It isn’t often that someone manages to organize the thinking about the struggle with Islamism in a way that makes political sense. The usual foreign policy debates have centered on phrases like liberal vs conservatives, neo-cons vs progressives, right vs left, socialist vs capitalist, even good vs evil – any one of which comes up short in describing one’s foreign policy position in this struggle.
But an article by Ross Douthat, an associate editor at the Atlantic Monthly, brings the problem into sharp relief.
Douthat proposes a way to organize this foreign policy debate in terms of what year you think you’re living in. You may be a 1938sit, a1942ist, a 1948ist or a 1972ist.
"1942ists," believe that we stand in Iraq today where the U.S. stood shortly after Pearl Harbor: bogged down against a fascist enemy and duty-bound to carry on the fight to victory. To the 1942ist, Iraq is Europe and the Pacific rolled into one, Saddam and Zarqawi are the Hitlers and Tojos of our era, suicide-bombers are the equivalent of kamikazes -- and George Bush is Churchill, or maybe Truman.
George Bush fits into this camp.
"1938ists" believe that Iran's march toward nuclear power is the equivalent of Hitler's 1930s brinkmanship. While most '38ists still support the decision to invade Iraq, they increasingly see that struggle as the prelude to a broader regional conflict, and worry that we're engaged in Munich-esque appeasement….. If you hear someone compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler, demand a pre-emptive strike on Iran, or suggest that the Hezbollah-Israel battle is a necessary overture to a larger confrontation, you're listening to a 1938ist.
Newt Gingrich holds this view.
"1948ists," who share the '42ist and '38ist view of the war on terror as a major generational challenge, but insist that we should think about it in terms of Cold War-style containment and multilateralism, not Iraq-style pre-emption. What unites them all is a skepticism about military interventions, a fear of hubris, and an abiding faith in the ability of diplomacy, international institutions and "soft power" to win out in a long struggle with militant Islamism.
Liberal hawks like Peter Beinart and neo-cons like Francis Fukuyama support this view. Finally we have the 1972ists.
"1972ists" believe that George Bush is Nixon, Iraq is Vietnam, and that any attack on Iran or Syria would be equivalent to bombing Cambodia….. '72ists suggest that the greater danger is repression at home and blowback from imperialist ventures abroad.
This is the worldview of Michael Moore, the makers of "Syriana," and the editors of the Nation.
What am I? The Gathering Storm says it all. I’m a 1938ist – BUT …I also agree with the last statement of Douthat.
A few voices have spoken up of late for the most disquieting possibility of all…..As our crisis deepens, it's worth considering 1914ism, and with it the possibility that all of us, whatever year we think it is, are poised on the edge of an abyss that nobody saw coming.
So, what year are you?
7 comments:
You are a wasting your life. I pity your confusion about what is worthwhile and enjoyable. Try doing something you can look back and feel proud about.
I have - a full inquisitive life, a loving family worth protecting, and a need to educate my fellow man on the dangers that confront us.
What have you done recently to protect your fellow man?
1938ist, obviously. The Gibsonian Jew-hatred wasn't a prominent part of the agitation of 1914. Also, WWI wasn't preceded by appeasement of the aggressor, WWII was, like now, with everybody rushing to give the Muslims exclusive beaches and fun-park days and hijab'ed passport pictures, as well as some land to solve "a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing". And it's not 1942 yet, because the first W of WWIII is still before us.
The point I was making about 1914 was that the powers did not realize the brutal catastrophe of death and destruction that they were about to fallinto. The French and Germans marched off to war thinking it would be over in a few weeks. Instead it became an abyss of death for over a million of the young generation.
They didn't call it the Great War for nothing.
We are facing the same unknown that our leaders refuse to face and thus we will make WWI and WWII look like a playground squabble.
I'm in 1926.
1938+1914:2=1926..
In 1914 maybe they thought the
war will be short, but the war followed
a long political processes or maybe
political paralysis which many people
felt it leads to war.
It was long development.
1938 was fast and sharp.
We are somewhere in the middle.
.
That's 2895, Amir. What you wanted was:
(1938+1914):2
Ain't math great? :-D
I am a 1938ist and I have been since before we invaded Iraq. Sometime around April 2002 it became obvious to me that our world was becoming very ill. It isn't just the war, it is the loss of belief in our own civilization, it is the denial of the facts of our own history, it is the anti-Semitism, it is the inversion of truth. All these things signaled to me that we were headed for destruction.
In addition, let me say, that I along with, I'm guessing, most of the bloggers here at IBA, agreed with Bush that there was an Axis of Evil which needed to be eliminated.
However, in addition to Iraq, Iran and North Korea, I have always added Syria and Saudi Arabia to the equation.
It's going to be a very long war, if only because it seems like it's going to take us forever to admit to ourselves who our enemies really are.
Post a Comment