Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2004 / 5 Shevat, 5764
There's a war on?
A French writer living in America has written that "this war is not a war in the ordinary sense of the word.
...There are two series of conflicts going on at the same time: conflicts (involving military action) and conflicts
which are ideological, political, social and economic. The latter transcends boundaries ... The very confusion of
the situation has often served as an excuse for recommending a policy of aloofness." The writer was Raoul de
Roussy de Salles. The date of publication was 1942. And the war was World War II.
Now, of course, we recall WWII as a classic, all out, necessary war. But in the spring of 1942, in
America, Raoul de Salles, the patriotic citizen of a defeated France, could feel the need to explain that "It is
only recently that America has lost the belief that she had a choice. Up to Pearl Harbor, the Americans were
made to think not only that they could decide between peace and war but that they could decide how much war
they would accept. This capacity of choice was an illusion ... Although he is fully at war now, he cannot forget
overnight the point of view of the spectator, which he so recently was. The American still believes that it is his
peculiar privilege ... to discuss from a more impersonal angle the social, political and economic future which
will come out of this war."
As I was reading this old volume from my father's library in Los Angeles last week, I was struck by how
fresh sounding was the author's description of an American public still tentative in its acceptance of the reality
of total war. Today's soundbites from news coverage of the presidential election campaign are filled with
candidates for president, and their supporters in the public, discussing exit strategies, turning the war over to
the United Nations, focusing on the more pressing needs here at home for federal dollars, etc.
Listening to all the aspiring commanders and chief (except for Joe Lieberman), I don't hear any
campaign promises related to winning the war on terrorism. They make a few obligatory references to getting
bin Laden rather than wasting our time with Saddam, and then they get on to their real campaign message,
which is the conventional, peacetime Democratic argument to tax the rich and give the proceeds to their likely
voters. I am tempted to respond to these candidates with the snappy WWII era retort to complainers: "Don't you
know there's a war on?"
Of course domestic life and politics go on today as they did during 1941-1945. But it is striking that the
challengers for president have virtually nothing to say about the central event of our time. If they think President
Bush is fighting the war badly (and they could do a better job), they should be shouting both their criticism and
their better plan from the rooftops.
In nine months, one of these men could be elected president. It doesn't particularly surprise or worry me
that the candidates are just making what they judge to be useful political chatter. But I don't get the feeling that
any of them (again, except for Joe Lieberman) sit up at night worrying how they will protect America from the
terrorist threat if they get elected president. It would show in at least the tone, if not the words of their public
Rather, I get the sense that, as Raoul de Salles described too many Americans 60 years ago at the
beginning of WWII, today's candidates for commander in chief still think the war is optional. They still think they
can select "how much war they would accept." They let the confusion of the situation "serve as an excuse for
recommending a policy of aloofness."
Whatever each of the candidates may think of the wisdom of the Iraq war and democracy project, as the
next president, he will be obliged to play the hand he has been dealt. Manifestly, the United Nations and the
international set have neither the military nor the will to fight on to total military and political success in Iraq,
Thus, when all but Mr. Lieberman recommend turning Iraq over to the U.N., they are in reality aloofly washing
their hands of the matter and are willing to let political nature take its course. The terrorists across the Middle
East and around the world would be greatly heartened by such a capitulation by the West.
In the coming weeks and months, reporters ought to feel obliged to closely question the Democratic
candidates on the implications that would flow specifically from their Iraq policy. It is not enough for them to say
they would have done otherwise. They must explain how what they would start doing on Jan. 22, 2005, would
make the country safer, not more dangerous. It is a deadly illusion for either the reporters or the candidates to
think they have a capacity for choice on whether America must succeed at the Iraq venture. We are no longer
mere spectators to the human butchery that has long plagued the world.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington
and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Tony Blankley is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.
01/21/04: It's good that we live in ignorance of the future
01/14/04: The strange case of immigration politics
01/07/04: Funding for American presidential elections is beginning to go global
12/31/03: Make us laugh
12/24/03: War prophesies
12/17/03: Analyze this!
12/10/03: Until peace is ready to be negotiated …
12/03/03: AFL-CIO meets Monty Python
11/26/03: Republicans need to learn from the Romans
11/19/03: All of a sudden we have a responsible media?
11/12/03: To arms
11/05/03: Mayor Mike's appetite for self-destructive accusations
10/29/03: A bloody march to peace
10/22/03: Calls for a general 's head because his comments may have ruffled the feathers of our esteemed enemies!?
10/08/03: The leakers' agony
10/01/03: Managing a scandal
09/24/03: Will we have to balance our strong ethical and religious revulsion of cloning against the danger of being surpassed by a gene-manipulated super-race?
09/17/03: The skinny on the First Ladies
09/10/03: More than cynicism will be needed to defeat prez
09/03/03: Dead Man Politickin'
08/27/03: Patience is not America's long suit
08/13/03: George Will's trifecta of punitive aspirations
07/30/03: A question for the candidates: Whose side are you on?
07/23/03: When GOPers attack their leader
07/17/03: Spanish fest mirrors U.S. elections
07/09/03: On the horns of a dilemma
06/25/03: The continuing deaths of American and British soldiers in Iraq
should not be rhetorically minimized -- but sanctified
06/18/03: No reason to feel defensive about criticism of the war on terrorism
06/11/03: The Clintons self-proclaimed geniuses have no defense against the charge of cunning mendacity
06/04/03: George 'Machiavelli' Bush? Nah
05/28/03: When 'progressives' become reactionaries
05/21/03: Yes, this conservative is defending the NYTimes
05/14/03: Playing the politics of deflation
05/07/03: Only the stupid could think it'll be the economy: Comparing the Bushes
04/30/03: How to squelch increasing Iraqi distrust of America
04/25/03: Winning the war, losing the peace
04/16/03: Our own domestic Senate Republican Guard better be prepared for a grinding
04/03/03: At this human moment we need to act like humans, not just calculating analysts
04/02/03: If we could only draft Jennings' eyebrow to the cause, we wouldn't need the 4th Armored Division?
03/26/03: This war is showing the world who we really are
03/19/03: Time for America to laugh at itself
03/13/03: They're coming out of the woodwork: Russert, Buchanan and Moran
02/26/03: World history is shifting under our feet --- even our most
experienced statesmen are, effectively, inexperienced
02/19/03: The shame! We've mischaracterized the French
02/12/03: Schroeder and Chirac will be disproportionately undercutting their interests
02/05/03: We need to rise above our temporary anger and seek to preserve our bonds with our European cousins
01/29/03: Who is President Bush's stupidest opponent: Saddam Hussein or Tom Daschle?
01/22/03: We call them our European cousins --- but I demand a DNA test
01/16/03: Dems bare partisan teeth
01/02/03: Before the cheering must come the struggle
12/27/02: Long ago and far away
12/18/02: Be glad that Gore's gone?
12/11/02: What fun! A titanic, once-in-a-century partisan battle royal is in the offing
12/04/02: Kerry atwitter
11/27/02: The unThankful list
11/20/02: First the scare, then the yawn
11/13/02: It's going to be a long two years for Lefty Pelosi and the Frisco Dems
11/06/02: Technology: A pollster's worst enemy --- thank goodness!
10/31/02: Watch this election's Wheel of Fate
10/23/02: The Ari and Colin Show: Politics has never been, well, more vaudeville-like
10/09/02: Bush beats drums of realism
10/02/02: Needed: A political chromatograph to detect any true statements in the public domain
09/25/02: Buchanan's new mag
09/18/02: There are many forms of peace
09/11/02: The imperial period of our history starts
09/04/02: Memo to Powell: In periods of upheaval, the refusal to act gives aid to those bent on destruction
08/30/02: Logging old growth is a sham issue
© 2002, Creators Syndicate