The Real Decision

Much noise is being made about a renewed effort to make Iraq the central issue of the presidential campaign, because some people have finally figured out that we're going to be in Iraq for awhile yet, and it isn't going to be pretty. I guess this realization passes for a breaking story these days, but I worry that the more we talk about Iraq, the less we talk about Iran.
 
No one seems to be paying enough attention during Rhetoric Fest 2004 to the worsening situation in Iran, what it implies for us, and how it will be handled by whoever is president after November. There's a clear nuclear threat to us there, but what do we do about it? Neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry seem to have a sense of urgency about Iran, nor is anyone really pressing them to articulate a clear idea about how they would meet the threat. And we're not likely to hear much serious discussion of the problem between now and November 2. Too bad; an ounce of prevention would be worth a ton of politics regarding Iran.
 
The problem with elections is that somebody gets elected, and then they have to do something. And in this case that something is not a briefing on the details of the inaugural ball, but how to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. A bigger task, but if we want to deal effectively with Iran, we are going to have to reverse 25 years of inadequate policy and action in response to the spreading threat of Islamic orthodoxy. That neither Bush nor Kerry, nor practically anyone in our government seems up to the job is what keeps me awake at night.
 
Iran is only the most recent inflammation. Every administration since the days of Carter, as well as nearly all our overseas allies, has failed to acknowledge or deal effectively with the Islamic threat to the west. A notable exception has been Israel, which has been saying since 1948 what we are just now waking up to...that the radical Islamicists mean to kill all of us... and that barring titanic change within Islam itself (unlikely, unless moderate Muslims truly rise up) or preventive action from without (exactly what is unclear), Islam will be the first civilization to bring nuclear destruction to the West, and it means to do this as soon as it possibly can. Israel, who apparently has understood this all along, has become the world's whipping boy for saying so.
 
Old paradigms die hard, and for far too long our indecisiveness has lent credence to  unctuous simpletons like Kofi Annan when he asserts that the Israelis, the Americans, Judeo—Christianity, and the imperialist subjugation of the Muslim world by the West (pick any one) are the reasons for Islamic terror. We still do not recognize that the backward conditions that exist in much of the Muslim world are largely self—imposed by Islamic law. We still do not believe that the agenda of orthodox Islam is not to become part of the global community, but to dominate it, or failing that, to destroy it. And we have not yet forced ourselves to accept the fact that actions which are unthinkable to us are standard practice to the jihadists, sanctioned by both the Qu'ran and 14 centuries of Islamic tradition.
 
Israel has certainly not been blameless in its actions or national policy since 1948, and we should not blindly adopt their same policies. But the Israelis do have more than 50 years of experience on the job, and we should pay attention to that. In fact, if we compare the histories of Israel and the US over the past 5 decades, it gives us an idea of why their resolve against their enemies seems so much stronger than ours.
 
Israel has been at war for its survival almost constantly since 1948. Hardship has been a way of life for several generations of Israelis, up to and including the present day. They have a national identity and they care passionately about preserving their culture and way of life. They see value in preserving their foundational laws and beliefs (Judaism) that are responsible for who and what they are today. All this has produced several generations of Israelis marked by character, self—discipline, sacrifice and purpose, and who have been able to put aside comfort and unite behind a cause greater than themselves. Israelis differ on the how, when and what of national policy, but not the why. In short, they have answered "yes" to the question that history eventually asks of every civilization...."Do you believe your way of life is worth preserving, and will you fight for it?"  Some in the West still think that negotiation or money can turn enemies into friends. But in Israel, the notion of appeasement only lasts until the next cafe bombing.
 
Its true that Americans could never have had a national identity comparable to that of the Israelis, almost all of whom share a common religion and tradition. But still, few of the things that characterize the Israelis as a united people apply to Americans today. This is partly because we have tolerated those who have divided us along all sorts of lines...racial, ethnic, moral, cultural, gender, age, political, even physical appearance. In 1858, then—Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln warned that a national house divided against itself over a single issue — slavery— could not stand. He'd have to give a much longer speech today.

The fact that recent waves of immigration have not assimilated well has only amplified our differences. Unlike the European, Asian, and Hispanic immigrants who came to America between the 17th and 19th centuries, the recent waves of immigrants have little or no incentive to assimilate, so they remain culturally distinct. Even though this benefits no one, we don't seem to mind.

We also remain divided because of our abundance. Unity and resolve are most easily forged by hardship, not by ease and bounty, and for the most part, America's history has not been one of great or enduring national hardship. Our survival has never been seriously threatened, except now by radical Islamic nations like Iran. We have always emerged stronger and more prosperous from our past national trials. 
 
Americans no longer have a national identity, we have instead a national identity crisis.   As a result, we're not sure how to answer the tough question before America today: "Do you believe your way of life is worth preserving, and will you fight for it?" We have rewritten our history to the point where the next two generations of Americans do not know that it was predominantly Western civilization that brought liberty, order, prosperity, and scientific enlightenment to the world. We are playing fast and loose with the pillars of our republic...the Constitution, the separation of powers, the Judeo—Christian foundations of our laws, and individual liberty. This is scary stuff, yet we do not seem frightened.

This is not to dismiss the contributions of other civilizations through history, it is to put them in perspective compared to the achievements of Western civilization, which I believe are objectively greater. To those among us who disagree, I would put this question: If we abandon Western civilization, what are the alternatives, and are any of them proven through history? Look around the world and the answer seems like a lay—up.

If we're not sure that Western civilization is worth preserving, its no wonder that we are unwilling to publicly declare what's really at stake, in both the War on Terror, and the cultural war here at home. I believe this is our core weakness in America, and it is a lethal and paralyzing one. Like the Israelis, we can have (must have) ongoing disagreements about the what, when, how and why of what we do, but we will not survive continued double—mindedness on the why.

The kind of character, self—discipline, sacrifice, and purpose required to put aside personal comfort and unite behind a cause greater than self is not the signature attribute of the last few generations of Americans. It's there within us, but it has become a recessive trait, and now has to be brought out either by great national leadership or great national tragedy. I think we have lacked great national leadership for some time now, maybe since the days of Truman, but certainly since the Reagan Presidency. With each election, we have fewer statesmen (and women) and more political operatives; fewer who want to serve more who want to exploit.

This is true not only in the political world, but also in business, culture, and religion. And it's our own fault. We allowed it to happen, and we tolerate it now because we still think we can get more out of such a system personally than it will cost us as a nation. If we want to reverse this trend, it will take some time, and the creation of an environment which is overtly hostile to these creatures. Such an environment can only be created if we are willing to abandon our current path of secular moral relativism, and return to the ethical absolutes of our Judeo—Christian foundation. There's that pesky Western civilization again.

September 11 should have sufficed as the great national tragedy of our time, but it did not. It made us argue about who we are, and what we still believe in, which is a good thing for Americans to do. But there we stay, and that is a bad thing. We have tried so hard for so long not to think about those questions, it became easier for us to keep arguing rather than find an answer. The rancor and division now threaten our survival as a nation.  I'm not suggesting we suspend our reason to walk blindly in lockstep nationalism, but we have clearly arrived at a point in our history where we have to decide whether there is more that divides us, or more that unites us.

For now, the choice is still ours. But we had better make it soon, because countries like Iran are watching, and the longer we debate, the higher the likelihood that they will make the decision for us.

Bob Miglarese currently lives in Raleigh, NC, and he still thinks the Constitution matters.