| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| Dan Simmons: Enemies of Civilization | |
| 2006-09-11 | |
Lee Harris does not focus on Islam as the "enemy of civilization"—he’s wise enough to know that the enemies of civilization take many forms over the centuries—but he shows us that these enemies of civilization share one overriding commonality: they are transformational faiths and ideologies which must, invariably, see other human beings as means to their ends rather than as ends in themselves. Not enough commentaries have been written about the absolute stupidity and uselessness of the 9/11 attacks—specifically about them being absolutely stupid and useless even from a sane global jihadist’s point of view. While an attack on the Pentagon might be rationalized in military or Clausewitzean terms, the more successful attack on the World Trade Center was totally devoid of real military or strategic value. There were no follow-up attacks. The attacks were part of no greater plan. The slaughter of 3,000 American civilians did absolutely nothing to further any jihadist "goals"—whether it be the removal of American troops from "sacred Muslim soil" or the weakening of the Arab regimes that were the jihadists’ real enemies. Since humans are always in need of a metaphor or historical correlative in which to frame surprising new events, many Americans compared 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, but even those attempting that comparison must have known it was unhelpful in guiding our thinking. The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 did follow Clausewitzean logic—wherein warfare becomes an "extension of diplomacy by other means"—and in the Japanese military’s attempt to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet at harbor and thus neutralize our warmaking ability in the entire Pacific region for just long enough to allow the Japanese Imperial forces to occupy their objectives, expand their hegemony, and then sue for a separate peace with a weakened United States—the Japanese plan, although a long shot, had both military and strategic national policy merit. The central miscalculation—on the effect such an attack would have on the previously torpid American will to engage in warfare overseas—was profound (and fatal to the future of Imperial Japan and the Southeast Asian Coprosperity Sphere), but at least the military goals and execution were consistent with Clausewitzean realities. And the Japanese military follow-ups to the neutralization of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor—coordinated attacks from Southeast Asia through the Phillippines to Wake Island to Midway and beyond—were perfectly timed and, for a while, very successful. (And might have been completely successful had the American aircraft carriers been in port at Pearl Harbor during the attack—a mistiming amounting to less than 24 hours. Upon such near misses hinge the geopolitical fate of the world.) The viciousness and senselessness and sheer "one-offness" of the 9/11 attacks against civilians in the World Trade Center and on the hijacked aircraft themselves guaranteed only that the United States would be roused again from its torpor and would be certain to use its military—the most powerful military in the history of the planet—against something and someone. From all rational perspectives, the 9/11 attacks were stupid and useless. Except from the truly nonrational and mystical point of view of a transformational belief totally removed from reality. In Civilization and Its Enemies, Lee Harris looks at the rise of Italian fascism in the 1930’s and explains why Mussolini’s destruction of any belief in the efficacy of the League of Nations and of the "international community" (that oft-cited but never truly sighted phantom) all but guaranteed another World War. This failure of all rational international efforts to prevent Italy from enacting its fascist fantasy ideology through the invasion of Ethiopia, which, like the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11, had no rational Clausewitzean, foreign-policy, or military goals, but which rose instead from a collective fantasy Mussolini was sharing with the Italian people, cannot be understood through the Clausewitzean or other modes of reason in personal or international conduct, but only through acknowledging the power of transformative beliefs— "The concept of belief , as it is used in this context, must be carefully understood, in order to avoid ambiguity. For most of us, belief is a purely passive response to evidence presented to us: I form my beliefs about the world for the purpose of understanding the world as it is. This belief is radically different from what might be called transformative belief—the secret of fantasy ideology. Here the belief is not passive but intensely active, and its purpose is not to describe the world but to change it. It is, in a sense, a deliberate form of make-believe, in which the make-believe becomes real. In this sense it is akin to such innocently jejune phenomena as "the power of positive thinking," or even the little train that thought it could. To say that Mussolini, for example, believed that fascist Italy would revive the Roman Empire does not mean that he made a careful examination of the evidence and then arrived at his conclusion. Rather it means that Mussolini had the will to believe that fascist Italy would revive the Roman Empire. | |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #17 Thank you for posting this, lotp. The Simmons "Time Traveler" piece was a bit depressing but necessarily so. Some of the money quotes from the discussion page: "Let us imagine that peace one day comes to the Middle East. What will Muslims say of the suicide bombings that they so widely endorsed? Will they say, ‘We were driven mad by the Israeli occupation’? Will they say, ‘We were a generation of sociopaths’? How will they account for the celebrations that followed these ‘sacred explosions’? A young man born into relative privilege, packs his clothing with explosives and ball bearings and unmakes himself along with a score of children in a discotheque, and his mother is promptly congratulated by hundreds of her neighbors. What will the Palestinians think about such behavior once peace has been established? If they are still devout Muslims here is what they must think: ‘Our boys are in paradise, and they have prepared the way for us to follow. Hell has been prepared for the infidels.’ It seems to me to be an almost axiomatic truth of human nature that no peace, should it ever be established, will survive beliefs of this sort for very long." Which, in short, is why I view the continued existence of Islam with great trepidation. Finally, a recurring theme in much of my own writings deals with the Thundering Silence™ of moderate Islam [spit]. Most of the world, especially since 9/11, has been waiting for a rousing and unqualified renouncement of suicide bombings, jihad, persecution of infidels, fatwas, honor killings, and other Muslim atrocities from the silent majority of Muslim clerics and devout Muslims. With very few and always heavily qualified exceptions, that "silent majority" has remained silent. Arranged marches of "moderate Muslims" to protest even the most outrageous public atrocity—such as the Nov. 2004 brutal murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a 26-yr.-old Dutch Moroccan man in retaliation for van Gogh’s film "Submission" documenting abuses of Muslim women in Europe—drew far more journalists and local Dutch marchers than Muslims. As Fred has said: You want to quickly eliminate "Islamophobia"? Actively hunt down and ruthlessly kill every terrorist you get wind of. No explanations accepted, no dissimulation, just a bullet to the back of the head. Or maybe cut their heads off, we don't care. When Islam as an international force is something terrorists are afraid of, then we can talk. This isn't happening, not by a long shot, and we are under no obligation to be delicate in how we clean Islam's house for it. Their purposeful laziness in addressing (by Western standards) the contamination of their religion by psychotic and genocidal elements can no longer be construed as anything by willing and overt support for such tyranny. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-11 21:00 |
| #16 Unfortunately, in order to save civilization, we must become uncivilized. Only if you equate civilization with non-violence. Hint, who were more civilised Romans or Gauls? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-09-11 19:46 |
| #15 Once that's gone, well, there's nothing left but doping up the drones so they can't find the polling place - or killing them off. Ummm, listening to the news, that phase is well under way, and the odd thing is it's being done by the very people its also being done to. I wonder if it's a form of intelligence "Purifying" itself? (sorry, don't really have a good word for this type of activity) getting the stupid to kill off the stupider, then themselves getting killed off either by themselves, the Cops, or rotting for their productive years in Prison. Either way, humanity seems quite content to let it happen. Stupidity is fatal, and damn near nobody gives a shit. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-09-11 19:29 |
| #14 Besoeker, you so silly.....;-) |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-09-11 17:28 |
| #13 Nope. Along with dogs, those are the foundations of civilization. :> Yep. Domestic animals, agriculture and chemistry. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-09-11 14:01 |
| #12 #10 "They are breeding faster than we can kill them"Well, have we really given it our best effort? Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-11 12:20|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top Your Continuous Termite Protection Plan Includes: Ongoing Inspections Orkin continues to inspect and monitor your home for signs of termite activity. Re-treat ProgramIf termites return to your home following a treatment, The Orkin Man will return to re-treat the problem at no additional charge. WeÂ’re Not Satisfied Until YouÂ’re Satisfied. If youÂ’re not completely satisfied with your termite programÂ’s results, simply write to Orkin within 30 days of your initial treatment. If Orkin is unable to rectify the problem within 30 days of written notification, we guarantee to refund your initial treatment charge and any prepaid renewal. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-09-11 13:49 |
| #11 Unfortunately, in order to save civilization, we must become uncivilized. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-11 13:18 |
| #10 "They are breeding faster than we can kill them" Well, have we really given it our best effort? |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-09-11 12:20 |
| #9 I've travelled to many countries and my great delight was to celebrate what was different. I just loved it. However there were some countries that I did not delight in. These were all Muslim countries. There was no joy, no happiness. As a friend said to me ," I've lived in Saudi Arabia for two years and I couldn't find one thing to laugh about." Islamic countries are dismal places, end of story. But that wouldn't be a problem if it hadn't been for one American. On his own, he unleashed more Muslims on the world than had existed in all of Islam's history. It's not Mad Mohamed who is causing all the problems in the world today, it's Borlaug. If a muslim had discovered what he did , they would have kept it to themselves. To gain that knowledge you would be required to convert to Islam. But what did Borlaug do? He gave them the secret to fulfilling Mad Mohammed's dream of world conquest for free. Sure his heart was in the right place, but I bet he didn't think of "unintended consequence. As Mark Styn keeps reiterating "It's the demographics, stupid" History is replete with cases of mass migration caused by over-population, for instance the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Mongol expansion, etc. When you look at Pakistan in 1950, they only had a population of around 30 million. Today that population is over 170 million, with the biggest group being males between 17 and 20years of age. Excellent cannon-fodder. The population is doubling every 30 years, and with a GDP per capita of less than $2,500, there is a huge pool of potential terrorists for the recruiters to send to finishing school in the Madrases. They are breeding faster than we can kill then, without the aid of nuclear weapons. So who is to blame for this? |
| Posted by: tipper 2006-09-11 11:56 |
| #8 Damn. Absofuckinglutely great reads, lotp! Awesome - and better when read in order, as you point out. The Time Traveler, alone, is something I must share with some folks. To fail to do so would be criminal negligence. Lee Harris was one of my favorite analysts. His departure from TCS was quite a disappointment... he's still "gone", right? I stopped going there when he "retired". He was the first to grasp and define the Bush Doctrine - what an amazing gamble it was, how important it was to redefine the conflict in relevant contemporary terms, and where it could lead us if we have the stones. Of course, way back then, only the hardcore cynics recognized how quickly 9/11 would be buried, lessons unlearned, and the sheeple led back to the Tranzi pastures of peace in our time. I didn't see it coming until it was already upon us. His incredible lessons fall on (mostly) deaf ears, now, methinks... perhaps a more apt description is they whiz by overhead, since most have submerged themselves, once again, in the comfort zone of navel gazing bullshit. This Dan Simmons guy is new to me, but with these articles he already holds a spot on my must-read list. He gets it all, from the minutia to the cosmic view. The Time Traveler should be required reading for all Americans. The Lee Harris Al Q Fantasy Ideology required for all US politicians. Those who argue should be shot, immediately, IMO. Make that gut-shot. Those that get it should read the Simmons review and dissection of Harris' brilliant analysis. Luckily, I don't have any strong opinions about this stuff, of course, but I do recommend ugly and slow painful death for those who fail to get it. It will save time and aggravation later. I think it's another data point on the curve that proves the night basketball thingy has lost its efficacy. Once that's gone, well, there's nothing left but doping up the drones so they can't find the polling place - or killing them off. It's not really as drastic as it sounds. The Time traveler article serves to prove that point rather well, I think. It demystifies the concept, sheds that silly emotional content, takes us to the point with real alacrity, don't you think? Heh. Wowsers. Again thanks, lotp. I've missed so much. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-09-11 11:24 |
| #7 Al QaedaÂ’s Fantasy Ideology By Lee Harris 2002 article, part of the USS Clueless essential library. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-09-11 10:39 |
| #6 And here I thought the enemies of civilization were titties and beer... Nope. Along with dogs, those are the foundations of civilization. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-09-11 10:28 |
| #5 And here I thought the enemies of civilization were titties and beer... |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-09-11 10:07 |
| #4 from later in the article: As Harris says in The Enemies of Civilization—"For us, the hijackings, like the Palestinian ‘suicide’ bombings, are viewed merely as a modus operandi, a technique incidental to the larger strategic purpose. Consider the standard Arab apologist’s ‘explanation’ of such acts: They don’t have jet fighters, so what other means do they have of fighting back? But even those who are most unsympathetic to the Arab fantasy-ideology look upon the suicide of the hijackers, like that of the Palestinian terrorists, as merely a makeshift device, a low-tech stopgap, and nothing more. In our eyes, these attacks represent simply Clausewitzean war carried out by other means—in this case by suicide. But in the fantasy ideology of radical Islam, suicide plays an absolutely indispensable role. It is not a means to an end but an end in itself. Seen through the distorting prism of of radical Islam, the act of suicide is transformed into the act of martyrdom— martyrdom in all its transcendent glory and accompanied by the panoply of magical powers that religious tradition has always assigned to it. How hard it was after 9/11 (and 7/7 in London) for anyone in the non-Islamic West—either the decriers or the apologists for these acts of barbarism—to understand that the goal of the attacks was not the destruction of the World Trade Center towers or of the Pentagon or the London Underground, but was the transformative acts of the suicides themselves. The ensuing destruction and death—including what bin Laden later acknowledged was the surprising collapse of the Twin Towers themselves—amounted to a bonus. Al-Qaeda did not bring down the towers. The nineteen hijackers did not bring down the towers. God brought down the towers. Elsewhere in The Enemies of Civilization, Lee Harris suggests that the true enemies of civilization tend to be…intellectuals. Those individuals within even the most ethically advanced societies who see things in terms of black and white, those men and women who are incapable of pragmatism and compromise but who deal in absolutes. They are the men and women, so frequently the privileged elite in each era, who see the need to transform the world for the better. And the instrument of that transformation is, invariably, blood and more blood. Why did our fictional Time Traveler return to New Year’s Eve 2005? The paradoxical answer might be that it was the last real time of peace he knew of in the 21st Century. "Forgetfulness overcomes every successful civilization," writes Lee Harris. That forgetfulness is this: in each era, just when trade and peace and reason and moderation seem most likely to prevail, the opportunity for the zealots to succeed through ruthlessness is at its greatest. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-09-11 09:56 |
| #3 The viciousness and senselessness and sheer "one-offness" of the 9/11 attacks against civilians in the World Trade Center and on the hijacked aircraft themselves guaranteed only that the United States would be roused again from its torpor and would be certain to use its military—the most powerful military in the history of the planet—against something and someone. Unless that was the intent of the attackers, their planners and the sponsors in the first place. Methinks Mr. Simmons is ignoring one of the objectives of terrorism/guerrilla warfare. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-09-11 09:48 |
| #2 So what is the threat to civilization? Exactly what happened to Afghanistan under the Taliban. Absolute destruction, and the rule of chaos and whim. Agreed that is the final outcome if the barbarians win. I would only add that the THREAT can be imminent even if that outcome seems far off. There are substantial parallels between Iran under Ahmadinajad and Italy under Mussolini. Both have a will to believe, both are being given a pass by the international community and just as the fascists of the 1930s nearly destroyed Europe (and did gut what was of great value there), so too the fascists in Iran and elsewhere today threaten the ruin of what is best everywhere in the world. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-09-11 09:47 |
| #1 The enemy of civilization is not a modernistic philosophy, such as Marxism. It still embraces civilization, even if it is a terribly dysfunctional version of civilization. The true enemy of civilization is barbarism. The opponent to modernity. The nostalgic belief that in the primitive past were things "better". More spiritual, more honorable, more blessed and healthier. It is a Darwinistic struggle. Civilization and barbarism, modernity and primitivism, cannot coexist. Barbarism is always disadvantaged, because civilization thrives on better ideas, better ways of doing things, that have already been tested over time and shown to be superior to the systems of the primitives, in all ways. So what is the threat to civilization? Exactly what happened to Afghanistan under the Taliban. Absolute destruction, and the rule of chaos and whim. That is the only victory of the barbarian, to reign over ruin. To promulgate a new dark ages, as happened with the fall of ancient Rome. This is what the barbarian really wants. This is why he cannot be bargained with, bribed, or negotiated with. Either his primitivism must be destroyed, or civilization must be destroyed. It is not a "reasonable" fight, where "reasonable" people may agree to disagree, where mediation can overrule violence and destruction. These are all tools of civilization, they do not apply. One side or the other must be destroyed. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-09-11 09:34 |