A History of Warfare by John Keegan

In this densely written and closely argued book, renowned military historian John Keegan poses questions that have dogged philosophers for centuries: What is war? Why are wars fought? What lies at the heart of mankind's seemingly insatiable penchant for bloodshed?

The book's title is somewhat misleading. While Keegan does provide in-depth analysis of the changing face of warfare over the millenia, his examples are more selective than exhaustive. It would be more accurate to call this work a study of warfare, and how culture and human nature feed off each other to make it so terrible.

Keegan begins with a lengthy introduction in which he takes issue with the conventional wisdom that war is "a continuation of politics by other means." This rather limited definition of human conflict was first offered by the 19th-century Prussian military strategist and author, Carl von Clausewitz, in his hugely influential book, On War. Clausewitz was a product of his times; a veteran of Waterloo, he viewed war through the prism of European Enlightenment philosophy, which holds that social ills--including war--are the result of political defects, and, consequently, can be remedied by political action.

Keegan's view of war is more bleak. Noting that war predates politics and government--the sources of conflict in Clausewitz's analysis--Keegan instead points to culture as the most important determinant of war. For evidence, he delves into some of the world's most primitive cultures, where combat is highly ritualized, deliberately restrained, and fought for decidedly non-political reasons. In a more modern example, Keegan shows how the advent of nuclear weapons has irrevocably discredited the Clausewitzian mandate of a decisive, all-or-nothing battle. If the overriding purpose of all governments is to perpetuate themselves through the intertwined means of politics and war, how then can the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction be explained? In this case, success depends on the inverse of Clausewitz's "decisive battle" theory; only by avoiding the battle altogether can political governments hope to survive. This strategy of avoidance through strength is more in line with the theories of the ancient Chinese military philosopher, Sun Tzu.

Keegan's account of how the vast expanses of the Eurasian steppe--the land of origin for the Huns, Turks, and Mongols--have shaped European, Middle Eastern, and Oriental military history and theory is both highly original and endlessly fascinating. Keegan traces the ferocity of combat to these horse peoples, whose long-range weapons revolutionized warfare by making the act of killing an easier, less personal affair. This dehumanizing regression in war left the great civilizations on the steppe's periphery gravely shaken, and in turn forced them to further militarize their own societies in order to avoid extermination. In some areas (Russia, for example) the deep-seated cultural fear instilled centuries ago by the hordes of Mongolian cavalry lingers to this day.

In the end, Keegan concludes that war persists--and will always persist--due to a combination of human nature, cultural forces, and the sheer influence that thousands of years of habitual warmaking has had on mankind. This is not to say that war cannot be avoided, or its effects unlimited. But the need for professional armed forces, ready to enforce peace, and, when necessary, to deal out death and destruction on a horrific scale, will tragically always be with us. The sooner we accept this disturbing truth, the safer we will be.

A Terrible Lesson

London is in the midst of a terror onslaught--a coordinated campaign of attacks designed to terrorize the West, force British troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and drive a wedge between Britain and the United States.

Thus far, the terrorists have failed on all three counts. Britons seems to be reacting with more defiance than fear, British troops remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will do so for the forseeable future, and American-British cooperation has, if anything, increased since the June 7 attacks, as the two nations share intelligence and hold joint press conferences reaffirming their mutual vow to crush the terrorists. Rather than quickly capitulating to the demands of terrorists, as Spain did last year, Britain is holding firm.

But while the British stiff upper lip in the face of adversity is inspiring, their willingness to tolerate the festering presence of radical Islam in their own communities is decidedly less so. It is not foreign terrorists who are throwing London's subway system into chaos; it is homegrown Muslim extremists, and some are even British citizens. Protecting a nation's infrastructure from foreign infiltrators is difficult enough, but protecting that infrastructure from the very citizens it is meant to serve can be nearly impossible.

It is this added dimension of difficulty that makes the type of threat now being seen in London so dangerous. Western societies are, by their very nature, open and relatively unassuming, especially to its citizens. Terrorists exploit this uniquely Western strength and turn it into a weakness.

Although the West cannot allow itself to devolve into a police state by curtailing freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism, it does not have to provide an umbrella of protection to the preachers of jihad who openly and boldly exhort their followers to violence. Because of lax immigration controls, government feebleness, and Western self-loathing couched in multiculturalist blather, London has become a hotbed of Islamic radicalism in recent years. If there were any lingering doubt as to the magnitude of Britain's crisis, this article should lay that to rest:

LONDON (Reuters) - Militant Islamists will continue to attack Britain until the government pulls its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the country's most outspoken Islamic clerics said on Friday.

Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a day after a series of failed attacks on the city's transport network, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more violence.

"What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the root problem is still there ... we will see the same effect we saw on July 7," Bakri said.

Bakri, a Syrian-born cleric who has been vilified in Britain since 2001 when he praised the September 11 hijackers, said he did not believe the bombings and attempted attacks on London were carried out by British Muslims.

He condemned the killing of all innocent civilians but described attacks on British and U.S. troops in Muslim countries as "pro-life" and justified.

In an interview with Reuters, Bakri described Osama bin Laden, leader of the radical Islamist network al Qaeda, as "a sincere man who fights against evil forces."

Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared he would be deported before his dream was realized.

"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world," he said.

Bakri has Syrian and Lebanese citizenship and says he thinks the British government might deport him to one of those two countries in the wake of this month's bombings.

"But I think that would be political suicide for the British government if they started to deport and imprison all extremists and radicals," he said.

No amount of police work, and no amount of military action in the Middle East can protect the British from further attacks until they come to grips with the jihadists they have allowed to live in their own country. But I fear that it is already far too late. America ignores the terrible lessons seen almost daily now in London at our peril.

Ready to Rumble

It was an interesting--and often amusing--day in Washington yesterday, as rumors and speculation ran wild over who President Bush would nominate to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. Would Bush outrage the Right by appointing Alberto Gonzalez? Would he outrage the Left by appointing...anyone? Would he name a woman? A man? Some little-known third category? So many possibilities! The media could barely contain themselves, as conservatives gleefully rubbed their hands together in anticipation, and liberals huddled together at secular prayer vigils on the steps of the Supreme Court, singing "We Shall Overcome."

Perhaps I exaggerate. But at any rate, by mid-afternoon, conventional wisdom had decreed: It would be Edith Clement. The chattering classes breathed a collective sigh of relief; another mystery solved. But then more rumors starting flying. Never mind Edith Clement; now the obvious choice would be some white guy named John Roberts.

Who? Hardly anybody knew, but those who did either nodded approvingly (conservatives) or shuddered in fear (liberals). I was among those who were initially bewildered that Bush would choose a CBS reporter for the highest court in the land. Upon further investigation, it was revealed that this John Roberts is a federal appeals judge for the DC Circuit, has clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, and has served as an assistant solicitor general in the first Bush administration. But despite an impressive resume, Roberts lacked a clear paper trail of controversial rulings one way or the other, because most of his career has been spent advocating the positions of his clients, not his own personal views.

It is this vagueness that could make Roberts a very shrewd choice--or a very unwise one. If, as most (but not all) conservative bigwigs assure us, Roberts is a strongly rooted conservative, then his decidedly noncontroversial past will prove maddening to Democrats trying to block him. But if he is not really as conservative as some hope and others fear, then, at best, we will have another Anthony Kennedy on the court, or at worst, another David Souter. The consensus seems to be that Roberts is a conservative in the mold of Rehnquist: cerebral, not as fiery as a Scalia or a Thomas, but still solid and reliable. If so, he will be a great justice.

Conservatives are generally pleased with Bush's choice, which means the Left is preparing for war. Or are they? After being caught a little off balance by the unexpected announcement last night, the left-wing interests groups have decided that Roberts is, you guessed it, an extreme kook from the fringe of the ultra-rightwing. The ACLU, NARAL, NOW, People for the American Way, Moveon.org, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have all come out against the nomination. I'm not sure yet if they are serious, or if they are just going through the motions at this point (they probably had their "STOP NAMELESS BUSH APPOINTEE NOW!" press releases ready to go, they were just waiting on which name to insert). A few Democratic Senators (Schumer, Durbin, Kerry, and Boxer) have already voiced their "grave concerns" of this "deeply troubling" nominee. Howard Dean's DNC has criticized Roberts as "partisan."

So is the Left ready to rumble, or are they just blowing smoke? It will all depend on whether the liberal special interest groups are merely the Democrats' allies, or their political bosses. The coming weeks should be interesting, but not necessarily as brutal as I first expected. Roberts should be confirmed fairly easily, with probably around 30-35 Democrats voting against him. Even with all the pressure being applied by their rabid leftwing base, I doubt the Democrats will be able to muster the votes necessary to sustain a filibuster. And even if they could, it would only draw the dreaded nuclear option. Roberts' confirmation is all but certain.

On a lighter note, I couldn't help but notice that as President Bush announced his choice last night, he was smirking even more than usual. At the time, I figured that Bush was inwardly chuckling at the Democrats' coming predicament (yes, I was guilty of what the psychologists call "projection"). Later I found out that the more likely cause for Bush's smile was a bit less political in nature: Judge Roberts' young son was breaking it down right in front of the presidential podium. A star is born.

The Scandal that (Probably) Wasn't There

When allegations that the Bush administration had deliberately outed the identity of a covert CIA operative for base political reasons first arose two years ago, I initially thought of all the wild and outlandish charges levied at the administration, this one might actually have merit. On the face of it, the anonymous administration official's leak to columnist Robert Novak smacked of Nixonian vindictiveness. Cultivating a covert network of agents can take years of hard, dangerous work, and that work should not be threatened for any political reason whatsoever. Too much can be at stake.

Since then, all of Joe Wilson's (the husband of the CIA employee) actions have confirmed my initial impression that he is something of a buffoon. He has been thoroughly discredited, both by the Senate Intelligence Committee and his own contradictory statements, but this, of course, does not excuse what the administration may have done. If the more innocent justification (that Rove really didn't know that Wilson's wife was a former covert agent, and that he was merely telling the press that the sanction for the Niger trip had not come from the White House) is true, then this whole thing is just careless politics. If Rove and another unnamed official were acting maliciously and knowingly, however, then they should face the consequences.

The first scenario seems more likely to me at this point, but we'll see. In the meantime, the fever swamps of the Left are salivating over the prospect that the hated Rove might be charged, or at least be forced to resign. They are overreaching in their attacks, as usual. Read the vitriol being spewed toward Rove from peace-loving leftists; liberals are falling over themselves in their hyperbolic condemnations of Rove's supposed "treason," because this gives them an opportunity to act as if they actually care about national security. But ask yourself: When was the last time liberals spoke out so strongly against, say, Islamic terrorists?

A Deadly Combination

What some of us first feared has now been confirmed: At least three of the four terrorists who struck London were not foreign-born, but were homegrown.

This is important for two reasons. First, the predictable canard that terrorists hate us because of Western "imperialism" can be put to rest. These terrorists were not poverty-stricken, or living in occupied territory, or victims of American bombs. They were long-time residents of England, surrounded by the very people they planned to kill indiscriminately. It was not American foreign policy that drove them to kill; it was their own ideology of hate.

Second, the revelation that it was homegrown British Muslims who carried out these attacks is a scathing indictment of the self-loathing, multiculturalist blather that has allowed virulent, radical Islam to fester in the midst of Western societies, especially in Europe. When cultural assimilation is viewed as inherently racist, it removes any reason for immigrants to integrate into Western culture. Minorities become increasingly isolated and alienated. Throw the religion of peace into such a cauldron, and you have a breeding ground for terrorism, right in your own back yard. In London, the combination of feckless multiculturalism, open borders, and radical Islam proved to be deadly.

Elsewhere in Europe, one terrorist is coming clean as to his motivations. Was it allegations of Koran-flushing at Gitmo? US support for Israel? The invasion of Iraq? Abu Ghraib? The Crusades? US support for the Shah? His impoverished conditions? Was it any of a million excuses apologists for terrorism always give after each atrocity?

No, the terrorist claims it was his religion, of all things, that drove him to kill. Imagine that.

As long as the West continues in the delusion that the terrorists have tangible, legitimate grievances that can be appeased by anything other than total capitulation, it will handicap itself in a war against an enemy that has no such self-imposed inhibitions.

Uncomfortable Truths

There are times when the fog of politics and war clears in an instant, only to reveal a reality far more disconcerting than the obscured one. Today was such a time.

In London, as many as 40 people were killed when terrorists (almost certainly Islamic) detonated several bombs nearly simultaneously in the subway, and on a bus. Hundreds more were wounded. This butchering was just the latest in a string of attacks that has stretched around the world: Madrid, Beslan, Bali, New York, Washington. Our enemies kill for killing's sake; they are driven by a murderous ideology of hate, intimidation, and fanaticism. They have no qualms about killing civilians; indeed, it is their goal to kill the maximum number possible. They do have political aims, as all terrorist groups do, but that does nothing to change the fact that they are sadistic, cruel, and fundamentally evil. It is an honor to be hated by such monsters.

These attacks were undoubtedly designed to drive the British out of Iraq and Afghanistan, much like last year's Madrid attacks were successful in forcing Spanish capitulation in Iraq. As if any more confirmation were needed, the Madrid and London attacks reveal the foundation of al-Qaeda's strategy: Launch terrorist attacks, kill as many as possible, and then wait on leftists and other sympathizers to force the government to capitulate to terrorist demands. In the case of Spain, this strategy worked perfectly. Al-Qaeda's goal was to remove the pro-American prime minister in Madrid from power and replace him with an appeaser who would retreat from Iraq. The terrorists launched their attacks, and the leftists did the rest. The common (but not coordinated) goal of forcing Spanish capitulation was achieved. The Spanish people were tested, and promptly they threw up their hands in surrender. Judging from early indications, I don't think the British will be so easily moved. The people who stood alone against Hitler for a year are made of sterner stuff.

Well, some of them are, anyway. Even as the bodies of the victims of the London attacks were being pulled from the charred wreckage, pro-Saddam MP George Galloway, a hero to American liberals, faithfully took up the terrorists' cause:

We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.

Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.

If this statement sounds familiar, it is because it mirrors the tapes periodically released by al-Qaeda, demanding the same thing.

It would be one thing if Galloway was just a harmless British nut who had no American following. But even a cursory look at American liberal websites belies that hope (try here, here, and here).

For an even more revealing look into what the Democratic Party has become, click here. The language is coarse, as leftists often are, and the hatred sickening, but as you read through the comments, ask yourself, do you want these kinds of people protecting you against terrorism? How much can you trust a party that compares American soldiers to Nazis, but is always the first to defend the rights of detained terrorists? What does it say when a party uses harsher language to describe their domestic political opponents than they use to describe our foreign enemies? What does it say when Osama bin Laden quotes from the liberals' favorite movie, Fahrenheit 9/11? What does it say when the director of that movie is given the seat of honor at the Democratic National Convention?

It says a lot. Western civilization is engulfed with a war against radical Islam, but there are large segments of Western society that want no part of it. Let the leftists equivocate and apologize for terrorism (it is, after all, their right), but let's not forget that our enemies feed off such displays of Western decadence and weakness. As Winston Churchill once said:

Do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

Barbarians Strike London

This is a war between the forces of civilization and the forces of barbarism. There can be no accomodation with barbarism.

An Interplanetary Fireworks Show

Yesterday, the NASA Deep Impact probe slammed into the Tempel 1 comet. The mission is mankind's first contact with a comet--heavenly bodies that have orbits measured in millenia and that have been shrouded in myth and legend since the dawn of recorded history. The mission stretched across millions of miles of open space, and has been compared to hitting a bullet with a bullet. The impact created a spectacular Independence Day fireworks show for the ages.

Space exploration is one of the most exciting and potentially rewarding avenues of scientific advancement of our time. How ironic it is that at the threshold of some of mankind's most awe-inspiring endeavors, petulant myopia grips much of America. When President Bush put forth a bold new plan to return to the moon and plant an American flag in the red sand of Mars, cynics scoffed, ridiculing the president as a starry-eyed dreamer. Why should we spend billions to collect space rocks, they asked, when millions of Americans don't even have health insurance? Bush saw the writing on the wall (it was an election year, after all), and has not mentioned the plan since.

The entire episode showed all too well how far America has fallen from the intrepid spirit of the 1960s. When President Kennedy challenged Americans to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, we responded. When President Bush challenged Americans to put a man on Mars by 2035, we whined. If societal perfection were a prerequisite to exploration, then Columbus would have never sailed the ocean blue, Marco Polo never would have trekked across Asia, and Neil Armstrong certainly would have never made one giant leap for mankind. And yet with all of history as our guide to the promises and benefits of exploration, we turn inward, motivated only by what we can get as a handout. What a tragedy.

July 4th Reading

On this 229th Independence Day, I direct you to the thoughts of two of my favorite writers--historian Victor Davis Hanson, and columnist Mark Steyn. Both men make good points on what American independence really means in the early years of the 21st century. Enjoy.