The Flawed Moral Compass of the Antiwar Left

Cross-posted at the Jawa Report.

Grab some coffee - this one's a little windy.

As the current Israeli-Hezbullah conflict hurtles forward, I am uneasy. I am not uneasy because I am afraid. I do not doubt Israel’s military capabilities. I do not question the capabilities of our troops either.

I have doubts about the resolve of our “leaders,” and I use the term loosely. I don’t think that there has been good political leadership in this war effort, despite the incredible and valuable accomplishments of our military and our country (thank G-d the Generals in the field don’t act like our politicians). That is also not the same thing as saying that the attempt at leadership is at fault. The situation we face today is in many ways unlike one the nation’s leadership has faced before – an amorphous, religious death cult that has inserted itself into the woodwork of the civilized world and lies in wait to attack on its own terms. This presents a multitude of difficulties that we see unfolding in our courts, on the battlefield and in our discourse. The “face” of the political leadership, however, is at times frighteningly absent. I’m sure that there are plenty of back-door dealings going on to try to cool the temperature of the world diplomatically in any way possible, but the Administration really needs to (and seems a bit late to do it at this point) to come out and keep hammering the policy home. I know that the President is not particularly well-spoken in an era where communications are the name of the game. I know that many perceive this lack of erudite articulation as an indication of “stupidity.” That is on its face ridiculous. I have several very intelligent old college friends who have a stutter and slight speech problems. They are successful and intelligent people. That is not, to me, an indication of intelligence. It can’t hurt to be articulate, but it isn’t the be-all and end-all of assessment of talents, abilities or intellect to a reasonable person.

In addition, there are plenty of “rock stars” against the war who can’t articulate a cohesive though without a curse word , and movie and TV actors that speak nothing to nobody unless their scriptwriters write it for them. Their opinions are regarded by the anti-war left as valid, important, courageous and heroic without question. The President fumbles words from time to time, however, and he is the stupidest, dumbest liar, fraud and dictator that has ever lived. Food for thought. And please - no lectures about “Yeah, but rock stars aren’t in charge of the country” crap – they aren’t indeed, and that’s why the nation has been voting the Clintons and their groupies out of office for 12 years now. You are essentially making an argument to return the Clinton-tour groupies to power. Clowns like that shouldn’t be in charge (especially in a time of war), and now they aren’t. Isn’t it lovely how that works?

Diversions aside, I want to get to a central premise. Leadership deficiencies noted, I also question with greater veracity the so-called “moral” stance of the antiwar left. Their moral magnets have been completely warped by a generation of subtle Gramscian Marxism and Derridaian deconstructionist “critical thinking” being taught to captive audiences in the public education system and to passive audiences in the American mass media (particularly, TV news media and print media). Yes – I guess this makes me a believer in the strong media effects, especially during a time of war (when the populace is likely to defer to the news media to report facts objectively on world events that they don't have the resources nor time to find out themselves. The modern near-diagnosable mental condition known affectionately as BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is a manifestation of anger at the rejection of these inherently socialist, pacifist and post-modern views. Spurned, the American left (think Denaiac left) has instead chosen to give their political opponents the rhetorical, moral and intellectual cold-shoulder. Facts and history no longer matter, unless they advance the dying antiwar ideology. Moral contradictions of “human rights advocates” screaming about alleged slapping of terrorists in a detention center while remaining inanimate about real torture, atrocities, repression and political murder in countries like Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, etc. are quite commonplace. Votes made by Democrats and the international community (UN 1441) authorizing the war are quickly forgotten and are replaced by new narratives that do not include these politically inconvenient facts. There is no intellectual honesty whatsoever. Claims of “moral high ground” ring hollow coming from such obvious hypocrites. As such, a solid block of Americans has essentially surrendered. In their hearts, in their minds and in their souls, they have given up on responding to 9-11. They are not necessarily bad people, but they have been irreversibly convinced of their own fears and shortcomings by forces all too eager to sell them those fears and shortcomings. My personal belief is that they actually surrendered in late 2001, when the last ashes of 9-11 finally settled and it became apparent we were not going to lie down like a good little victim and take it.

My view is not unique among conservatives and war supporters, and is not simply a matter of an honest difference of opinion regarding policy pursuits. My point is aimed more at the non-religious “spiritual” side of this issue. There is a disturbing lack of moral clarity coming from our American leftwing, and it is hurting the short and long-term interests of the country. Style has replaced substance as a frame for issue discussion. Diplomats, “peace advocates/activists” and “critics” are every day repeating the delusions of 1939 Britain and Europe – believing that “land for peace” is somehow going to broker goodwill and mercy from an enemy who has plainly stated their intentions to do away with mercy and goodwill towards their perceived enemies. When Chamberlain signed over the Rhineland to Germany, he consigned to death and Nazi occupation thousands of Czechs (the momentum of which then carried the Nazis into Poland and the world into a necessary but unwanted conflict).

What was saved? Egos? Platitudes? Lives? Leftism? Jews? Europe? None of it was saved by negotiation or appeasement – and leftists (socialists) simply denied their central role in the conflict (National Socialism) and moved on as their ideology allows them to divorce themselves from their past. Appeasement from official governing powers made the situation infinitely worse by rewarding the behavior and intentions of Hitler, thereby emboldening him further and weakening Europe’s ability and will to fight a rapidly gathering threat.

Of course, we hear about World War II a lot in this current conflict, but seldom coming from the left. Why? Simple – we won WWII. It seems that they are unwilling to get into the parallels about WWII when it comes to absolute victory, propaganda wars, treasonous press / activist behavior, national unity, political disagreements, and the like. The American left (the 60’s-led “counterculture”) instead like to refer to America’s “loss” in Vietnam as an example of their foreign-policy wisdom and are trying furiously to equate the effort in Iraq with a war in which they dictated our terms of surrender. So the conservative line of thought refers to wars we have won for historical examples of what needs to be done to win this current one. The liberal thought refers to a conflict America lost to give examples of what needs to be done to…lose the current war? That is unfortunately the conclusion we are left to draw from the Vietnam syndrome that has infected the leftwing of America politics over the past 50 years.

The current conflict in the Middle East is neither WWII or Vietnam, but it bears much more resemblance to the run-up to World War II than hampered and complcated sociopolitical-centric war effort in Vietnam. There is rampant poverty, repression and hopelessness in many regions of the Arab world (just like in Germany pre-WWII). Arab cultures, in both their own eyes and the eyes of many powers, have suffered what they perceive as a series of ongoing humiliations on the international stage over the past century– some of which include a penchant for paranoid dictatorships and hard-line Islamic internal law, the creation of Israel itself, the ongoing disgraces that are the West Bank and Gaza, the defeat of most of their militaries by the United States and Israel, the “debasement” of Western culture and its influences in Islamic culture, etc. Germany was humiliated, blamed, and saddled with mounting debts to society and foreign powers in the years between World War I and II, and Hitler rose to prominence by taking those humiliations, doubts and fears, and instead turned them to his personal scapegoats – the Jews, the non-Aryans and non-Germans. Both military and internal opposition to Hitler was met with brutal and swift punishment. Civilians in the path of the Nazis were given a choice – get on board or die. Islamic sharia law and the principles of jihad are no different – either submit to the ideology or die as an infidel to the ideology. It is very easy to draw comparisons between Nazism and Radical Islamism –the anti-Semitism and dehumanization of apostates and opponents is there, the repression, the intolerance for internal and external dissent, the constant state of rage and foamented hatred that pours into the streets on a daily basis, etc. Its all there - the Nazis simply harnessed it and converted it through industrial processes into a mobilized and uniformed fighting force.

Mistakes happen in every major world conflict on both sides, but there is a segment of our own populace determined to use those mistakes and only those mistakes to turn a massive and, quite frankly, benevolent American effort into a unilateral defeat to “celebrate” until we are shocked out of our sleep again by another massive tragedy on the scale of 9-11. Nearly half of the US population (many who claim to be paying close attention) seem to be unable or unwilling to make a difficult moral judgment in this conflict. This is entirely within the rights of any citizen – you have the right not to do something or not to support something you think is wrong. There is a fundamental inconsistency in American anti-war thought, however, that has been made glaringly obvious during the public rhetorical battle over the last few years. Forgive the straw man, but it is necessary to make the point palpable.

An old lefty anti-Catholic saw goes something like “The Catholic Church did nothing to save the Jews in the concentration camps. They stood idly by while millions were slaughtered!” Beside this statement being inaccurate, it is also politically convenient for those opposed to the Catholic Church to begin with. It also makes a moral judgment – that the concentration camps were morally wrong, and needed to be stopped. Now – since a moral judgment on the Nazis is made, there must be some ability or criterion among the purveyors of such logic to judge what is wrong and right.

It is now that the test of consistent logic needs to be applied. In the second set of responses, I’ve filled in hypothetical answers that I’ve heard, read or seen argued by the left in the past 4.5 years. Here we go.

Is anti-Semitism wrong? Yes.

Is a desire to blame Jews and to kill them an appropriate mind frame for a proponent of Nazism? Yes.

Despite heavy casualties on our part and the lack of direct provocation by Germany, were we right to invade Europe and to destroy the Nazis? Absolutely.

We won, and that was an infinitely better thing for Europe and the world then would’ve been if Hitler had conquered Europe, right? Correct.

Sounds reasonable, right? Now move forward and ask the same questions regarding today’s Middle East war:

In the case of Islamic radicalism, is anti-Semitism wrong? Well, yes and no - the US supports Israel, so I can see why they hate Israelis, as well as the inherent anti-Semitism that is rampant in Islamic societies anyway – to be expected, but not necessarily wrong.

Is a desire to blame Jews and to kill them an appropriate frame of mind for a radical Islamist? Well, yes, but again, the US supports Israel, and the Arabs don’t like Israel, and are therefore justified in their rhetoric, beliefs, who are we to tell them what they believe is wrong etc.

Despite heavy casualties on our part and direct provocation on the part of Iraq and Afghanistan, were we right to invade the countries and to destroy their oppressive regimes (one dictator, and the Taliban)? Iraq was wrong, Afghanistan was right.

Would it not be better for the region if the United States and Coalition were to succeed in their current objectives than would be if we let the status quo go on for another 25 years? I think we’ve made the problem infinitely worse – jihadis are being recruited etc.

Corollaries: If Afghanistan was right but Iraq wrong, then you were in favor of leaving Saddam in power for another X years, followed by his psychotic rapist sons? Well…we’re not talking about that…

If our Iraq / Afgh. War causes more recruitment for jihadis, then what were these organizations and terrorists doing in the years prior to 9-11? How about in 1993, when the WTC was bombed? That is not relevant...Bush 'lied,' etc.

These hypothetical/reality based answers are not just hyperbolic assertions on the part of the left - they are rationales for the divorce of the left and their classical liberal values regarding this war. The moral compass of the left has shifted significantly from the traditional “right/wrong” to a conditional “right/wrong.” That conditional right/wrong has clouded the left’s groupthink in this country to the point that it is virtually impossible to discern the connection between their self-described “humanitarian” concern and its translation into their rhetoric during this current conflict. This is not to say that all liberals don’t support the conflict, that they are unpatriotic, that they are immoral or even that they are necessarily wrong in all of their critiques (they are in most of them). It is merely to point out that their logic and philosophical doctrine is flawed logically, and their rhetoric and actions used to support this doctrine are subsequently inconsistent and logically flawed.

There are a great many more tangents that one could branch off of this central lack of moral clarity, but that is fodder for another discussion. I will conclude with an anecdote.

When playing a football game, you do not spend the whole time focusing on the score of the opponent. Even if you are down, you still play. No team in history has advanced through a Super bowl season focused exclusively on their mistakes, their losses and the scores against them. Those who are victorious count their losses, and move forward with the plays and players that achieve victory. The focus must instead be on what is being done right, rather that using what is being done wrong to cripple the ability for the team to fix the problems to attain the win.

Have at it, if you’re still here and awake. :-)