April 11, 2004

Conflict in the Middle East

Can there be peace without Israel destroying its Arab enemies?

Hanson: It need not destroy its Arab enemies, simply destroy the idea entertained by some of them that they can end Israel—a policy of course that suggests ruin to those who won’t give that impossible dream up.

How much responsibility should the administration shoulder publicly for miscalculations (i.e. the presence of WMDs and oil money helping pay the bill), since it could potentially cost them the election and damn the entire enterprise?

Hanson: The mistake was privileging WMD over other—and better—casus belli: holocausts, violations of armistice and UN agreements, assassination attempts against a US president, terrorist sanctuary, ties to the first 1993 bombing, al Qaedists in Kurdistan, attacks on neighbors, in addition to many others, from environmental catastrophes to bounties for suicide bombers.

Do you really think that any of the US's efforts -- in the Middle East, North Africa and everywhere else that Islamic fundamentalism is growing -- can be effective when those cultures remain tribal and patriarchal? 

Hanson: Yes, if we do not let our enemies define the parameters of what we must do: they seem with impunity to attack at Christmas or Easter, storm the Church of the Nativity, and shoot missionaries—only to whine that Ramadan must be war-free, mosques are sanctuaries for killers, and holy-men like Sadr and Yassin can be killers as well. We need to ignore what they say and watch what they do—and then worry more what we are going to do to them rather than they to us.

Arab intelligentsia has been extremely successful at creating propaganda that Western society has largely accepted as true.  In light of your article on the nature of Middle Eastern society, how do you explain this?

Hanson: Most Arab anti-Americanism is learned in Europe by grandees who would never enjoy such freedom of expression in any of their home countries. But it would not have such a rich reception if there were not millions of guilt-ridden elites here who feel contrite over their blessings and deem apologies on the cheap and anti-Americanism earn them psychic rewards.

What happens if the Islamic fundamentalists kill Musharraf?  Do you know of any steps being taken by the government to deal with this? 

Hanson: We have contingency plans. But remember the Islamicists are dealing with a nuclear India on their border that will not put up with any nonsense. And there are other Westernizers in Pakistan who don’t wish to turn over the country to the madrassas quite yet.

What do you see as the possible outcome to Al Qaeda’s assault on civilization?

Hanson: They are losing, and losing badly. It may remind Westerners in their 11^th hour that we are not at the end of the history, and there are still more dangerous things on the horizon than gas-guzzling SUVS, too many Wal-Marts, and American television.

What do you mean by reactionary Buddhism?

Hanson: I’m not sure in which context you are referring. But throughout the 1930s a group of reactionary fanatics in Japan were able to hijack Buddhism and embed a war-loving Shintoism/Bushidoism strain into it, quite unlike its true essence.

Would you address what would happen if we "surrendered" to Al Qaeda - pulled out of the Middle East, and stopped supporting Israel?

Hanson: Armageddon as we know:  Routine bombings the world over, an emasculated Europe selling horrific weapons in exchange for limited petroleum, Theocracy or Lebanization in even more countries, he Persian Gulf Sea lanes and other choke points near piratical, an Islamicist Pakistan or Iran choosing to take out Israel with nukes and quite willing to lose 1/2 of its population in the bargain. Pretty awful stuff.

Given the enormity of the task of leading the Western world to confront and defeat Arab-Islamic fanaticism and barbarism, how can American leaders muster the public support necessary over the years, maybe decades, which this effort will require?

Hanson: It requires eloquence and vision and some bipartisanship. For example, Bush might grimace and say that he is going to accept mileage standards for SUVs but expects from the Democrats the right to drill carefully in the Arctic Circle, or he might cut back on tax cuts—if the Democrats cap all public spending. We need public sacrifice, far more troops, and far less restriction on US reactions. Perhaps another 300,000 troops in the area are required and both Iran and Syria should be put on notice that anymore overt aid to killers in Iraq will earn them the bombing of all their conventional military assets.

Are the people of Iraq capable of forming a secular democratic government, or is a non-secular Shiite republic inevitable?

Hanson: I think so. But only if we can establish the precedent that any outlaw with his own gang who tries to ride in and take over town faces destruction.

Is it an unusual expectation that Israel should return land taken in a war started by her enemies? Is there any historical precedent by the UN, or its predecessor(s), or individual countries, which has ever required a nation victorious in a defensive battle to return occupied land to its attackers?

Hanson: Very rarely—look at Cyprus or the Sakklin islands. Germany never got back 10% of its eastern territory with Poland. And then of course there is Tibet which the world yawns at. But factor in anti-Semitism, oil, fear of terrorism, and the postcolonial guilt of Western elites and you have the perfect calculus for hating Israel.

Europe

What should the US do with Europe?

Hanson: I wrote about this recently and have about 8-9 articles in National Review, National Review Online, City Journal, and Commentary. They are friends and fellow Westerners who right now are very much in trouble. Their socialist utopia is unsustainable, their military is in shambles, and their immigrants are not assimilating—and they have almost ruined public support for their cause in the United States through cheap anti-Americanism that finally filtered down to places like Fresno.

It seems that the mainstream liberal media is finally waking up to the obvious threat to European civilization and its left-wing, post-Christian society posed by mass immigration from Arab countries.  Do you believe we are beginning to see a change toward this view from the mainstream media? Do you see this trend continuing?  What do you see as the reasons for this change of heart – i.e. maybe mass immigration of Islamic fundamentalism is not such a brilliant idea?

Hanson: Yes, Holland and some of Scandinavia are now paranoid. So it is a race between European sobriety and the exploding population of Muslim immigrants who too often interpret the magnanimity shown them by Europeans as weakness and decadence. But even Europeans finally grow tired of ingratitude.

What is your opinion as to the odds of Russia and the United States becoming allies?  And what do think would be the geopolitical and cultural advantages/disadvantages?

Hanson: I think we are seeing a return to that as we did in the 19^th century. India as well. Both are large, democratic nuclear countries who are far more worried about Islamicists than we are, and see the United States as a powerful comrade rather than like the Europeans simply an object of envy and jealousy.

Historical Questions

Given the liberal surrender conditions for soldiers at Appomattox and Grant’s common appearance in a private’s attire, what is your opinion of General Grant and his military career?

Hanson: I am a fan of both Grant and Sherman. They were failures in civilian life for the very reasons they excelled in war—unwillingness to listen to the status quo, unease with empty protocol, suspicious of toadies and obsequious careerists, and utter willingness to follow through with action on what they sensed was right. Americans like larger than life men like that who distrust conventional wisdom and are often right on the edge.

I am curious if you've ever read T.R. Fehrenbach, and if so, what is your opinion of his work?

Hanson: I haven’t really.

 You mentioned several authors who are not only great writers, but also good historians. John Keegan and Martin Gilbert were two.  Who were the others?

Hanson: I like both Donald Kagan and Steven Ozment. And James McPherson’s civil war histories are well written as well. More and more I read Churchill, Gibbon, and Prescott just to marvel at the prose and the conviction—not an academic teaching in any graduate school in America could write anything like their prose.