May 5, 2004
Response to Readership

Current Affairs

Setting aside the pernicious ideologies of multiculturalism and diversity do you see a danger in a prolonged occupation of Iraq? Might our troops "go native" bringing back to the US the love of despotism so common in the Middle East? Furthermore, might our soldiers, or some significant percentage, be converted to Islam?

I doubt it very seriously. It seems far more likely that Western popular culture and rampant freedom will challenge Islamicists more than their creed will seduce us.

Recently, Arabs of the Galilee have been calling for "Cultural Autonomy." What will be next, physical autonomy followed by their "Intifada"?

But isn’t that parlor talk? Sharon has already asked such Arab nationalists on the border to cut out their towns from pre-1967 Israeli soil and join their brethren—earning him the charge of an apartheidist. I gave up on the Orwellian world of the Palestinians—murdering a pregnant woman and her four daughters is the same in their mind to taking out a mass murderer; they want Gaza, but someone else to supply its electricity; they hate the fence partly because they cannot get into the Zionist entity. They have been enabled by a guilt-ridden West, a cynical Arab world who uses their misery to avoid reform, and a corrupt UN that hates Israel. Tough love—the fence, a cut-off in American aid and diplomatic relations, a ban on all travel there, only such acts will prompt change over there and weaken radicals. We should assume that Arafat is like Assad, and the West Bank like a Syria—and thus keep away from both until they, not us, change.

Is Iraq headed down the same path as Lebanon, or is the government just playing their cards close to the vest?

Hanson: They are at a tennis match watching us and the terrorists volley, wondering when to clap and for which side—a decision that awaits who is certain to win. Crush the terrorists and the government will be prancing around television studios in eagerness to claim their eagerness to rule.

Do you agree with the concept of limiting collateral damage in Iraq?

Hanson: In principle, of course; but when you have NGOs and the UN sending in lists of off-limits targets in Iraq before the war even started, you might just send mixed messages that we are predictable and tentative, rather than crazy and unpredictable—not good at all in a war. There are older tragic rules of war that the new postmodern, globalized protocols sometimes don’t take account of.

Setting aside the pernicious ideologies of multiculturalism and diversity do you see a danger in a prolonged occupation of Iraq? Might our troops "go native" bringing back to the US the love of despotism so common in the Middle East. Furthermore, might our soldiers, or some significant percentage, be converted to Islam?

Hanson: I doubt it very seriously. It seems far more likely that Western popular culture and rampant freedom will challenge Islamicists more than their creed will seduce us.

Do you think Paul Volcker, lacking subpoena power, would be well advised to release to the world press each request he makes for information and documents at the time the request is made? And, following a reasonable time for response, to post to the world press the failure of the UN and/or certain of its member nations to provide the information requested--as such be the case?  And identifying any lack of substance in purported responses--as might be fitting?

Hanson: But the UN has no moral consensus, given the nature of its membership. It is a gang of sorts only as good as its worst member. What you mention is salutary, but entirely for American consumption—a valuable process that should help us make up our minds about our future with the UN.

Recent visits to the Hadrian and Antonine Walls brought to mind the strategic challenge of dealing with foes whose destructive capacities far outweigh their productivity or the value of their territory. Rome's capacity to effectively destroy (averaged over centuries) was not all that much greater than its Caledonian adversaries. Might we see a return to firmer, fiercer frontiers as the modern destructive abilities of individuals climb dramatically (cf. Yale economist Martin Shubik's "socioeconomics of death" curve) and effective broad defensive capacity dwindles? The historical parallels seem sobering.

Hanson: Yes, we are faced with a new parasitism that will require new vigilance against those who both hate and desire the West, who wish to live here and then kill us for the contrary emotions we inspire; or who wish our imported weapons to destroy us, or who seek to interpret our liberality as vulnerability if not decadence. We are in for a pretty wild ride, and let us hope that our 10-12 year olds who will be called within a decade to win this long war prove to be a different generation than my own that pretty much created the present mess.

It seems ironic that the war, if issued on sophisticated, geopolitical strategy in the Middle East, comes from a Bush administration that some argue rules from gut instincts and an uncurious mind. Will you comment on this irony?

But doesn’t that irony assume that (1) Bush is somehow uncurious (he, not Al Gore, finished his Ivy League post graduate work); (2) that a gut instinct about what is wrong with the Middle East is always less reliable than a PhD in Middle Eastern studies from a major elite university?

Do you think the anti-War movement and the anti-Israel movement are inextricably linked?

They sure are now. There have been many who wanted a safe cover to caricature Israel for a variety of reasons. Attacking George Bush and claiming pacifism are more respectable platforms from which to denigrate Israel than the old complaining about fluoride in the water and a worldwide cabal of bankers.

Will you compare and contrast our strategic position in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere vis-a-vis Islam with the situation faced by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours and Poitiers in 732 AD?

That would require an entire book! But I see your drift that demography now might accomplish what arms once could not.

Given Europe’s poor record of ethnic violence and their fear of waging even defensive war, is it not likely that we will soon see the spectacle of anti-Muslim pogroms, as a proxy for military action?

Hanson: I hope not. But they have a history of wild swings from left to right, and I wouldn’t be surprised that a 9-11 type catastrophe might have the opposite effect as the Spanish appeasement, at least as you say at home. I think we take for granted how uniquely stable this great American experiment of a multiracial society under one culture really is.

It looks like Europeans hate Israel more than they love themselves, and encourage terrorists everywhere, including in Europe, by supporting the Palestinian 'struggle'. Is there any hope that they would wake up to that fact?

Hanson: No. Add as well oil, fear of terrorists, demographic concerns, the old anti-Semitism, hatred of an American ally, and guilt over colonialism and you have a pretty strong anti-Israel foundation. The key is not their hatred, but Israeli defiance and self-confidence; if Israelis can accept that hatred from a continent that gave them the holocaust, then all will be fine. But if they wish acceptance and love from Europe, they will be sorely disappointed and find themselves at great risk.

Given Europe’s poor record of ethnic violence and their fear of waging even defensive war, is it not likely that we will soon see the spectacle of anti-Muslim pogroms, as a proxy for military action?

Hanson: I hope not. But they have a history of wild swings from left to right, and I wouldn’t be surprised that a 9-11 type catastrophe might have the opposite effect as the Spanish appeasement, at least as you say at home. I think we take for granted how uniquely stable this great American experiment of a multiracial society under one culture really is.

It looks like Europeans hate Israel more than they love themselves, and encourage terrorists everywhere, including in Europe, by supporting the Palestinian 'struggle'. Is there any hope that they would wake up to that fact?

Hanson: No. Add as well oil, fear of terrorists, demographic concerns, the old anti-Semitism, hatred of an American ally, and guilt over colonialism and you have a pretty strong anti-Israel foundation. The key is not their hatred, but Israeli defiance and self-confidence; if Israelis can accept that hatred from a continent that gave them the holocaust, then all will be fine. But if they wish acceptance and love from Europe, they will be sorely disappointed and find themselves at great risk.

Is the ban on pictures of coffins by the press a new policy? Does it compare with any past wartime policy?

Xerxes tried to hide his dead after Thermopylae, and war losses historically have been used for and against continuing the struggle. I think that the policy really is supported by the families and not simply a Pentagon conspiracy. When Ted Koppel omitted reading the Afghan theater dead, timed his commemoration to coincide with the anniversary of Bush’s carrier landing, went on Air America to advertise his Nightline special, and used his editorial time to harp about himself—one received the impression that the self-proclaimed moralist was not so moral.

Europeans seem to hate America more ever and would in fact like to see us hurt badly, which is in line with what Islamic radicals want. Could you comment on such political trends and what we might expect if you believe this shift becomes more divisive?

Cry the beloved continent. Let us hope they wake up at the 11^th hour, and see that America for 50 years has protected them, ensured their democratic rebirth, and stopped every –ism of the twentieth-century that all seem to have started in Europe. I just got back again from there, and found once more the anti-Bush creed baffling. It is a parlor game for affluent Europeans, whose defense is underwritten by others, whose modern history is inseparable without Americans, and who face greater dangers than we do from the Islamicists—who hate them even more for being weak in addition to being Western.

Do you have some thoughts on the death of Pat Tillman?

I am very saddened and can’t get Pat Tillman out of my mind. The story of his last three years reads like a moral saga. How one goes from the luxury, fame, and lucre of America to the badlands of Afghanistan—willingly and for a principle—in these troubled times is astonishing. He was a rare person with whom we should all be proud to have been a fellow-citizen..

When does civil war happen? Can it be caused by a failure of deterrence? Our country is becoming extremely polarized, could a civil war be in our future?

Hanson: Anything is possible, but there are still more ties than fault lines—popular culture, common allegiance to certain values of fair play and meritocracy, a general ease and familiarity in American culture. I was worried at the time of Clinton’s disgrace that some tried to destroy rather than discredit him, and now we see that same excess in the attacks against Bush that transcend politics and reveal a visceral hatred. But certainly, there are two divergent views of what this country should be—whether it is committed to liberty and an equality of opportunity or to more to egalitarianism and a government-mandated equality of results.

I think Russia and India—increasingly democratic, nuclear, large, multiracial, confident—share a view that the world is still dangerous and thus share some of the skepticism of the US. I have hopes for Eastern Europe as natural allies of America. But NATO? It is a ceremonial organization now, and has had no real joint effort in years. Even the Balkans was mostly an American war.