freight train that's coming.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/24/us.terror.interrogations/index.html
Top prosecutor orders probe into interrogations; Obama shifts onus
updated 11:18 p.m. EDT, Mon August 24, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General Eric Holder has asked federal prosecutor John Durham to examine whether CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists were illegal, the Justice Department announced Monday.
The move came as senior administration officials said President Obama had OK'd a special interrogation unit to be housed within the FBI, and as a redacted CIA inspector general's report on interrogation methods was made public for the first time.
Durham has been investigating the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes since January 2008. He was initially appointed to do so by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
Holder said he decided to expand Durham's mandate after examining reports from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility as well as a classified version of the 2004 CIA inspector general's report into questionable interrogation techniques, among other documents.
"As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations," Holder said in a written statement.
He said he recognizes his decision to open the investigation "will be controversial," and he reiterated earlier statements that there would be no prosecutions of CIA personnel "who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by" Bush administration lawyers.
"This preliminary review will not focus on those individuals," he said. He did not specify a focus for Durham's investigation.
So, as I understand it, they will be prosecuting either those that gave the legal guidance - if it turns out the guidance was not legal - or those interrogators that basically took the law into their own hands and used interrogation techniques that were not ok'd by the Bush administration lawyers. I don't see a problem with that.
MOO - I agree that those identified through both internal and external reviews of the record who went beyond the orders and guidance merit prosecution.
Lost in the smoke of whether or not those who exceeded orders and guidance regarding interrogations should be prosecuted, however, seems to be the ramifications of the newly created High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which will be overseen by the Naitonal Security Council. This is a matter of greater concern to me as it will now link any interrogation undertaken on behalf of our nation directly to the White House - a dangerous and unnecessary precedent I would think. :confused:
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I suspect that the West is committing suicide due to its deep belief that it is strong relative to those on the other side. Such terms as asymmetric warfare hint at a strong side and a weak one; more dangerous is the term "last super power", again implying a very strong side engaged in battle with a weaker opponent.
Notice how the western cultural standards of "fairness" and "compassion" are easily invoked once the stage has been set. People can look at the CIA and its employees and regard them as part of the strong side. They then look at the terrorists - scruffy, unbathed, and with nothing clean except their weapon (with a tip of the hat to NDD) - and perceive them as weak. So the logic suggests to them that the West should be forbearant, forgiving, long-suffering, and so on.
But let us question the underlying and unspoken assumption. What if we aren't nearly as strong as we think we are? What if the glittering facade is supported by a vulnerable and fragile structure? And what if the structure is getting weaker by the day? Furthermore, what if the other side is not weak, but rather is strong? It is said that demographics is destiny; if this is so, then the Islamic terrorists may be on the stronger side of a demographic tidal wave.
Yes, I know. The above is heresy.
Let's consider North Yemen. It has 23,000,000 people, and its growth suggests it will double in size in a mere 21 years. The unemployment rate is 35%. LINK (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ym.html). This suggests a flow of hopeless, desperate people to the madrassas - the same kind as in Pakistan that produce lots of terrorists. And Yemen is by no means unique in its demographic profile.
So - The terrorists have a large and growing number of willing recruits, which they can field at low cost, and which can be used to inflict damage to Western interests and injury to U.S. forces.
And does the West have an embedded population of radical Islamics who can function within Western society - and are both able and willing to injure Western interests, and to damage infrastructure? I suspect so, although I cannot prove it. I will leave that determination to other, wiser heads.
Is the West really stronger? The West that must go, hat in hand, to China to borrow money? The West that must import so much oil from the Middle East - and pay their price, which they use to fund those same madrassas alluded to earlier? The West that imports younger workers, some from the Middle East, as their own population ages?
As we speak of prosecuting the CIA agents - or, for that matter, avoiding the actions of the inquisition - I suggest careful reflection on the events in Beslan, Russia 5 years ago. Those events suggest that the West may not be nearly as strong as we might prefer to believe.
In my opinion - the West faces further economic challenges which will result in more weakness. We might wish to consider just how our enemies will act as this develops.
Rhetorical question - one purely for self-reflection. How far should we go to prevent an American Beslan?
Dozer523
09-03-2009, 10:55
You need to reread what he wrote. I see him pointing out that what the CIA did was legal under the orders and guidence they were given by the government at the time they did the actions.
It would be a tragic mistake to confuse "legal" and "orders and guidance given". Makes me almost want to say it with a German accent.
What the CIA did may or may not have been legal. That is what the inquiry is to determine.
If the answer is "no" then the questions become 1)were the "orders and guidance given" legal and/or 2) did the CIA go beyond the scope of their mandate.
If those actions were illegal someone is accoutable for them. And Nuremburg shows, accoutability begins at the individual level.
greenberetTFS
09-03-2009, 11:39
The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put his finger on the problem when he said: "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles." :(:(:(
I don't think another word need be said,that's all there is,there is no more.....
Big Teddy :munchin
The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put his finger on the problem when he said: "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles."
I don't think another word need be said, that's all there is, there is no more...
FWIW - he was talking about 'communism' in general and the Soviet Union in particular - now the former Soviet Union and which eventually fell to the ideological tenacity of the West. Solzhenitsyn was a Russian whose thinking was limited by his native point-of-view, and who sorely misjudged the understated tenacity of progressive Western culture and its practicioners. Others are - IMO - now making similar mistakes by consistently under-estimating the strengths of Western culture while pedantically over-rating those of its enemies in the current struggle with yet another totalitarian ideology.
So what's your point? :confused:
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
greenberetTFS
09-03-2009, 12:25
FWIW - he was talking about 'communism' in general and the Soviet Union in particular - now the former Soviet Union and which eventually fell to the ideological tenacity of the West. Solzhenitsyn was a Russian whose thinking was limited by his native point-of-view, and who sorely misjudged the understated tenacity of progressive Western culture and its practicioners. Others are - IMO - now making similar mistakes by consistently under-estimating the strengths of Western culture while pedantically over-rating those of its enemies in the current struggle with yet another totalitarian ideology.
So what's your point?
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02
Richard,I can't go "one on one" with you,I wouldn't even try.....:rolleyes: However,my point is this,we are giving in constantly to the Islamists and even if he was referencing communism,I believe it applies to what's happening in America today..... :mad: We've got to stop it and reverse what's going on in our Country right now..............:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
now the former Soviet Union and which eventually fell to the ideological tenacity of the West.
Did they fall due to our tenacity - or because we were stronger than they were economically, and hence were able to drive them into societal bankruptcy?
And our economic position today...is it strong? Or is that $11+ trillion national debt suggestive of a problem?
ArmyStrong
09-03-2009, 13:17
Lost in the smoke of whether or not those who exceeded orders and guidance regarding interrogations should be prosecuted, however, seems to be the ramifications of the newly created High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which will be overseen by the Naitonal Security Council. This is a matter of greater concern to me as it will now link any interrogation undertaken on behalf of our nation directly to the White House - a dangerous and unnecessary precedent I would think. :confused:
I think you hit the nail on the head here, Sir. The POTUS is not a dumb person, he has to see the dangers involved in creating an interrogation group that he has no way of distancing himself from if need be. :eek::confused:
Maybe he plans on giving another speech at Cairo U. and then we can put all of this terrorism nastiness behind us.:rolleyes:
MOO, Professor Sowell's editorial provided in the OP does not represent the man's best work. Not the least because he uses a deeply flawed interpretation of historical events to forecast the future.
Just another symptom of a disease. Hopefully, Darwinism, Marxianism, and Freudianism under the banner of liberalism is running its last course. People, 50 years from now, will look back and wonder how we didn't see the freight train that's coming.
Given whom you quote in your signature and your interesting thumbnail of the intellectual history of modernity, I don't look forward to the future you would like to see.
What if we aren't nearly as strong as we think we are? What if the glittering facade is supported by a vulnerable and fragile structure? And what if the structure is getting weaker by the day? nmap--
Perhaps unintentionally, you're presenting a model of the West that mirrors Marxist theory of a base and a superstructure where the latter is dependent upon the efficacy and durability of the former. IMO, I believe the architecture works the other way around. The great strength of the West is not the base (economic factors) but the superstructure (cultural forces) itself.
It took Rome many, many years to fall - but fall it did.
A person living in any of it's time periods would think the actions of that small snapshot in time were normal - "This is the way things are."
But we looking back over the distance of time can see the rise and the fall.
England of 1840 is not the England of 2009. It has also passed it's peak.
So what about us? Is civilization and the west moving forward or are the barbarians sneaking through cracks in the walls and setting up shops in the town square?
A great many of us will still be alive in 20 years. It will be interesting to see how Europe is then. One side in this thread will be wrong and one will be right.
I sure hope and pray I'm on the wrong side but I fear I'm not.
It took Rome many, many years to fall - but fall it did.
Rome - the empire - fell, but Roman culture has continued to survive {in the form of the more modern Italian society} and influence Western culture.
England of 1840 is not the England of 2009. It has also passed it's peak.
The same is true of England...whose 'peak' may not have 'passed' but may yet be to come.
So what about us? Is civilization and the west moving forward or are the barbarians sneaking through cracks in the walls and setting up shops in the town square? A great many of us will still be alive in 20 years. It will be interesting to see how Europe is then.
West/Europe vs Barbarians
Such an orientalist approach to this issue can be - IMO - dangerously self-limiting by lending itself to excluding the historical evidence and on-going complexity of the cultural dynamics involved amongst the myriad global players in our futures.
I sure hope and pray I'm on the wrong side but I fear I'm not.
And why must we only seek to limit ourselves to there only being two sides (ala a line in the sand approach) to such a dynamically complex situation? :confused:
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
mojaveman
09-04-2009, 05:30
It took Rome many, many years to fall - but fall it did.
A person living in any of it's time periods would think the actions of that small snapshot in time were normal - "This is the way things are."
But we looking back over the distance of time can see the rise and the fall.
England of 1840 is not the England of 2009. It has also passed it's peak.
So what about us? Is civilization and the west moving forward or are the barbarians sneaking through cracks in the walls and setting up shops in the town square?
A great many of us will still be alive in 20 years. It will be interesting to see how Europe is then. One side in this thread will be wrong and one will be right.
I sure hope and pray I'm on the wrong side but I fear I'm not.
Interesting observations Pete.
When studying Roman and American civilization you will see many similarities. The Barbarians that eventually brought down the Roman Empire around 475 AD did so after they slowly integrated themselves into the society. Their were many sophisticated people in the Empire who could see what was going on but by that time the Romans had already lost the will to take the actions that would have been necessary for their survival. The main enemies that began the slow decline though were the leaders and citizens themselves.
Why must we only seek to limit ourselves to there only being two sides to such a dynamically complex situation? :confused:
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Because one side in all this believes there is only "my way or the highway".
The west can live in peace with Islam while Islam (now) will never rest until it is the only religion on this planet.
longrange1947
09-04-2009, 08:18
Pete - agree, Islam is their way thus one side of a coin with the other side being non Islamic. Now "our side" of the coin has many facets as Richard stated, problem is that the other side gives a rat's ass about the many facets and only believes in their side.
No matter how open minded we are, or like to believe we are, we are up against a group that is solidly closed minded and is using our open mindedness against us.
I am tired of hearing about taking the "high road" and we must not lower ourselves to whatever level. Hell, we are on the higher road as we do not slit people's throats and we do not use civilians as shields. We splash a little water in someone's face and we make them stand for a few hours while firing a gun in the next room. To equate the two is ludicrous and shows just how far we have traveled down the road to losing.
So yes, two sides of a coin, one side BS and the other side multifaceted. I pick the multifaceted side. But I will be damned if I will go quietly into the night with idiots squealing how we must be kinder and gentler and use only a "reasonable force" and "proportional response". The other side gets to do a lot of damage before any real harm is done to them that way.
Sorry rant off.
Selective anachromism is always a course of action to be considered.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
nmap--
Perhaps unintentionally, you're presenting a model of the West that mirrors Marxist theory of a base and a superstructure where the latter is dependent upon the efficacy and durability of the former. IMO, I believe the architecture works the other way around. The great strength of the West is not the base (economic factors) but the superstructure (cultural forces) itself.
Interesting. I don't know much about Marx or his theories.
My view is, perhaps, more direct (and simplistic?) than that. Our culture is not static; in fact, the changes I have personally witnessed have been (IMO!) profound. I am not at all sure that something in such flux is a dependable source of strength.
Rather, I regard economic forces as determinants of resource allocation. A declining economy will tend to put downward pressure on the number of beans and bullets available to the military. Although a society can expand the portion directed to a particular effort, limits remain.
Now as we look at the various countries that supply resources (human and otherwise) to the terrorists, then we might note that individual terrorists seem cheap. One feeds them a little, hands them a rifle and some ammo, points them westward (figuratively speaking) and tells them to go kill something. The out-of-pocket seems relatively small. (If I'm in error on this, I welcome correction.)
On the other hand, the cost to place an American soldier in the field seems high in comparison. There is a discussion on a VFW site that mentions a CBO study to the effect that putting an E5 in the field costs about $500,000 per year. ( LINK (http://www.vfwwebcom.org/forum/index.php?topic=3838.0) ).
Could we as a society shortchange our soldiers in the field? While such a course is morally and ethically wrong, it has been done. The cost is likely to include reduced effectiveness and increased casualties. It seems like a bad idea.
But - and here's the problem - if we have a difficult economic picture with hard choices all around, will we (can we?) support the current effort? (That's a rhetorical question, BTW).
So...if we cannot afford to sustain our present way of doing things, then it may become necessary to use a harsher, less costly approach. A great many people will object on moral and ethical grounds. And yet, the alternative may well be defeat.
Streck-Fu
09-04-2009, 11:49
When I read Mr. Sowell's article, my first thought was that the CIA investigation looks a lot like political payback for the Pelosi/CIA feud.
I cannot intelligently comment on the specific practices of those who conducted interrogations but this public bickering and blame game only weakens the ability of those whom are charged with gathering the intelligence.
If some, overstepped their defined limits, so be it. Take appropriate actions behind the curtain and not on the public stage to be used a political gotcha.
Surgicalcric
09-04-2009, 13:50
anachromism...
In English Richard, English... :D
Crip
greenberetTFS
09-04-2009, 14:52
Pete - agree, Islam is their way thus one side of a coin with the other side being non Islamic. Now "our side" of the coin has many facets as Richard stated, problem is that the other side gives a rat's ass about the many facets and only believes in their side.
No matter how open minded we are, or like to believe we are, we are up against a group that is solidly closed minded and is using our open mindedness against us.
I am tired of hearing about taking the "high road" and we must not lower ourselves to whatever level. Hell, we are on the higher road as we do not slit people's throats and we do not use civilians as shields. We splash a little water in someone's face and we make them stand for a few hours while firing a gun in the next room. To equate the two is ludicrous and shows just how far we have traveled down the road to losing.
So yes, two sides of a coin, one side BS and the other side multifaceted. I pick the multifaceted side. But I will be damned if I will go quietly into the night with idiots squealing how we must be kinder and gentler and use only a "reasonable force" and "proportional response". The other side gets to do a lot of damage before any real harm is done to them that way.
Sorry rant off.
Excellent response.................;););)
Big Teddy :munchin
longrange1947
09-04-2009, 17:12
Selective anachromism is always a course of action to be considered.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Is the coin out of place or the facets, or the torture?
Inquiring minds, mine, want to know. :confused: