Redstate

If you think the Roman Empire was big, just wait 20 years and look at the USA's.

Dr. Jose Pinera said that when the United States reforms Social Security with tax free PSAs, the rest of the world will follow.

We need Cubans working like beavers investing 10% of their income into the American stock market with their PSAs.  Of course they could invest in Euro-Stocks but then we would have a Cuban with an IQ problem.

Hopefully, these Cubans will see the "light."

Western Europe is finished.

Demographically they are below the threshold to replace their native populations. On the other hand, the muslim/Arab immigrants are in high production.

You can't win if you won't fight. They don't have anything they are willing to fight for. In essence they have given up and are just waiting to find out who their new master will be.

You can't beat something with nothing. Nihilism might be fun while you're watching bad French movies and swilling absinthe but as a philosophy of life it pretty much sucks. John Paul II was right in calling for a  re-evangelization of Europe otherwise islam is going to win the philosophical battle as well as the demographic battle.

  Worried about the survival of Christianity, I mean; that's what The Second Coming is about, he rightly perceiving that the logical conclusion of secular modernity would mean to 'drown the ceremony of innocence'. Yeats saw the procession of Western civilization as beginning with Greco-Roman, continuing with (Judeo)-Christian and ending...where?

  The Europeans imagine what Dewey, following Josiah Royce, called the Great Community - the State as the central structure for an increasingly institutionalized life. Of course, that meant the destruction of communities anchored by tradition, religion and family, a process created by modernity, and the true enemy of the conservative movement.

  The end-game of modernity is total secularism, a culture based on reason without faith, a culture 'where the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity'. The infusion of devout, honest and hard-working Moslems, people for whom tradition, religion and family still matter (I repeat: not the Islamo-fascists) might actually save Europe from itself, if, and only if, enough Europeans retain what Yeats called the Anima Mundi, the memory of their own past.      

   

Here we go again with the Gloom and Doom chorus. To which I would like to say a certain word, but one that isn't permitted here.

Europe and the US may have some problems (has any era of history not had some?) but if you think we're doomed look at the rest of the world! And specifically look at the Islamic world. That culture has raised dysfunctionalism to a high, high art form. Why do you think they are losing people to emigration? As a rule in fact any nation that is gaining immigrants (except temprorarily, as the result of a disaster in some neighboring country) is doing OK while those which are exporting people are in trouble. As for Christianity, all that's happened in Europe and even here is that the Christian faith has been been reduced to its true core of faithful (Yes, Virginia, there are still Christians in Europe!) now that there are no longer any external forces, whether legal or social, mandating the outward appearance of belief. And finally, yes, the Bush administration is in some trouble. They've made a lot mistakes, and they should be in trouble. But presidents come and presidents  go, and the US will do quite well for itself all in all. Great nations are not great because of this or that leader; rather great nations produce great leaders and so shall the US for generations to come after the current uproar is forgotten as the teapot tempest that it is.

...are bodies after all, and they are subject to exhaustion and decay. Streiff is right, Western Europe is done. There's no dynamism left there. The Islamic world is highly fertile but beset by voices obsessed with death. This is like cancer. Either you cut it out or it kills you. One or the other will happen but it's too soon to tell which.

Real dynamism is about individual initiative and the desire to realize one's vision for a better life (and even, in rare cases, for a better world). The real dynamism in the world has moved south and east. China, India, and Brazil are bursting with it. These places are full of youth, drive, and energy. America still has a lot of real dynamism too. Not as much as we once did, and it's concentrated among our immigrant populations, but we have it.

What China, Brazil, India, and immigrants to America are not necessarily full of is love of freedom. And this is the stand on which America will fight its last great battle, if that day should ever come.

there was Petrach  who in the early 14th century in a letter to a bishop friend of his despaired of, well,European civilization,the loose morals,the license,decline of religiosity,the increasing interest in making money.  A look backwards sometimes gives the strength to look forward.  Europe has been facing, or better put, living with decline for at least a century.  As with any decline the rock gathers momentum as it rolls downhill.  Von kunhelt-Leddin has the effrontery to attribute this in part to the decline and demise of the royal houses of Europe, imperfect as they were.For this reason populists all over the world refuse to read him, or perhaps it's because they've never heard of him and can't take their cell phones off their ears. World War 1 destroyed the old and great Europe and both physically and morally prostrate left her to succumb to various cancers the reader may know and expand upon.  Decline is not new, either is renewal.  Decline is not death, it doesn'thave to be, it is not determined.  To sink into politics for a moment, this is what makes Bush great,this will be his legacy, not a stained blue dress and a hurricane of hot air.  First we must think of ourselves, a bone chilling thought to altruists everywhere.  Immigration must not only be controlled, it must be modified.  The absurd quotas on European immigration must be loosened, and in such a way that people who share our culture and broad historical ethnicity must not be discouraged from coming to our country.  Second, we must not only observe but capitalize on the growing global awareness of the real nature of the radical muslim threat by encouraging a more militant approach and reaction to the murderers. Third, education in this country must be revitalized.  No,not by spending more money,but by  fostering alternatives to not only what a school is but what is taught in that school.  By, in other words, developing and returning to a gretaer knowledge of the strengths of American history and Western civilization.  You can't resist or fight if you don't know why you're resisting or what you're fighting for.  A culture is as strong as the people's knowledge of that culture.  If all else fails we should remember that before anything we are individuals and make our own lives.  In a essay on Isaiah and the remnant Albert J Nock pointed out that their will always be a remnant,you will find them and they will find you. "  The fascination and the despair of the historian, as he looks back upon Isaiah's Jewry, upon Plato's Athens,or upon the Rome of the Antonines, is the hope of discovering  and laying bare the substratum of right thinking and well doing which he knows must have existed in those societies".  They are always there as Nock knew, they always will be.

That meant the destruction of communities anchored by tradition, religion and family, a process created by modernity, and the true enemy of the conservative movement.

Well said, Mr. Rega. But your insight only illuminates a deep tension, which is suggested by Leon's very phrasing in his fine essay:

But while most of us have only ever known civilization and safety, only a fool who is ignorant of history would fail to realize that civilization and safety are fragile things, and that centuries of progress can be swept away in the blink of an eye. Indeed, the norm throughout history has not been democracy, freedom and light - but rather oppression, tyranny and darkness.

One cannot help notice that the very things which corrode and enervate traditional communities -- in a word, enlightened modernity -- are the things Leon identifies with civilization. And since the strength and vigor which Leon laments as fading from us ultimately arises only in those communities, Leon is in the very difficult position of arguing that we must preserve the "civilization" that is destroying our will to preserve anything.

I hasten to add that Leon is not alone in this predicament: It is, rather, the core tragedy of Conservatism. It is so easy for us, in the face of the lunacy of our opponents, to become the apologists for yesterday's opponents who have now triumphed. In other words, the pressure of the innovators and energumens drives Conservatives farther and farther to the left, and they become merely the most strident of yesterday's Leftists, and the consolidators of yesterday's Leftism.

_____

NOTE: I do not, of course, believe that democracy, freedom and light are bad things. Far from it. But these catchphrases have ever been the slogans of the innovators; slogans hurled against every inherited structure or principle that failed to measure up at the bar of Reason. In short, they seem indistinguishable from that "Rationalism in politics" which Michael Oakeshott so ably analyzed: the impulse to engage in a vast purge of anything and everything that does not evidence an immediate defense in terms of pure reason, before we begin the world anew.

excellent

Thanks for the referral to Peggy Noonan's post - I agree with you that her profound sense of unease that that "wheels are coming off the cart" and that elites in the US are carving up their own private retreat is greatly troubling.

I have had a similar feeling for many years now, and haven't quite learned to live with it, which I why I appreciate the opportunity to express a few thoughts here.

You have a point, but I would recommend that you step back even further and expand your scope wider than "Western Civilization".  History is all about the rise and fall of civilizations, but while various nations have certainly been eclipsed, vanquished or simply collapsed, civilization as a whole has not.  However, there are lots of lessons to be learned as to why this has occurred, but I think Jared Diamond's Pulitzer Prize winning Guns, Germs and Steel does a good job of explaining the long-term factors of how technological and cultural advantages and epidemics have affected the rise and fall of civilizations, and Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers is helpful in understanding how these factors have played out in modern history (although Kennedy misunderstands the US, his main point that Great Powers rise until they are overextended because of their military commitments and expenditures, when the diversion of resources to the military saps the strength of the economy and forces a decline.  This reading is helpful to understand America's special place in history and the factors that may undermine it.

If history is any guide, we can expect that the power of the US will be limited as China and India grow.  This is something we should be concerned about, but they may also be natural allies in dealing with threats of Islamic fundamentalism.

Your post does a good job of drawing attention to rising feelings of polarization that have been stirred up by Islamic fundamentalism, particularly after 9/11.  However, I think that this is a broader issue that Nolan also touches on, which is that the world is simply getting too complicated for most of us to understand.  A lot of us would simply like to be left alone, but globalization keeps changing our own society so we are always playing catch up, and world events keep on impinging.  A complicated world leaves each of us feeling less and less in control and increasingly uncertain.  The urge for a simpler world is understandable and justified, and underpins a lot of discontent, not only in the US but abroad.  

When discontent breaks out, our complex society and technology means someone who is discontented can easily disrupt a lot of people - like 9/11, but also like the Unabomber, McVeigh, or Lee Malvo, or whoever was messing with anthrax.  9/11 not only meant war, but meant we all were forced to think about places we knew nothing about, and to change how we go about getting on airplanes.

We are naturally disposed to respond with hostility, and not understanding, when we are attacked or threatened.  Man evolved to live in small tribal units, where we all felt like a valued member, and one of the greatest threats was actually from other tribes.  That has survived unchanged into modern times and is manifested in many ways - in how we identify with athletes and sports teams, in why we each seek out a group to which to belong, in the way ethnic groups may incompletely integrate (visible in how people self-segregate in universities etc.), and in how some national identities may weaken as old identities strengthen - split of USSR & Czechoslovakia, resurgence of Welsh and Scottish identities, etc.  An even more obvious way in which that old tribal identity issue survives is in the event of conflict - which can trigger rapid collapse along ethnic lines like in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, reinforced by religious identity.  

It seems to me that this kind of group politics and centripetal force is at work in the US external reaction to 9/11 and in our domestic politics after the invasion of Iraq.  Of course it is also manifest in the fratricide in Iraq, where tribal identity is much more powerful than national identity

Accordingly, while I don't disagree that there is a growing divide between the Christian West and Islamic states, human society is very susceptible to divides like this and we need to be very careful about inflaming them.  In a globalized world where we really can escape each other, it is even more imperative that we learn to tolerate each other - different cultures need to be able to preserve their own space (so they do not constantly feel under attack) while also integrating, so that conflicts can be tamed.  It is precisely this later strategy that the US has pursued very successfully relating to China.

Moving back to the big picture again, my greatest unease relates to my concern about how technology has made man the conqueror of the environment, allowing us to push back Malthusian restraints, but at a heavy cost to nature.  Man consumes a huge portion of the biomass produced by the planet each year, and we continue to approach this limit without any regulation of our population and growth.  As a result, I am afraid that we are undermining our own future, diminishing the natural wealth of the planet, and setting the stage for Malthusian conflicts, such as Rwanda.

For as long as the US is the world's sole superpower, we need to work hard to establish an international framework to resolve current problems.  Our doing it alone is extremely costly and ultimately impossible.  We need to get other countries involved in Iraq and in dealing with other aspects of our global agenda.

I worry that our children will inherit from us a country and a world that is worse off than we had.  I'm certain this is a sentiment that people on both sides of the political spectrum can agree.

But, you lose me when you refer to "a rampaging Islamofascist horde."

I read this, and into my mind come memories of old WWII-era films about the Nazi advance in Europe, with cartoon maps showing a black ink spreading across France and Eastern Europe, and a stern voice warning us of the dangers of Hitler and the spread of Nazi Germany.

But are we really living in the same era today?  Must me live in fear like we did then?  Or as during the Cold War, fearing the spread of Communism?

Certainly, the type of people you call "Islamofascists" are our enemies.  They attacked us, we retaliated, and now we are working hard to make sure they do not do so again, remaining ever vigilant.  But, are they really a murderous, ravenous horde gathering en masse on our borders, waiting to strike and overwhelm?

Perhaps what is needed is a perspective of the problem that is based in reality.  As has been said many times before, this is a different sort of war.  This is a different age, and there is a threat of terrorism that nobody can ignore.  But, at the same time, our own homegrown terrorists have struck much more often here on U.S. soil than our foreign enemies (the most recent being the Tacoma shopping mall incident yesterday).

Indeed, statistically, you and I are much more likely to be killed in a car accident, or in gun violence, or falling off a ladder, or choking on a chicken wing, then by the hands of a foreign terrorist.  Al Qaeda and terrorist organizations do not have an army.  They do not even have a country (the closest they had was Afghanistan).  They do not have any means of large-scale production (factories, infrastucture, etc.) and they do not have a population that they can draft into a military.  They do not have readily available mineral and natural resources nor do they have taxes which they can impose on their "people" in order to support a war effort.

Indeed, the collapse of ours or any other Western society, in my opinion, is much more likely to occur at our own hands, than at the hands of foreign terrorists.  When we sacrifice our own freedoms, our own liberties, and our own ideals; when we ignore the societal ills that plague our people, and let them fester; all because we are fearful of an unknown, amorphous, outside enemy, then the collapse of our own nation becomes even more likely.

Please, do not accuse of me of "wanting to do nothing."  That is not my point.  I only want to add to the discussion the notion that we Americans must also be sure not to lose our own liberties during any efforts to defend them.

The churches in Poland are not empty, nor are they empty in many other Central European states who are Roman Catholic.

In the Orthodox lands, attendance at the weekly Divine Liturgy is quite high. Look at Serbia and Romania for examples of countries where the overwhelming majority are practicing.

In Europe, there is a strong and healthy monasticism. Men and women renounce the world in order to seek God. How strong are the monasteries in the U.S.?

Oh, right. Here we don't do that. Here, instead, we go shopping.

Look - Europe has a demographics problem. So do white, middle class Americans. How many middle or upper class families do you know with more than two children? The First Family has two. The Clintons had one. Even among traditional Catholics, two children has become the max in this country.

Other nations also have demographic problems, including non-Christian ones such as Japan, India, and China. There are spiritual reasons for this malady, at the root, and they are being felt globally.

And, of course, in all this what of Russia and the Ukraine? These are two powerful nations with Christian presidents and a strong ties between church and state. Will they also sit idly by and allowing themselves to be swamped by Islamofascists? Aren't the Russians fighting them even as we speak?

The fact is that whenever a European nationalist steps forward, one of the primary opponents of his or her cause is the United States. Serbia got too out of line in dealing with Islamic terrorists, so we bombed Belgrade. Whenever Le Pen makes a run for the presidency in France, we condemn him.

If any European leader spoke as Leon H. does in this article - what would be the U.S. reaction? We already know - he would be roundly condemned by the State Department as a fascist. In fact, he or she might even be roundly condemned right here at Redstate.org

When frightened Europeans want to jettison the membership of Turkey in the EU, the Bush Administration goes ballistic on them. Remember Bush's comment that Europe can't be just a 'Christian club' and that Turkey has to be let in?

It might be the right thing for Turkey to enter the EU, but it will also mean that millions more Muslims (many of them radicals) will be able to move into a rapidly aging Europe. The Bush Administration is, obviously, at peace with this.

My point in all this is that Europe is not dead. To make that case against hundreds of millions of people, many of whom are deeply devout, is simply propaganda. My second point is that I don't see the United States and its internationalist elites doing anything to improve the situation.

Why don't we get our own house, our own souls, and our own borders in order - and the let the Europeans take care of themselves?

The Mogel hordes are not exactly at the door, and the US is not the only nation capable of fighting tyranny.  

I would worry more about democracy here at home.  Voting machines with no paper trail.   A Congress that has ceded most all of it's authority to the Executive Branch.   A media that is too cozy with its contacts.  Districts that are so rigged that incumbants seldom lose.  Corruption everywhere you turn (not just in Washington).  On and on it goes.

These "the sky is falling" discourses become trendy eveery few decades. The last was in the late 70's. Western civilization survived that one and it will survive this one too.

The last time the "presidential job too big for one person" meme was making the rounds:

But then immediately after this round of public handwringing about the future of the presidency, Reagan came to office and the words "imperial presidency" came into vogue. Reagan served as a strong leader for 8 years and his vice president was elected to carry on.

As for Europe...

Here I'm going to go way out by myself here. Islamic immigration is the best thing that could happen to them. Europe set up a social welfare system that can't be maintained. There just aren't enough young people or money to keep it functioning beyond the 50 year horizon. Drastic changes were going to be made anyway, just not very quickly. The sooner it's excised the better for Europe. Anything that the Islamic Generation does to speed that collapse will resound to the advantage of Frenchmen everywhere.

Now a new, vital generation of people is coming to Europe. They are currently excluded from the mainstream of economic life, but that will change. They will force the economic barriers to fall -- to the advantage of all Europeans. They are now excluded from the social fabric of the nations. As nations begin to fully integrate them into the fabric of European life they will isolate the most rabid Islamists, much as the integration of the Catholics in Northern Ireland isolated the IRA.

Socialism is built on several premises. One premise that is very near the foundation of the social welfare state is that everything can be controlled. Business, labor, capital -- all can be controlled for the betterment of mankind if sufficiently smart people are in charge of them.

However the Islamic generation in Europe is showing that it cannot be controlled by worker councils. Nor can it be controlled by a safety net that stresses community rights over individual rights. Such a young and vital generation will change the landscape. The European social model will collapse much sooner, and that's a very good thing for all Europeans.

Make no mistake, this is why the regimes in Europe fear an Islamic wave. It's not because they're poor, or non Christian, or even because of a supposed predisposition for burning cars or blowing up trains. It's because they can't be controlled by the vaunted social framework. This will force countries all across Europe to adopt principals that integrates these people into society as equals. Open economies and smaller governments will result, to all our advantage.

although Kennedy misunderstands the US, his main point that Great Powers rise until they are overextended because of their military commitments and expenditures, when the diversion of resources to the military saps the strength of the economy and forces a decline.  This reading is helpful to understand America's special place in history and the factors that may undermine it.

In 2003, defense spending accounted for 3.7% of GDP. It was over 5% from 1981-90. From 1952-59, it was over 10%. In WWII, defense spending rose as high as 37.8%, more than 10 times current outlays as a percentage of GDP. Excessive military spending is not a problem for the USA.

Your post does a good job of drawing attention to rising feelings of polarization that have been stirred up by Islamic fundamentalism, particularly after 9/11.  However, I think that this is a broader issue that Nolan also touches on, which is that the world is simply getting too complicated for most of us to understand.

No, with respect to Islamism, the problem is not its complexity, but its atavistic simplicity. They want to rule, or to kill those who will not yield. They make no distinction between soldiers and non-combatants. It's a throwback to the old way of warfare, before Geneva, before titled gentlemen "civilized" war; see what happens to the tribes of Canaan in the book of Joshua. This type of tribal warfare is not ended by a peace treaty, but by eliminating your enemy's ability to reproduce.

Accordingly, while I don't disagree that there is a growing divide between the Christian West and Islamic states, human society is very susceptible to divides like this and we need to be very careful about inflaming them.  In a globalized world where we really can escape each other, it is even more imperative that we learn to tolerate each other - different cultures need to be able to preserve their own space (so they do not constantly feel under attack) while also integrating, so that conflicts can be tamed.  It is precisely this later strategy that the US has pursued very successfully relating to China.

We are not inflaming anything. The dictatorial regimes in the region, abetted by the religious leaders, have deflected blame for their own bad policy and corruption by blaming us. The Bush doctrine sets out to solve the problem by replacing the regimes with better ones. It may not work, but it's worth a try. The alternative is to let things fester and get worse, and possibly end up fighting one of those tribal wars I refer to above.

Western civilization is the most advanced culture ever created. It has led to greater freedom, prosperity, health, and happiness than any previous culture. Our civilization is superior to other cultures; it is not for us to adapt to them, but for them to adapt to us. That should not be controversial to any objective person. It is not a kindness to Moslem women to say that perhaps it is all right to beat them, it is just a cultural thing, and all cultures are equal.

Finally, our policy towards China has been very successful - for China. The United States has achieved exactly none of its policy goals with respect to China. There is no democracy in the PRC; on the contrary, in some ways there is more repression than ever before. There is no freedom of religion; members of "illegal" churches are still incarcerated for long sentences. Our trade deficit with China continues to increase. Tibet is still occupied, now majority ethnic Chinese. Taiwan is threatened by ever increasing military power. North Korea, a Chinese client state, has nuclear weapons and threatens Alaska and Japan. I go on, but much more of the Chinese model of "success" would kill us.

A rather critical of the entire essay, which was the distinction between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. It is, truly, one of the great ironies of our time that the former Eastern Bloc countries have a greater will to stand than do the Western European countries.

Oh, right. Here we don't do that. Here, instead, we go shopping.

You also apparently missed the part where I'm worried about us, too.

If any European leader spoke as Leon H. does in this article - what would be the U.S. reaction? We already know - he would be roundly condemned by the State Department as a fascist. In fact, he or she might even be roundly condemned right here at Redstate.org

At long last, I have been called a fascist at RedState. I no longer have to be envious of Paul J Cella.

When frightened Europeans want to jettison the membership of Turkey in the EU, the Bush Administration goes ballistic on them. Remember Bush's comment that Europe can't be just a 'Christian club' and that Turkey has to be let in?

I missed the part where anyone here thought that was a real smooth move. And again, you missed the part where I advocate, pretty much throughout my entire essay, that I'm concerned about our willingness to stand up for Westernism.

My point in all this is that Europe is not dead. To make that case against hundreds of millions of people, many of whom are deeply devout, is simply propaganda.

When spoken about Western Europe, it's actually realism.

My second point is that I don't see the United States and its internationalist elites doing anything to improve the situation.

That's actually Noonan's point.

If the issues mentioned herein were issues that existed in isolation, you might have a point. However, the fact that Western Europe is largely unwilling to even recognize their existence portends more than just temporal trouble.

.

A key to their problem

Having long since decided that religion was neither friend to coddle nor
foe to reckon with, Western Europe contented itself that this, too, would
pass, and that even Radical Islam would bow before the combined forces of
the Enlightenment and Postmodernism.

Human being have a spiritual appetite as most anthropologists will tell you.
If you stamp out traditional religion, their spiritual appetite will simply
seek nourishment elsewhere. If current demographic trends continue the EU
will be 40% Muslim by 2025. They could easily become a political plurality
in France and Germany. Secularism will not save them. Even Jean-Paul Sartre
on his death bead had to admit who could no longer accept a universe without
a designer.

In the Netherlands (!) "many politicians, writers and artists" perceived to be critical of Islam have to drive around in bomb-resistant cars. "The Interior Ministry has set up a special unit assessing death threats from Islamic extremists and providing protection squads."

Islam will destroy socialism alright. But the replacement will not be freedom; it will be despotism and terror.

installed in a mosque.

don't be discouraged by what is signified by all too many of the comments in this thread, namely, that there are many who simply do not perceive the grave and gathering danger to the survival of Western Civilization in a form we would recognize and find to be "homelike".  There are always millions incapable of perceiving the approach of a dark cloud, which when seen at a distance, seems no greater in span than the breadth of a man's hand; there are millions who suffer vague premonitions of something dark and incomprehensible, yet dismiss that salubrious sense of unease and disquiet because they prize comfort, safety, and psychological tranquillity above all else, and who will thus willfully suppress knowledge in order to maintain an illusion of peace, safety, and optimism.

The prevalence of such persons in every civilization at every inflection point in history is one of the reasons civilizations do, indeed, collapse, or at least suffer transmogrification into something unrecognizable and unworthy.  Wormtongue is more the norm than the exception, in the sense of a purblind refusal to confront the sort of evidences that are rooted more deeply than the evanescent play of surfaces and shadows, the evidences that demonstrate just what sort of people inhabit the nation, that express much more than shallow, facile references to this or that quantifiable indicator, or, what is still worse, the cynical allusion to a nihilistic, pagan doctrine of history which holds that we ought not concern ourselves overmuch about much of anything, since history itself is nothing but the reprise, if not the eternal return, of the Same.  

There are those who, though they may profess a lvoe for their nation, in reality fail to understand what it would mean for them to love their nation and their homeland, for they love an idea - an abstraction - of the nation, certain aspects of her history, her laws, her animating spirit reified as Propositions, dogmata of a creed itself taken to express the essence of the nation.  This is neither love, nor patriotism.  It is a want of charity in precisely the sense that the ancients and medievals saw that a man owed charity, as a duty, to his nation and his people; which is to say that its cure is religious, and that its causes reach into the deepest springs of the soul.  The political world is full of such uncharitable men; I rather suspect that we all know the fruits by which they may be identified, but we shrink from the necessary labour of identifying them, and from rooting out the traits they exemplify from our own souls, for reason of the fact that such labours demand greater powers of self-critique than we dare exercise.

There are also those like the dozens of people with whom I have spoken over the last several weeks, people who love America and her history and heritage, yet have, quite simply, given up, opted out, resigned themselves to the inevitable.  Perhaps they are guilty of despair, and perhaps their numbers are unrepresentative of anything beyond the circle of my acquaitances and contacts.

All of which is to say that there is a problem, that this phenomenon is not generic, but unique and unique because it is our civilizational crisis, and not a mere participation in some Platonic Abstraction of Civilizational Decline.  And though it is not a counsel of optimism and cynical, pagan indifference to the recurrence of the Same, neither is it a counsel of despair, for we are not fatalists, like certain of our foes, but believers in Providence, Whose workings are beyond the ken of our intelligence, Whose actions cannot be subjected to any calculus, Whose compassion utimately exceeds by an infinite degree the pathetic consolations of our fellows who wrap themselves in the rags of denial, unthinking optimism, and the stupidities of a pagan metaphysics exploded two millenia ago.  

Put not your trust in princes, but fight for a good prince and leave the rest to God.

I agree with your points, so I am not calling you a fascist. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would applaud a European nationalist who would stand up and make many of the same points that you are making in this piece.

My comment is that a great deal of PC Republicans in and out of the administration who applaud pieces like yours, in the abstract, would immediately pile onto a real European nationalist and begin branding him or her as a fascist. I've seen it before at work in Poland, where my father-in-law used to be the police commander of the entire Western half of the country. He took so much grief financed from from EU and American Embassies that he eventually resigned. (This was during the Clinton years, and his pro-Polish nationalist stance ran contrary to Clintonian internationalism.)

I think many of your ideas are sound, I just don't think you were introspective enough. After all, we can't do much to change French policy, but we should be able to do something about the policies of our own government, and the spiritual malaise of our own people.

At the same time, the Poles are not the French. Perhaps we are hypersensitive to this, but we are the nation that gave the world Pope John Paul II, not the French Revolution. I often feel like the anger towards the French and the dissolute low countries is directed at all those who happen to be on the European continent and that simply is not fair.

In your article, you stated that a defense of Western society (if I remember correctly) must come from the U.S. and the UK alone. That was what I was objecting to. Many peoples on the continent would be willing to join a defense of Western society, but they lack leadership to organize that defense. There is a vacuum that will only be filled if legitimate European nationalisms are allowed to emerge again. The entire structure of the EU and NATO are designed to stop that very thing from happening. It is disingenous, in opinion, to only focuse on the lack of European willingness to fight for Western civilization while our own government's policies help foster that helplessness.

Again, don't misunderstand me. I don't disagree with you or Noonan in that we need to defend and conserve. I simply disagree with treating 'Europe' as a whole, when (in reality) the primary criticisms leveled actually primarily apply to a small part of the continent. I also would love it if we would spend more of our time debating and discussing the major problems with American attitudes and policies that prevent us from making a positive difference in this struggle.

Leon,

Don't dismiss Ireland so quickly. It would be delicious irony if once again it were to fall to that tiniest of nations, Ireland, to save Western Europe (check out How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill). Certainly they are leading the way economically.

Also, don't fall into the analytical trap of assuming that state action will save us. From your past writings, I'm sure you know that. Military might will buy the West some time, but in the end that will not save the U.S. or Western Europe unless we in that time also have a revivial in which individuals reclaim confidence in the light that we bring to the world and reform communities at the grassroots and rebuild upwards -- and the willingness to defend the light.

You've seen this happen in Eastern Europe, and some of this is also happening in Africa and Asia at the grassroots. In Western Europe, the governmental structures are decaying, but there is vitality -- and a battle -- in the hearts of people and commmunities. Recognize the peril, but if you look deeper there is also hope. We have a similar struggle here in the U.S. too.

In your campaign to defend life of the most helpless, you are doing your part too to heal the spirit of our nation in one vital area. Others are working to bring healing elsewhere. Don't despair about the acorns just because the big trees look so menacing. And above all, don't fall into the "Elijah syndrome" (I Kings 19:1-18).

The doom and gloom predictions from various conservatives are troubling. The Western Civilization is far from collapsing and is the most vibrant and productive force on Earth.

Though I am not as optimistic about European countries as I am about United States.

It is not the Christian culture and our "tenacious grasp of the Christian religion" that is the reason for our greatness. Nor is the lack thereof the reason for the failure of Old Europe. It is US being the beacon of Freedom, it is the enormous respect for the invidivual rights, it is our rationalism and strong awareness of our own greatness that is carrying us and will carry us through the current troubles.

Our traditions are there to keep our society stable. I am all for preserving them. I have no problem with the Christian character of our country. I am proud of George Bush not being ashamed of that. But is not the defining characteristic that keeps us Free and Great.

And it is not what will protect the world from Islamofascists. I am sorry but falling church attendance rates, whether in Europe or in US, mean absolutely nothing to the survival of the Western Civilization. It is our recognition of the threat Islamofascism poses to our basic freedoms and values of rationality, individualism, justice, and capitalism.

Islam cannot coexist with the values given to us by our Founding Fathers. And Islam does not want to try to coexist with those values. We should reject it like the alien virus that it is. It might take a lot more suffering in our land, but eventually people will wake up. I have no doubt about it. And all the forces of misdirecting, misleading, treacherous leftists will not stop us from defending ourselves.

And once we wake up, it will not be our Christian faith carrying us through to victory. It will be our brave men and women blasting evil wherever it exists with fire created by the rational human mind. Stone Age mentality of Islam will not survive it.

I think that you are locating fallacies in my post which would be valid if they existed, but I don't think that they do. I don't know that I advocated exclusive state action, and salvation through military force, as much as I did a return to Western values and a belief in American exceptionalism.

And, I agree that Eastern Europe and Africa present the greatest hope for future alliances, but I am concerned that a number of geopolitical factors will prevent them - from a standpoint of strength - from being the necessary buffer that Western Europe has provided for so long.

I could very well be wrong.

I have no problem with the Christian character of our country. I am proud of George Bush not being ashamed of that. But is not the defining characteristic that keeps us Free and Great.

And it is not what will protect the world from Islamofascists.

This is, quite simply, willful forgetting of  the fate of all civilizations who abandon their historical religious cohesiveness - whether that be Christianity or any other religion.

The last time the "presidential job too big for one person" meme
was making the rounds:

The last time this made the rounds was during the disastrous Carter administration.
Carter was so feckless, people suggested that the presidency was too much
for one person. Someone actually suggested a co-presidency to Reagan and he
nearly bit their hand off. Gas lines were among the more charming parts of
the Carter administration as well. He ineptly tried to control the free markets
by government regulation of gas prices.

What people fail to see is that Western Europe is the canary in the coal
mine. What goes wrong in Europe could go wrong here some day if we don't wake
up.

The limits of the Dutch social system is being reached. It was kinda cool when everybody had European last names, when artists could live on the national dole forever. But now it's coming to a close.

But the price is high. An underclass that doesn't contribute to the national largess formed, and is naturally not interested in maintaining the overclass in the manner to which they're accustomed. A few will inevitably choose violence. The same types of things happen whenever demographic changes emerge, whether in Northern Ireland, South Africa, or Europe. Irish Catholics were once synonymous with bombers. Now they're tech weenies. Violence is bad, but unavoidable.

That's why the Europeans have to get to the task of integration. Integration only works with an expanding economy, one that is free from the constraints of the European social model. As conditions deteriorate the Dutch will come to that realization, although that's still years away. Many people will pay a high price for the delay, some in violence and some when their safety net can no longer support their need to be an artist. However the price will be lower the sooner the changes happen.

Oh, if only Ted Kennedy had become an opera singer instead of a politician.  Now he is a bitter old man with some view of a utopian socialist society for those of us less rich than he.  Yet, he cheats on his homestead exemption to keep his Washington D.C. residence from full taxation.

It`s true that a number of Islamic state blame the US, just as they blame their ills on Israel as well.  However, it`s clear that we have also played a role in inflaming the situation - from the installation of the Shah of Iran to the shelling of Lebanese villages, the support of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the USSR to the continued maintenance of troops in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I.  We also failed to push most regimes to change but focussed primarily on stability of oil supply.  

China is a complicated story and of course we must keep pushing.  Still at least in the cities they are lightyears ahead in terms of improved civil rights and standard of living, and we have much more influence over China now than even ten years ago.  This is balanced by the concerns you mentioned, plus serious environmental/water/land use issues, uneven development and a rapidly aging population (only 10% are 60+ now, but by 2040 28% will be 60+ - an additional 200 million).  Trade is the goose that lays the golden egg and the US is by far stronger, so while they may talk about Taiwan an invasion is quite unlikely.  Taiwan will also eventually econimcally integrate anyway, so there is no need for a militry takeover.

issue.  Our advantage in the US is that integration has always been easier because newcomers had opportunities.

However, we still have to face the integraton on a larger scale, including the integration of secular Turkey, the failed middle east states and China.

Our country was not founded on the principles of Christianity. US was founded on the revolutionary premise the all human beings are endowed with certain inalienable rights. US developed into a capitalist society which further cemented our individual freedoms. I am not recommending we abandon our Christian heritage which also gives our country a wonderful character of respect for other human beings, and a desire to help the opressed everywhere else. But that is not why our country is such a beacon that draws people from all over the world to our gates. US is the land of opportunity and freedom and achievement and we will stay that way regardless of church attendance. Personally I believe that morality can and does exist outside religion. Some humans need religion to outline it for them and some don't. Lack of religion will not lead to our downfall, but the lack of freedom will most surely do so.

You say I'm wrong, but seem to agree with virtually all I said. We agree that Carter was a huge contributor the the "presidential job too big for one person era".  I would say that Nixon's wage and price freezes was a big contributor to Carter's problems, as they made it seem acceptable to meddle with the economic infrastructure. But no dispute that Carter was a horrible president.

We're also in agreement that the US has the same type of issues as Western Europe, just not to the same degree (yet). We do a reasonable (but not great) job of assimilating immigrants. Even at that the number of Latinos (primarily Central and South Americans) in the prison system is increasing quickly.

they can't possibly love it equally.  That seems pretty narrow minded.  I'm not Christian, and I think "Cowboy foreign policy" is only as good as the regular old fashioned diplomacy that backs it up.  We have far too much of the former and none of the latter.  

And some of us might say that we love this country too much to let it be usurped by people who believe that torture is acceptable, or that government shouldn't be held accountable, or that young men and women should die for an ambiguosly defined and ineptly run war of opportunity.

There has never existed a civilization like ours. So the previous examples of other civilizations do not necessarily apply. No other civilization was founded on the respect for individual human rights.

Re: I often feel like the anger towards the French and the dissolute low countries is directed at all those who happen to be on the European continent and that simply is not fair.

"dissolute low countries" really only applies properly to Belgium in this matter. The Netherlands has been a supportive ally of the US, and I'm no tsure what we can expect from a nation the size of Luxemburg, but I have not heard that the Luxembourgeois are indicting our genrals or taking to their streets (I assume they have more than one steeet) to shout against us. Indeed, when all is said and done there are really only three Euroepan nations which are deserving of harsh criticism in this matter: France, Germany and Belgium. Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Austria and the former Yugslavian nations have always been neutral (since WWII at least) and we should not expect anything different from them while the rest of Europe has assisted our efforts, and even France and Germany were with us in Afghanistan.

On a related point, the generalizations that many people on the right make about "Europe" don't apply to central/eastern Europe at all.

To deal with the worms that would surely spill out of the can if I answered this question in full, so I will merely say that there is a difference between saying, "This country was founded on Christianity," and "Historically, societies who abandon religion lose their cohesive force and disentigrate."

The term "narrow minded" is a liberal ploy to paint everyone who disagrees with a convenient label of ignorance and intolerance. You don't have to consider everyone's retarded opinion to be right about something.

I am not a Christian either but your leftist talking points belong on dkos.

For the record: I don't have a problem with torture of evil terrorists, I think we were right to invade Iraq, and our men and women are not dying for oil or "war of opportunity".

Lies in the assumption that the broader point at issue is fully covered in the immediate context of the Iraq war - it isn't. As I tried to make painstakingly clear, liberals are always willing to stand behind a war that we're not currently fighting (we should be in Iran! North Korea!) instead of the one we actually are.

All of that, however, is a symptom of the first point you raised, which is that the love liberals have for this country is "different." I suppose that "less" is in fact "different," but that's still not the point I'm making. Liberals' love of the country extends only so far as this country achieves their policy objectives. Most liberals, I am convinced, would be just as content (if not moreso) If America were Canada or Sweden instead. The difference is, that while Ireland's social policy is probably much closer to my liking, I wouldn't trade the existence of America for the existence of Ireland. It is a failure to realize that an America is necessary for the contingent existence of countries like Canada, and Sweden, and indeed Ireland.

particular statement was, and I gave reasons for why I thought so.  That's far more than you have done in your knee jerk post.

And your welcome to your beliefs, my point was that I believe differently and I'll be damned if I love America like he love Arkansas (as he puts it)

See my note above. We are not at odds with "Western Europe" in the matter of the Iraq War. We are at odds with a troika of three nations: Germany, France and Belgium. The rest of Europe is either neutral (a traditional stance for most of those particular nations) or else is supportive. Belgium is nothing but a row boat dragged along in the wake of its two larger neighbors, who have been calling its shots since the Habsburgs were fresh to power; while France and Germany judged (foolishly, IMO) that their national interest lay in opposing our initiatives in the Middle East. This is just the old game of nations played on a new chess board. I see no reason for fretting that either Europe or the USA, or anyone else is doomed. Plus ça change plus la même chose.

I guess my point is that Christianity is not what held our society together to begin with.

In the same conflation as dlev downthread - namely, assuming that I am discussing the current fracas in Iraq - or at the very least, confining my discussion to that conflict. I'm not. I am more concerned, for the purposes of this post, with the unwillingness of Western European nations to confront the Islamofascist threat that has sprung up upon their very own shores - independent of whether they choose to help us in Iraq.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religous people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams (In Howe, Jr. John R. The Changing Political Thought of John Adams Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. p.185). Locke, who influenced Adams and many others, also wrote about the importance of religion.

 The notion that all human beings are created equal, i.e. in the sight of G-d, is a revolutionary notion common to all three monotheistic religions.

Leon, I wasn't so much trying to poke holes at your argument as to remind you to step back and look at the whole fabric. As you well know, most of the recent progress in the pro-life movement has not been at the level of great political changes but rather changes in the heart of millions of individuals, which in its season will increasingly impact the body politic.

Similarly what in the end will tip the fate of Western civilization will be decisions of millions of individuals. Much of what we see in the media is a source of discouragement, but I just wanted to remind you that there is much good going on among individuals and small communities that doesn't attract as much media attention.

Nonetheless, there will certainly be dark times if our leadership buckles and loses the vision, for "without vision, the people perish". Still, remember He who has overcome...

that we should be "in Iran or North Korea", but rather that Iran and North Korea have been and are presently greater threats to both the region and to the U.S. than Iraq was or is, and we should be focusing our attention on them.

If I understand your point, you are saying that liberals only view America as a place to implement social policy , and conservatives view it as a vehicle to enact worldwide change?

If so, then I disagree.  I think that many liberals see America as having a global responsibility, but that we are drifting further from achieving our goals by the methods of the Bush administration, and losing what makes America unique in the process.

provide some examples of societies that abandon their religion and lose their cohesive force and disintegrate?

Egypt and Rome come to mind.

That Christianity was not the religion in question for either of those examples.

I agree that morality is a prerequisite. I think at the time of our country's founding, the notion of morality outside religion was almost non-existent. I also think it took a certain kind of people (our founders) to divine this notion of human beings created equal out of the monotheistic religions. Certainly these religions do not view non-believers kindly.

It is extremely difficult to pinpoint any specific cause as to why Rome collpased.  But I would love to hear your explanation of how their abandonment of paganism led to their downfall and not their overextension of resources coupled with the complacency of their citizens.

Egypt is difficult to identify at all since their collapse occurred at a time when their is very little historical record.

I would like to point out that 2000+ years ago, religion was a far more central part of daily life than today.

Since the liberal posture on every single military action since World War II has been either:

1. Opposition, or
   
   
2. Unwillingness to commit sufficient resources, or
   
   
3. Unwillingness to see the conflict through to the end.

that England became MORE powerful as they became more secular.

what does this mean:

First, I don't think that many democrats believe that we should be "in Iran or North Korea", but rather that Iran and North Korea have been and are presently greater threats to both the region and to the U.S. than Iraq was or is, and we should be focusing our attention on them.

This seems to be saying that you would be in favor of having done nothing in Iraq as well as nothing in Iran or nothing in Korea. And I really defy anyone what more could have been done with Iran or Korea... I mean other than just capitulating and giving them what they demand.

we could have done in Iran is provide more support to the reformists.  Not so much overt endorsement of the reformist but subtle carrot and stick support.  

Nothing can really be done about North Korea.  

He's got a lot to say on the subject, but the abbreviated version has to do with the centrifying force of the emperor cult, and its role in identifying the far-flung citizens of Rome with a capital they'd never seen and a government they never interacted with.

I would like to point out that 2000+ years ago, religion was a far more central part of daily life than today.

I think this is an overblown generalization. If you don't think there were twice-a-year cultists in ancient Rome, I think you're deluding yourself.

The more important point, however, is the question of what makes a person identify with their country as something worth fighting for and defending -

Socialized medicine?

Legal abortion?

The marginal income tax rate?

But the complete abandonment of public religion coincides with the destruction of the Empire, albeit likely coincidentally.

Sure, the Europeans are in a pretty bad way right now. But I think the argument that claims they will be taken over by Muslims is missing some very critical internal links.

With immigration policies tightening, the number of Muslims in Europe is not going to increase dramatically, though their birth rates are higher than native Europeans.

So numerically there will never be enough Muslims to seize any kind of power. All they can do is create unrest and destruction. But, in some bad news for them, I honestly don't think the Europeans are going to take it forever.

One consequence of the decline of Christianity in Western Europe is that, contrary to what some philosophers argue, humans rights language is an outgrowth of Christian teachings. With the foundation eroding, European opinion will be subject to rapid and radical change depending on the circumstances.

Normally, that's a bad thing, which explains why the US system was specifically designed to avoid such situations. But in this case, it means that once radical or criminal Muslims in Europe cross a line, they are done.

If you don't think the French would commit genocide to save their country, you're wrong. Obviously, such a civil war would be a disaster, but at the end of the day human instinct is still operative, even in Western Europe.

The question is how many people have to die before the problem is solved, whatever that solution may be. Can the US prevent that civil conflict in Europe? I doubt it. The Europeans possibly can, but time is short, historically speaking.

I can agree with that.  As societal forces, in general, collapse you are likely to see a collapse in central religous authority.

Re: If current demographic trends continue the EU will be 40% Muslim by 2025.

I don't know where you're getting that figure but from what I've seen it would take 300 years before Muslism would be the majority population in Europe, even assuming population trends are frozen in place (about as likely as the weather staying the same perpetually)

since I read Gibbon but didn't he largely lay blame on the Christians as an external force that changed, and ultimately destroyed, the empire?  The problem is that the empire(western) lasted for 400 after Christ, longer if you don't consider the sacking of Rome to be the end.  It lasted 300 years before Christianity was officially recognized as the official religion.  

I read Gibbon in High School so I may have a poor reading of it.  And if I infer correctly I am not remembering it correctly.  But you seem to be suggesting that the emperor cult was a religion.  That is a pretty tenuous claim.  The emperor was not given and significant religous authority for most of the Roman era.  So why is this an example of what you claim?

This point seems odd....

The more important point, however, is the question of what makes a person identify with their country as something worth fighting for and defending -

How bout the Bill of Rights?  I'd wager that if you asked 10 random Americans why they would fight for this country you would get a fair number that would say "Because it's the land of the free" and none that would say "abortion, gay rights, taxes" or any other contentious issue of the day.

With immigration policies tightening, the number of Muslims in Europe is not going to increase dramatically, though their birth rates are higher than native Europeans.

Sort of mutually exclusive propositions depending on what you mean by "dramatically." If you consider the low birthrate, below replacement levels, with the higher average age of the native European population you will see a substantial shift in European demographics in the next 20 years.

If you don't think the French would commit genocide to save their country, you're wrong

I don't think French history over the past 130 years bears that out.

Re: don't be discouraged by what is signified by all too many of the comments in this thread, namely, that there are many who simply do not perceive the grave and gathering danger to the survival of Western Civilization in a form we would recognize and find to be "homelike".  

"Everything changes with time and we step not twice in the same river." So said the old philosopher Herakleitos. I think we do need to remember that no matter what happens the future will not be like the past and if we could hop into a time machine and disembark in the year 2105 we would not be "at home" no matter what, any more than our great grandparents could arrive in our time and find themselves at home (monarchies and vast empires have collapsed since their day, hideous and genocidal wars have been fought. Utopian ideologies have risen and fallen. Wondrous technologies are everywhere, Women can vote and racial minorities are no longer legally disadvantaged, commerce is far more controlled by large corpoartions, sexual morality is quite a bit looser than they knew but woe to anyone who beats a spouse, animal or child or flirts in the wrong time and place).

And again, I find the hand-wringing a bit overdone. Islamic civilization is dying. That's the meaning of Al Qaida and the rest of the nihilistic terrorists. Healthy civilzations may produce vicious criminals of course, evil is always with us, but rarely do they produce monsters of that magnitude (or rather, they control and perhaps even extinguish those types of monsters.) Looking through the gray-colored lens of pessimism it may seem that our civilization is the the worst of all around--but take those glasses off and you can add: "except for all the others."

Re: Wormtongue is more the norm than the exception

Um, Wormtongue isn't even the exception. He's a fictional character!

That was one incredible essay.  I have little to add other than to say that my concern that we are less different than Europe as a society than we think has been my main concern about the war since Day 1.  You just went to second place in my "Damn I wish I could write like that" list (after Mark Steyn).

decadent, but what will rise in it's place?

There is a romantic and fascist school of thought that argues that decadent cultures must be destroyed to make way for a bold new future. Certainly Islamofascists fit the bill with the exception that they want to destroy the modern world and retreat to a theocratic dark age.

But that's not the American way--some cultural traits are stubbornly persistent. Americans make things. We fix things. We change things. We waste things and sometimes wreck things in our pursuit of happiness. Left to our own devices, we do pretty well, but we are almost never left alone.

The remedy, I think, for the radical leveling power of democracy is strong leadership. We need to be reminded about what has made America great, and then we can either choose to sustain those things or toss them aside.

Unfortunately, we seem to want to toss much that had (and could have again) great value, but we need better leaders. Ronald Reagan comes to mind.

One example. Hip hop culture is crap, but we are bombarded with it virtually 24/7. Why? Because it sells. But does it sell because it's good or because we like it? Or does it sell because there are no attractive alternatives?

A theory. If a major media company got behind Shakespeare with the same energy, creativity and money that is invested in Hip Hop every kid on the planet would know the story of Hamlet--and like it.

We're selling and consuming crap.

to debate much of anything with you today.  I am seldom in the mood at all.

I don't care much for jejune citations of Herakleitos; if you're at peace with the notion of a "Western" civilization either under an Islamic bootheel or so radically altered by adaptation to, assimilation of, or modification by, Islamic culture, enjoy your illusions, and pass along some of whatever you happen to be smoking.  I'd dearly like not to see the things I plainly see.  For my part, I am not at peace with that specific mode of historical change, and never will I be at peace with it, for it is inimical to everything I believe and hold dear, and everything I intend to impart to my children.

As to your other points, such as they are, I will say only that your remark concerning my metaphorical use of "wormtongue" is either daft or cheap, and that, if what certain Muslims are now doing in the course of their jihad against the West represents the death of Islamic civilization, then Islamic civilization has been dying since the moment it emerged from the desert wastes of the Arabian peninsula.  You may delight in that sort of historical forgetfulness, but I do not, and I'd rather struggle against that culture of death along with another one more particular to Western secularists.  None of this has anything to do with finding my culture uniquely contemptible and base, nor with despair; it wasn't despair for St. Augustine to note that the Empire was collapsing.

Re: This is, quite simply, willful forgetting of  the fate of all civilizations who abandon their historical religious cohesiveness - whether that be Christianity or any other religion.

And just what historical example can you cite for the above? Civilizations which changed or altered their original religions abound and I cannot think of not one case where they collapsed as a result. (I reject Gibbon's thesis that Rome fell because it became Christian). Northern Europe did not collapse as a result of the Protestant Reformation, nor did Japan or China fall into ruin when they added Buddhism to their traditional religious strcture.

Rome, based on Gibbon, and Egypt.   I'm not sure what his reasoning on Egypt is.

I'm not sure how Eastern Europe will look in 30 years.  Christianity has widely been rejected in Western Europe as nothing more than ritualistic formality.  Sex shops occupy the same block as many churches. Eastern Europeans, in contrast, seem to be more willing to actually believe in their new Christian religion.  Immediately after the Soviet collapse, the former 'atheist' Eastern Europe presented fertile ground for various forms of Christianity.  

But how long will this last? Is it a house built on Slavic rock or sand?

somehow democrats want war with North Korea and Iran but not Iraq, by saying that I don't think they necessarily want war, but they are certainly on a more accurate track in seeing those two countries as greater threats.

What should we have done? Before answering read about Budapest, 1956, and the dangers of encouraging.

and only good for short yardage.

It doesn't answer the question of what you would have done to remove Iran and/or North Korea as threats while doing nothing with Saddam. Or why, if your course of action couldn't guaratee the removal of the potential threat posed by at least one of those regimes why doing nothing in Iraq represents wasted effort.

Were the Russians going to invade Iran?  

Re: I don't care much for jejune citations of Herakleitos; if you're at peace with the notion of a "Western" civilization either under an Islamic bootheel

I'm not at peace with such a notion, but neither am I worried about it because there is no poetntial future in which that happens.

to think you might be capable of intelligent conversation you say something so blindingly stupid and juvenile that it makes me realize I was wrong.

Bye.

As I noted, I think Gibbon's thesis is bunk, and I am surprised that someone like Leon would make it here--usually one finds that sort of thing coming from the mouths of radical secularists. At the very least let us recall that the most heavily Christianized parts the Empire survived for centuries. As for Egypt, I am equally puzzled. The ancient Egyptians were conquered by the Persians, regained their freedom temporarily as an Athenian client state, were reconquered by Persia, then fell to Alexander and were ruled by the Ptolemies before finally succumbing to Rome. Traditional Egyptian religion survived all of that, until finally yielding to Christianity.

I thought I was being honest when I said "I don't understand you reference."

The 1956 revolt was suppressed by an external force, the Soviets.  Do you disagree?  

I said I don't understand your point because I don't see how it compares to this.  Had you said the Kurdish uprising of the early 90s I would have better understood it, although I would have found it off the mark.

Instead of hurling insults you could actually explain your point.  This is what adults do.

Actually it's one of the low numbers I have heard on the news shows. If Turkey
joins the EU it will jump to 20% over night.

If Turkey joins, the European Union's Muslim population, now about 3 percent,
would jump to 20 percent.

[...]

Some European cities, such as Marseille and Rotterdam, now have Muslim
populations of 25 percent.

Source

If you read my post carefully you also see that I said it would be a political
majority. This isn't hard to imagine in countries like Germany or France
with at least a half a dozen political parties. You might also check out books
like Eurabia
by Bat Yeor. Your 300 year number is off especially as it applies to the EU.

Re: I don't think French history over the past 130 years bears that out.

The French came close to committing genocide in Algeria, and they weren't too kind in Vietnam.

Let's assume a very worst case scenario: Non Muslim European numbers decline by 10% each generation (=25 years). Muslim numbers increase by 10% in the same time frame. The rate of change for both remain constant.  Start with 380,000,000 non Muslims and 40,000,000 Muslims. The crossover happens in between the 12th and 13th generation.

I do not, of course, believe that democracy, freedom and light are bad things.

While we're assured that light is good, is it certain that either democracy or freedom as currently practiced in western liberal states are good in and of themselves?  Is that a claim that stands up to scrutiny?

70 Million Turkish Muslims by including Turkey in the EU.  

is an unwarranted superstition given recent trends and occurrences on the continent that witnessed the birth of our civilization.  You've also excerpted my sentence so as to criticise the one scenario I freely concede is less probable than those involving gradual cultural and political capitulations: outright subjugation.  

But no matter.  Present-day Europe suffices to demonstrate the error of facile optimism.

Re: While we're assured that light is good, is it certain that either democracy or freedom as currently practiced in western liberal states are good in and of themselves?

Is anything in this world good in and of itself? OK, we postulate that human life has value apart from any instruimental use it may have, but anything else?

As for freedom and democracy though, I think we can find ample instrumental value in them, even as they are practiced in today's world. Anyone care to trade in the US for Cuba, North Korea or Iran?

is cheating on the numbers. Most of those Turks will stay right in Turkey.

but I think that we could have used the threat of force and even the threat of invasion to allow us to let weapons inspectors continue with their search and confirm that there were no weapons.  As for getting rid of saddam after that, I think that with the troops massed and the international attention we could have created an environment conducive to encouraging political change in iraq while simultaneously focusing our attention on Iran with  greater international support because of our success with Iraq.  Iran is possibly even more ripe for this type of strategy because of the politics of the country.

Now that may all be a pipe dream, but the fact is that we really never gave that type of aggressive foreign policy a shot.  We went from half-assed indifference to invasion, and then claimed that all options had been exhausted over 12 years.  I am not an isolationist, and I even consider myself somewhat "conservative" in foreign policy, but that doesn't mean i have to go along with the ill-conceived and clearly inneffective policy of this administration.  And my scenario is at least as valid as the mess we are in now.  

it seems to me that if there are Wormtongues about, this thread may be characterized as the Triumph of Denethor: a man so sunken in despair that he did nothing but brood over fear and defeat. And while Denethor may have had some just reason for his fear, as he was facing an immensely powerful foe, here the situation is reversed: it is we who are immensely powerful relative to the ragatg (albeit brutal and murderous) bands of brigands and reavers we face.

I will conclude my visit here by reiterating that we are not losing, neither in Iraq nor in the larger business. It took forty years to see the Communists to their ruin, so the fact that total victory has not come yet is not cause for gloom. And in the long run Islamism is as much a failed philosophy as anything penned by Marx: Islam must reform or die.

I'm actually in agreement, on the whole, with your second paragraph.  On the other hand, LOTR references are necessarily metaphorical, for reason of the power differential to which you ceaseless refer.  The problem, however, is that for a variety of reasons, most of which arise from the West's forgetfulness of her own heritage, traditions, and ancestral faith, is that we are reluctant to utilize such power as we possess; it is almost as though we feel that to do so would be shameful, that we cannot quite comprehend the necessity of such action in the first place, and that we would transgress some unspoken moral precept - curious though this is for postmoderns who don't believe in an authoritative ethic at all - by appealing to our history - what is true and noble therein - as a basis of unity against our foes, internal and external.

The bottom line is that, as someone else has reminded us, Yeats' oft-quoted lines hold true: the worst are full of passionate intensity, while the best lack all conviction.  If we do not recover our conviction, those weak bands of brigands will win out.

But that's how he's getting to his numbers.  

However, I'll just note that I love America for the very reasons you think put it at risk.  Its toleration of both religious people and secular, its political liberalism, the incredibly diversity I see every day, interacting to produce progress.  I can sit in a coffee shop talking to a Texan day trader one minute, a pierced and tattooed grad student the next.  There's little tension, and what tension exists is creative. That dynamism is America's greatest strength.

As for the substance of your post, it seems like a particularly unfunny joke.  The same fearful pessimism would have kept my great grandparents, Papist Irish, out of the country.  I can't believe that you really think America's heart so weak, it's spine so fragile, that a bunch of disaffected Saudi rich boys can bring us down.

We are strong, with you or without you.  You can wallow in your defeatism while America moves on.  

Playing a role in imflamming a situation and bearing primary responsisbility for it are different things.

Cold war real politic is unreasonable as an argument.

Great forces were grinding against each other. There was no other way. It was that or extinction.

Give us 10 years as a transitionary period after the cold war, and we are now properly addressing the current situation, albeit from a degraded perspective due to the distortions of the previous conflict.

It's a tiring slog though, no?

I generally avoid conversations I don't really understand, too.

Its toleration of both religious people and secular, its political liberalism, the incredibly diversity I see every day, interacting to produce progress.

Yes, because tolerance of secularism is just the very thing that will both impress and deter the Islamofascists.

As for the substance of your post, it seems like a particularly unfunny joke.  The same fearful pessimism would have kept my great grandparents, Papist Irish, out of the country.

Yes, because the Papist Irish have demonstrated such a stubborn unwillingness to assimilate, combined with an open desire to push our civilization into the sea.

I can't believe that you really think America's heart so weak, it's spine so fragile, that a bunch of disaffected Saudi rich boys can bring us down.

I didn't begin to think this way until fairly recently. I'll let you guess what's happened in the intervening time to change my mind.

We are strong, with you or without you.

I hope that that is so.

The western world, anyway. Europe is already dead; the US is not much better off.

Half the people in the US (ie, the Democrats) seem to simply hate the US.

Most the people in the US can't seem to support a war that is vitally important to the US, just because we reached a magic 2000 dead milestone.

By any historical standards, that's really low. Yet we seem to find any loss unbearable; we're afraid to do anything good in the world because of this. And if we don't, no one else will. Thus you get things like Darfur is basically a genocide and while you get some people talking about it, no one plans to actually do anything.

The French are underrated in this respect. Napoleon? I see your 130 year limit but don't see how it is relevant. The Prime Minister of France openly says Napoleon is his hero.

In WWI, the French acquitted themselves quite well... they might have won without US intervention, though of course that would have extended the war. In any case, a lot of things went wrong (the Brits struggled, Russia collapsed, etc.) but France hung in there. In WWII, where the French are almost universally considered to have been worthless, they actually did a decent job.

The Maginot line was pretty good, it just didn't extend far enough north, probably because the French made a couple assumptions that turned out to be wrong but were reasonable when made. The Germans took tremendous losses during the invasion of France, with well over 50,000 good troops killed, many more wounded, and at least 20% of the Luftwaffe destroyed. It didn't help that Paris is in the Northeast.

But this point is critical: yes, France surrendered when Paris was threatened and the war was lost anyway. But France's Muslim population LIVES in and around Paris. A major conflict means Paris is in trouble.

The French are capable of being plenty nasty-- much more so than the US ever has been. Look at their actions in Africa even to the present day (Ivory Coast earlier this year, they massacred civilians because a few gunmen opened up on their embassy).

They aren't going down quietly. The Germans might but there are very few Muslims in that country, so the threat is pretty minimal.

The biggest problem we in America face is our media and its significant liberal bias.

It really is the media that is keeping the political left alive these days.

In a functional democracy, access to reliable information is key to the people making informed, intelligent choices and votes.  

However, a slanted media, one dedicated to promoting an ideological point of view over raw truth, stands in the way of the people.

The media wields a huge amount of power; they are almost a de facto 4th arm of govt.  

It's no coincidence that when a dictator attempts to seize power, he often takes control of the media as one of his first acts.

If we could get a truly balanced media, one dedicated to disseminating truth as opposed to serving as a propaganda agent, then our civilization would be spectacularly better off, and more destined to last.

Bottom line is this: we desparately need to either reform the media or replace it.

You know I agree.  However, I'm not sure if anyone else is paying attention.  These "distortions" are one source of the current problem, which we should have seen coming - even if our role was unavoidable.

I do think we need to emotionally disengage from the "culture war" mentality, though - it just adds fuel to the fire.

Traditions, rules, anathemas are like a mountain piled over us, through which a number of windows are cut; light falling in some places, and not in others. For a long time now, we've been working away with pick and shovel, cutting new windows to let the light of freedom in. It's worked pretty well. Sometimes the light picks out things that were best left in the darkness; but the light lets us create beautiful art and sculpture as well. Well, people always seem to want more light, and we keep tunneling and blasting...but some of us hear, or claim to hear, creakings and groans high in the roof vault. We wonder if, perhaps, some of these walls are structural?

As Aleks pointed out, trying to seal things back up doesn't usually work so well. It's been tried; those realms resound with the shrieks of those groping in darkness and the moans of the immured. But we have others to deal with too: those crying "Light! Light! Light!," calling for seven-foot drill and blasting powder, until all the world is one glorious blaze of illumination. Listen! You can hear the ring of their hammers every day, and now and then, the sound of blasting. Light there will be — but if the roof fall, only darkness, and long it will be ere the survivors begin to cautiously tap towards light again.

This essay is so unmoored from reality it is both painful and awesome to behold.  It mixes breathtaking ignorance of modern Europe, the Cold War, Islamic radicalism, welfare states, economics, and the role of religion in politics with a kind of paranoid fatalism that would make Chicken Little blush.

First---and I scarcely believe this needs saying---Europe does not face imminent Islamic revolution, any more than the US need fear a sneak attack by Mexico or Canada.  The Islamist radicals' biggest takeover target is surely Saudi Arabia, and they haven't even managed to topple the brittle and astoundingly currupt Saudi regime.  Or the Egyptian government.  Or the Pakistani government.  Or the Jordanian government.  Noticing a trend here?  al Qaeda and its allies are weak, and so resort to the tactics of an overmatched force.  They don't field an army, they can't project power, they don't have a fifth column ready to take European capitals, and they couldn't possibly compete even with the small military forces of Europe.

Second, Europe is not in terminal decline.  Read something about Europe by someone who studies the place, rather than someone who hates France as a pastime.  You will quickly discover that the economies, welfare states, and problems faced by European countries vary.  The countries with the biggest fiscal and unemployment problems---e.g., Germany---have relatively less generous welfare states than Scandinavian countries, who nonetheless have lower unemployment rates and budget deficits than the US.  France and Germany do not equal Europe.

But even France and Germany are in sustainable shape.  They can self-finance their deficits---something we can't do---and they have nursed their high unemployment rates for a long time.  Not an ideal allocation of resources, but they still have high personal incomes by world standards, generous social services, and long vacations.  People in Europe are mostly pleased with life, rather than being on the verge on economic disintegration.

Side note:  The riots in France?  Not the first horseman of the Apocalypse.  Not even the dormouse of the Apocalypse.  And not much of a race riot by American standards.  What's the death toll?  Has it cracked a dozen yet?  If you think the Paris riots are the work of al Qaeda, rather than the spontaneous frustration of second-class citizens, what's your historical gloss on the American race riots of the 1960s?  A Communist plot to destroy Christmas?  When LA erupted after Rodney King, I'm sure many in Europe expected the coming collapse of American society.  Is that the kind of analysis conservatives aspire to these days?  Why not wait for the contradictions of capitalism?  Or the withering away of the state?  Riots in Paris are practically a national tradition.  We may not like it, but we can't deny that Paris lives on.

Third, the notion that nation-states (or empires?) depend for their survival on common religious observance is neither historically supported nor well explained.  China remained essentially unified for thousands of years with preciously little religiosity.  Rome built a massive empire, but didn't take its myths too seriously (ditto the Greeks).  Perhaps the Swiss owe their long political confederation to some undocumented fervent Christianity?  Maybe Japan is more serious about Shinto than they let on?  

Perhaps there is a broader argument here about the need for a unifying national ideology (be it a religion or a political movement like Communism or fascism).  I'm sure that many Europeans would answer:  "Been there, done that.  Didn't like where it led---30 years war, WWII.  Now we live quiet, comfortable lives and go on vacance in August."  I think they've got the right answer.

But maybe you think the Europeans are free riding on American military strength?  That the carefree, pacific European lifestyle would evaporate without the NATO shield?  I don't doubt that European military spending would tick up if the US pulled back.  But until the US does, why shouldn't Europe take a free defensive handout?  Do you really think the 350 million strong, multi-trillion dollar European political economy couldn't defend itself if it had to?

Third, you have a lot to learn about Cold War history, and the ideas and military knowledge of your political rivals.  First, al Qaeda is not the Soviet Union, or even a shadow of its threat.  Second, in the face of the real Soviet threat, many Democrats were fierce Cold Warriors.  JFK ran on it, and contrasted his preference for big military spending and confrontation with the more passive, spendthrift Eisenhower administration.  Yes, Carter favored detente, and Reagan a hardline.  But then, as now, there were different perspectives in each party not just on the degree on engagement with the enemy, but on the best strategies for engagement.  And in the end, these were all rather beside the point:  the Soviet economy was so badly thought out that it could not have survived many years long than it did, no matter what Reagan or Gorbachev or anyone else did in the waning days of the Cold War.

For example, it's a pure fantasy to suggest that the slow, self-inflicted wound of Vietnam helped the American geopolitical position or shortened the Cold War.  Instead, it was just the sort of battle Kennan---the original architect of containment---warned against.  A long bloody war over a peripheral nation that tied down American resources, revealed the limits of American power, and discouraged subsequent containment efforts.

Vietnam didn't discourage the Soviets, and maybe that's a good thing.  Expansionism was a drain on Soviet resources.  The later invasion of Afghanistan showed that; I can't imagine any Cold Warrior at this point regretting the Soviet decision to commit its war machine to that catastrophe.

Which brings us back to our present geopolitical dilemma.  Back in reality, we are committed to a war in Iraq, trying to put down a Sunni/Islamic insurgency, failing to make measurable progress that would survive for a month after our departure, and looking craptacular to the rest of the world in the bargain.  If you are so out of touch as to think that all this is necessary to stave off the collapse of Western Civilization in the coming onslaught by the terrorist hordes, by all means, "stay the course", and keep a nightlight on---there might be monsters under the bed, too.

But if you approach this whole adventure the way many security minded Democrats have, you see the world a bit differently:  the US has the finest military ever assembled, but not unlimited power.  It must choose when to engage, and when to use a combination of containment and soft power.  Iraq was contained, had no strategic rationale for supplying terrorists with WMD, no evidence of development of "serious" WMD (nukes or weaponized bioweapons), and clearly was a second- or third- string threat behind al Qaeda and North Korea.

Today, I see that al Qaeda has survived our aborted mission in Afghanistan and regrouped using the gift-wrapped opportunity to kill our soldiers in Iraq, while we are using diplomacy (for lack of any other option, with our military in Iraq and slowly bleeding from IED and falling recruitment) to contain the North Koreans.

Would that the warriors of the Republican Party had used diplomacy and containment in Iraq.   But seeing what passes for grand strategy in those circles, I fear for my country and the world.

has not been particularly reluctant. Nor has Britain. But one of our problems here is that we are not facing not a nation, but lawless gangs. The situation requires great subtlty and care, not WWII tactics of blowing up everything in sight--especially since we are also dealing with a region that supplies much of the world's energy. The struggle will be a long one, more akin tio the Cold War than to any hot war we've fought. I fully expect reversals and even quagmires, but as others have said here there's no substitute for victory and I fail to see how yesterday's gloom and doom furthers that cause.

And on a personal note, I won't be around here much for the next week, as I am leaving later today to drive north to spend Thanksgiving with my step-mother's family in Michigan, and for once I am not taking my laptop. OK, I may cheat and pop in via Ma's computer later this week, but in the meantime a restful and blessed holiday to all on RedState.

Re: China remained essentially unified for thousands of years with preciously little religiosity.

This would not be correct. Pre-Mao China had several deep and flourishing religious traditions: the original Chinese Paganism of which the Emperor was high priest propitiating Heaven with a plethora of complex rituals and sacrifices; Confucianism with its emphasis on public ethics; the esoteric practice of Taoism; Chinese Buddhism; even a native Chinese Christianity mostly found in the Nestorian churches. What the Chinese did manage to do was host all these traditions with a minimum of strife and sectarian violence. Examples of religious disharmony can certainly be found but compared to the history of Europe or the Middle East or India they are pretty minimal.

Confucianism, Taoism, and arguably the Chinese versions of Buddhism look more like philosophy or ritual than the more plainly theistic religions of the west.  One can expand the definition of religion to encompass these practices, I suppose, but it is a bit of conceptual stretching.  

All rather beside the point.

"impress and deter the Islamofascists"

I wasn't under the impression that we were trying to "impress" bin Ladenists.  Why do conservatives seem to be so driven by concern for what they think?  I genuinely don't understand why some people think it's desirable to base policy on a desire either to "impress" bin Laden's acolytes, or to avoid "emboldening" them.  I don't care what they think -- I care what the people not already in his camp think.  They are a mote in our eye for the moment; it seems that some people here think they're a board.

On the Irish, you are ignorant of history.  The same arguments repeated here with regard to muslims were made about Irish and Italian immigrants at the turn of the last century.  About Chinese and Japanese immigrants too.  Our breeding rates were too high, our culture perverse, anti-godly.  Mary worship cults, etc.  Fortunately, we found havens in the big cities and small towns in the interior of the country, were able to get jobs, get an education -- even create our own school system.  In a few short generations, we were welcome in America, enough to elect a fellow Irish Catholic president.

You have so little faith in our country.  We will win the battle against bin Ladenism despite the Iraqi misadventure, not because of it.  America will win, it will simply take a few more years after the disastrous path we've followed for the last two and a half years.

I wasn't under the impression that we were trying to "impress" bin Ladenists.  Why do conservatives seem to be so driven by concern for what they think?  I genuinely don't understand why some people think it's desirable to base policy on a desire either to "impress" bin Laden's acolytes, or to avoid "emboldening" them.  I don't care what they think -- I care what the people not already in his camp think.  They are a mote in our eye for the moment; it seems that some people here think they're a board.

Yes, well, I see that you're of the opinion that we should attempt to defeat all billion Muslims militarily. Which strikes me as not very sound policy.

On the Irish, you are ignorant of history.  The same arguments repeated here with regard to muslims were made about Irish and Italian immigrants at the turn of the last century.  About Chinese and Japanese immigrants too.

I'm full well aware of all the bigotry of which you speak. However, there's a marked difference between the ignorance of the Know-Nothings, and an anti-immigration policy based on protectionism and religious bias, and the actual, real-life concern that the Muslims will not assimilate, in particular in Western Europe. Such concern, in the case of the Irish/Catholics, was either overblown or nonexistent. You're free to think the same about the Islamofascists - but again, I'm missing the humor, myself.

Fortunately, we found havens in the big cities and small towns in the interior of the country, were able to get jobs, get an education -- even create our own school system.  In a few short generations, we were welcome in America, enough to elect a fellow Irish Catholic president.

All of this demonstrates, however, that you've utterly missed the point of everything I said - this was not an immigration post.

You have so little faith in our country.  We will win the battle against bin Ladenism despite the Iraqi misadventure, not because of it.  America will win, it will simply take a few more years after the disastrous path we've followed for the last two and a half years.

Yes, behold how the strength of bin Laden has grown over the last two years. Is he still alive?

And I tell you, what would have been really effective is if we had gone over to Afghanistan, removed the Taliban, and then come back home. As I already pointed out, your foreign policy vision has demonstrated its bankruptcy time and again, you just don't have the decency to concede the point.

Is that the new way to say, "posture impotently with diplomacy"?  It goes well with "states of concern".

are always classified as religions in works that deal with the subject. Perhaps if we were closer to them on a daily basis it would be easier to see them as such. From a distance we mostly see their intellectual works, rather as if non-Christians knew Christianity only via only Augustine and Aquinas and nothing of its rituals or private parctices.

I'm full well aware of all the bigotry of which you speak. However, there's a marked difference between the ignorance of the Know-Nothings, and an anti-immigration policy based on protectionism and religious bias, and the actual, real-life concern that the Muslims will not assimilate, in particular in Western Europe. Such concern, in the case of the Irish/Catholics, was either overblown or nonexistent. You're free to think the same about the Islamofascists - but again, I'm missing the humor, myself

We have several million Muslims living in this country.  I haven't noticed a great deal of social strife going on, at least not coming FROM the Muslims.  They seem to be more than willing to assimilate.  I have 3 Muslims co-workers.  Other than having a rather nasty distated for Israel they don't seem to have any sort of anti-american zeal.  

And I tell you, what would have been really effective is if we had gone over to Afghanistan, removed the Taliban, and then come back home. As I already pointed out, your foreign policy vision has demonstrated its bankruptcy time and again, you just don't have the decency to concede the point.

Or perhaps we go into Afghanistan, take out the Taliban, get Bin Laden, and then rebuild that country.  A country that was generally supportive of Americans and didn't view much of their recent plight to be the fault of the United States.  A country that would have been very supportive of American help most likely.  A country in which the  International community would have likely lent it's support to.  

achieved partial agreement or whether you are caricaturing my position, or perhaps projecting upon me a position you find ridiculous, that of "blowing up everything in sight" - a policy I have never commended as particularly suited to the present crisis.

Nevertheless, it any struggle such as the present one, it is imperative not merely to exercise resolve, but to examine the national spirit, to subject the public mind to searching scrutiny, to the end of determining whether we truly possess the qualities of mind and spirit requisite to the hour.  That is what this debate is about: some of us see a Europe incapable of taking the true measure of the enemy, a Europe that has become a parody of a cliche of political correctness unwilling to question its neo-marxist, liberal faith that religion is merely ephemeral and that secular discontents only can be the causes of the resitiveness of their Muslims.  We see an American public that, through a mixture of motives noble and base, wavers in its support for a policy which, however flawed in design and execution, has become, not merely a matter of saving face, but of saving an entire nation from some horrible mixture of civil conflict and Islamist agitation, and the world itself from the consequences of a pullout and the propaganda victory such would constitute for Islamists.  We see an American government that can scarcely bring itself to name the enemy; which labours under the grotesque fiction that the terrorism that threatens us is not largely particular to a certain category of persons.  And so on.  So let us not beg the question of resolve.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving.

your position, please accept that no offense was intended. Though with critics who complain that "we are not doing enough" (which may not be you) I have to wonder what they think we ought be doing. Neither justice nor prudence admits of a "bomb them back to the stone age" strategy in this business. (And again, I do not claim that you support such)

On the other hand it is true that nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. The Bush administration is fast becoming a deja vu of the Johnson administration and Vietnam: neither ever made a truly adequete case to the American people for their respective wars, but rather relied on emotion (9-11, the red menace and the supposed Gulf of Tonkin incident) to inflame public passions. Problem with that is, passions inevitably cool down and if your war isn't won by that point then people will start asking some serious questions. When this happened to the country in the Civil War Lincoln supplied a powerful new cause for supporting the Union effort (which had not been a raging success at that point) via the Emancipation Proclamation. Is there some grand new gesture we can make here? Perhaps that should be considered.

Also, there's the question of execution, and here I have to admit that I am among those who support the principle behind our ventures, but find their actual realization sorely lacking. The public turned against Vietnam when it became obvious that we had no real strategy for victory, and we reun the risk of that happening again. If anyone has a prescription for victory then let us hope they are not shy to put it forward.

the manifest failures of the adminstration to explain the policy are discussed, almost ad nauseum, on sites such as this one.  The animating concern of Leon's post, however, is not what should be done to achieve victory, but whether the American people have the stomach to do what it takes to see the war through to victory.  In other words, our concern is not merely the absence of effective strategy, or the absence of an effective PR campaign for such a strategy, but the vacillation of the public, their tendency to assume the posture of that caricature of idealism - that if they simply pay no mind to them, the problems will not exist.

We know that certain things have been bungled.  We know that an argument for the policy has not been articulated in a cogent fashion.  What we don't know is whether the American people would be willing to see the conflict through to victory even if flaws were rectified and a cogent case marshalled.  

Aleks311 said:

As a rule in fact any nation that is gaining immigrants (except temprorarily, as the result of a disaster in some neighboring country) is doing OK while those which are exporting people are in trouble.

If immigrantion is occurring, yes. But is what is happening in Western Europe/Three Weak European countries immigration? Or is it the migration of one people who are displacing another? I believe the lesson drawn from history about migrations, is that it doesn't really matter how strong you are militarily, you lose to the migration.

Re: But is what is happening in Western Europe/Three Weak European countries immigration?

Yes. Migration is something animals do. Or pre-state human nomads. It's also generally a temporary situation: swallows migrate to and from Capistrano, for example, and hunter-gather bands follow(ed) their game around. In modern (or even settled ancient) societies it's a different story. You don't just pick up and wander off to another country for no reason. There are legal issues to deal with (or evade), and more importantly there has to be some sort of motivation. Sometimes it may be war or fear of persecution or flight from natural disaster; sometimes it may be economic deprivation and the hope for a better life elsewhere--a hope strong enough that the immigrant is willing to cut his ties with his homeland and his family and insert himself into an alien culture, a different climate etc. Anyway, I my point still holds: if the Middle East were not so dreadfully dysfunctional it would not be exporting its people; rather people would be seeking to immigrate to the Middle East. Some years back I recall the classic response to criticisms of America was "If we're so bad why do so many people want to live here?" This is true today in regards to the Middle East and Europe: if Europe is so screwed up why do people want to move there, and if the Middle East is so great why are so many people trying to leave?

Muslims in Europe have three times as many children as families with roots in Europe. And nearly 1 million legal immigrants come to Europe every year, many from Islamic areas such as North Africa, Pakistan and Turkey.

The article specifically refers to Muslims having tripled in raw numbers (300% increase) over a shorter period than the 25 years you use for a 10% increase, and that those numbers will double again by 2020, which is only 15 years away (200% increase). Granted this would seem to indicate an asymtopic curve which might eventually get down to your 10% increase number, but it sure isn't starting out there. It will certainly shorten the time get to 40% of Europe being Muslim, assuming the 10% decrease for non-Muslim Europeans doesn't get any worse.

You are correct of course that if you assume unchanging conditions from a selected period of time, you can generate almost any eventuality. But I'm not sure that is an effective criticism at this point.

is going to fall pretty fast in ("old") Europe if Old Europe continues to adhere to its brain-dead socialist policies. Even more so than in the West, Muslim society only allows young men to marry and start families if they are able to support those families. Given the high levels of unemployment European socialism has generated, they're going to have a lot of umnmarriageable Muslim men and hence a lot of childless Muslim women. I suspect that a big party of the current upheaval in France is caused by this already: gainfully employed parents of children do not generally riot. What we are seeing is the rage of a lot of young who are being frozen out of the future their traditional culture demands for them.

Also, that 300% increase is probably due to the very small initial numbers, and as such will not be sustainable. If you were the only American living in Narnia and then you had three kids that would be a 300% increase as well, but it wouldn't mean very much. And even 10% per generation is pretty extreme. The real numbers are likley to be under ±5% which drags out the time line much further.

While I can't recall the specific reference (maybe Victor David Hanson) the point is it doesn't matter whether the population receiving the migration is "better" or "worse" than the population that is migrating, it is going to lose the war.

One specific example is the initial Mongul invasion of the Germanic lands. The Monguls displaced the Germanic tribes, which in turn displaced the Romans. If your premise were true, them we would all still be speaking Latin, instead of it being a dead language.

Another example is the European migration that created our country. If the Indian culture had been beneficial to their culture, they wouldn't be relegated to small reservations.

So if the Muslims are undertaking a similar migration into Old Europe, it will be really bad for Old Europe, not good as you are arguing.

Leon, this essay hit the nail on the head.

I now know what this sense of unease is that I've been feeling.

Perfectly articulated, very timely.