May 20, 2007

Soldiers Without Borders

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has appointed Bernard Kouchner, a member of the Socialist Party, as his new foreign minister. I know something about this man because I wrote about him a while ago in an article that was never published. I shopped it around a bit, then got distracted writing foreign dispatches from the Middle East. It languished unread, but now it’s relevant again. So I’m publishing it here. Enjoy.

----------------------------

Soldiers Without Borders
by Michael J. Totten

The story of neoconservative political conversion is a familiar one. Many liberals, for one set of reasons or another, become conservatives as they get older. What starts them down the well-traveled road from the left to the right is usually some kind of a shock. Less known, or at least less written about, are the stories of militant anti-totalitarian liberals and leftists from the generation of 1968 who didn’t become neoconservatives, who started out on the radical left and who remain radicals of the left in more mature versions.

Paul Berman is perhaps the greatest American intellectual who hails from this tradition. His only real competition is the somewhat better known and more prolific writer Christopher Hitchens. Berman’s book Terror and Liberalism is a masterwork of the “liberal hawk” genre, and is perhaps the best philosophical argument yet written about September 11 and the Terror War. I hope he won’t mind if I characterize it as neoconservatism for liberals who are troubled by neoconservatism.

His new book Power and the Idealists is a sequel of sorts to Terror and Liberalism. It begins earlier, prologue-like, in the dark and euphoric days of 1968 when the New Left thundered onto the world-wide political scene and changed the direction of history forever.

The New Left, as Berman put it, was “a young people’s movement motivated by fear...It was a fear, in sum, that in World War II, fascism, and more specifically Nazism, had not been defeated after all – a fear that Nazism, by mutating, had continued to thrive into the nineteen-fifties and sixties and onward, always in new disguises.”

The New Leftists forged movements, huge movements all over the world, which varied depending on the particulars of each place. New Leftists were libertarians, socialists, anti-racists, counter-culturalists, feminists, and sometimes – in the extreme cases of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Weathermen, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the Red Brigades - even terrorists.

Sometimes the New Leftists went over the top, and not just those on the fringier side who waged stupid wars against their own societies. Even the moderate New Leftists lacked perspective and maturity on certain questions. As they exaggerated the problems in Britain, France, West Germany, and the United States, they too often failed to acknowledge the brutality of the fascist-like political system in the eastern Soviet bloc. They did have their reasons, though, to look upon the modern Western world with revulsion and even horror.

Right-wing bombs exploded in Paris as French soldiers massacred Algerians fighting for independence. France had done the same in Indochina, and now the United States was picking up where the French had left off. Americans bombed tiny impoverished villages, and sometimes committed atrocities. It was horrible. The United States, also, was propping up perfectly hideous rightist military regimes in Latin America. These regimes were anti-communist tools. Maybe that was reason enough to support them at arm’s length. But weren’t the communists allies in the fight against fascism? They were, during World War II and also before, in Spain, during that country’s civil war. The Battle of Madrid still, just barely, belonged to living memory in 1968. Spain is a modern liberal democracy now. But in the sixties it was ruled by the monstrous General Franco.

Germany’s de-Nazification wasn’t complete. Many of the same ugly faces ran Germany’s industries then as before. American reactionaries screamed “Go back to Russia!” at New Left protesters. But German reactionaries sometimes screamed “You should go to the gas chambers!” – the very worst thing, and surely the most radicalizing, that any right-wing German could possibly say.

So the New Leftists did have a point. Several points, as a matter of fact. They weren’t entirely imagining things. They wanted to fight fascists, which is an honorable and even necessary thing for decent people to do. They wanted to fight fascists so badly they fought fascists where they didn’t even exist. They hurled slogans, rocks, Molotov cocktails, and sometimes bombs at fascism’s remnants and ghosts.

And it got them in trouble. In 2001 Germany’s foreign minister Joschka Fischer was shown in a newly discovered series of photographs brutally assaulting a police officer back in the days of left-wing street fighting, the days when the Baader-Meinhof Gang waged its left-wing terrorist war inside West Germany. It was a huge scandal, and it spread from one European country to another and, eventually, even to the United States. How could a man who was a street thug in his youth possibly represent Germany to the world in the 21st century?

Fischer survived the scandal. He was a morally serious person who enjoyed wide support in German society. No longer was he a violent reactionary anti-establishment brute. Fischer himself was the establishment now, and he had done a fine job so far. Berman makes a compelling case that Fischer’s radical left-wing past was in some ways a good sort of past for Fischer to have.

Fischer was a militant anti-fascist as a young man. And he was a militant anti-fascist – albeit a much more mature one - as Germany’s foreign minister. This was not such a terrible thing at a time when Slobodan Milosovic was busy building his own Balkan version of a fascist state and bulldozing tens of thousands of undesirable civilians into mass graves. The fire that burned inside Joschka Fischer when he assaulted a Frankfurt police officer was the very same fire that compelled him to lead Germany into war against Serbian national socialism in Belgrade. Here was a chance to fight fascists for real, and this time with NATO’s bombs and not merely with slogans and fists.

Joschka Fischer is by no means the only New Leftist who became, in time, a militant left-wing anti-totalitarian. Nor is Fischer’s the only personal tale told in Paul Berman’s book. Berman also tells the stories of the radical left-libertarian Daniel Cohn-Behndit, French-German politician par excellence and popularly known as Mr. Europe; Poland’s Adam Michnik, leader of the anti-Soviet Solidarity uprising; Azar Nafisi, the hard-nosed Iranian feminist author of Reading Lolita in Tehran; Kanan Makiya, the Iraqi expatriate who wrote the ground-breaking Republic of Fear and who returned home from exile alongside the U.S. Marines; and Bernard Kouchner, co-founder of Doctors Without Borders.

Bernard Kouchner’s story of political evolution may be most compelling of all. The man was practically born a communist, and he remained a communist throughout his youth and into his adulthood. He admired Che Guevara and the way Che did more than just protest and posture. Che went into action. Che created guerilla cells, focos as he called them, in Cuba’s Sierra Maestra. Che forged a revolutionary doctrine that worked, even if only inside one country. (He got himself killed in his total flop of a campaign in Bolivia.) He helped topple a filthy rightist regime in Cuba, and this was something to celebrate.

But there was more to Che Guevara than that. And Bernard Kouchner was not the sort of man who could go on pretending. Che hated the very idea of elections. He thrived on brutality and violence. He built a gulag in Cuba. All this looked, ominously, a great deal like fascism. And Che’s comrade Fidel Castro cut a rather Mussolini-like figure in his thunderous demagogic speeches in central Havana. Cuban communism turned out not to be much better than Soviet communism – a huge disappointment. And so Kouchner was out. He joined the Red Cross because he wanted to do some good in this world, and they sent him to Africa.

The Red Cross at the time turned out to be a huge disappointment as well. Such was Bernard Kouchner’s luck. He was doing yeoman’s work in the midst of Nigeria’s brutal civil war in the region of Biafra. Civil war, actually, doesn’t describe what was happening. Fascism and ethnic cleansing, that’s what it was. And the Red Cross was forbidden to speak of it. The Red Cross required all volunteers and employees to remain strictly, maddeningly, neutral. Kouchner was told not to speak or write to anyone, ever, of the wicked atrocities he witnessed on a regular basis.

Kouchner wasn’t the type who could do that. He couldn’t keep his mouth shut about Cuba’s Batista regime, the one before Fidel Castro’s. So he cheered on Che and Fidel. Then he couldn’t keep quiet about Che and Fidel. Now he couldn’t remain tight-lipped about the vicious campaign before his very own eyes in Biafra. Everywhere he looked, it seemed, were new variations of the same despicable story.

Dr. Kouchner had had it. He knew communism was a mendacious lie. But the idea of “Workers Without Borders” (which, as Paul Berman notes, is what “Workers of the World Unite” ultimately means) stirred his soul, even so. Workers didn’t inspire him so much as the idea of the abolition of borders. So he formed his own revolutionary organization of sorts, and he called it Doctors Without Borders. Doctors Without Borders was what the Red Cross would have been if an anti-totalitarian Che Guevara had founded it. Its missions, Berman writes, “were no less dangerous than any guerilla struggle, no less frightening, no less difficult, but [they had] the great virtue, in contrast to a communist insurgency, of refusing to lie.”

Shortly after its founding, thousands of “boat people” fled the cruel abuses of the communist regime in Vietnam. They threw themselves onto rickety boats, set off into the sea, and hoped for the best. Kouchner took note. And Kouchner took action. It wasn’t enough to provide medical care to the brutalized and the poor of the Third World. International law and the sanctity of borders be damned, Kouchner thought. As Paul Berman put it, the supremely oppressed had a right to be rescued.

So Kouchner and Doctors Without Borders rented a French vessel and rescued some of the boat people. Scooped them right out of the sea. Some of his left-wing comrades burned with volcanic rage – rage against Kouchner for saving people! American imperialists, not the Vietnamese communists, were the villains in their mental universe. Kouchner showed up their fantasy as a lie, and they hated him for it.

Later Jimmy Carter dispatched the United States Navy to rescue the rest of the boat people. Doctors Without Borders were followed by Sailors Without Borders. This, from the point of view of the formerly communist and anti-imperialist Kouchner, was nothing short of fantastic.

Little surprise, then, that Kouchner – unlike many of his former comrades on the left – favored the humanitarian rescue of Iraqis from the predatory regime of Saddam Hussein. From Workers Without Borders...to Soldiers Without Borders. He became frustrated, apoplectic actually, at what he saw as the Bush Administration’s arrogance and incompetence. But he supported the war all the same, and he did so strictly on left-wing grounds.

No one knows, really, whether the regime-change and nation-building project will succeed or fail in Iraq. If it does fail it will be widely interpreted as a failure of neoconservatism. But the war against Saddam Hussein has a left-wing pedigree, too.

Liberal hawks made history in the Balkans. History never did repudiate them for that. Whether Iraq turns into a success or a failure, whether the neoconservatives triumph or whether the neoconservatives fail, the left-liberal ideas that fascism means war and that people have a right to be rescued will not go down without a fight.

Order Paul Berman's Power and the Idealists from Amazon.com.

Post-script: I wrote this article for money, but I never got paid because it did not find a home. If you feel like pitching in a few bucks, which will go toward travel expenses in Baghdad, I promise not to get mad.

(Email address for Pay Pal is michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com)

If you would like to donate money for travel and equipment expenses and you don't want to use Pay Pal, please consider sending a check or money order to:

Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312

Many thanks in advance.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at May 20, 2007 10:34 PM
Comments

“a young people’s movement motivated by fear...It was a fear, in sum, that in World War II, fascism, and more specifically Nazism, had not been defeated after all – a fear that Nazism, by mutating, had continued to thrive into the nineteen-fifties and sixties and onward, always in new disguises.”

I think that's the most ridiculous characterization of the period I've ever read. By the time the 60's got political it was just the usual left wing suspects, speaking left speak. Fear of fascism had little to do with it, accusations of fascism were simply used to tar the opposition, much as it is today.

Germany’s de-Nazification wasn’t complete. Many of the same ugly faces ran Germany’s industries then as before. American reactionaries screamed “Go back to Russia!” at New Left protesters.

What about ordinary Germans, the school teachers, the mechanics, various young people? Do you suppose that the 30% or so who were Nazis just evaporated on May 7, 1945? I, myself, shared a worker's dorm room in northern Germany with a young German Nazi in 1965. He played a little game with the woman who cleaned the rooms: every night he would leave a copy of Conversations With Hitler on the side table, and every morning the cleaning lady would put it in the top drawer.

The Nazis weren't the creation of business, they came from the socialist gutter. The socialist 68'ers were more similar in outlook than different. They lacked the bizarre racial sciences but kept the street fighting and added the equally bizarre, if less gruesome, Marxist philosophy.

Really, the closest thing to a Fascist president this country has had was Roosevelt: look at the symbology of the National Recovery Act, the proposed cartelization of industry, and events like this:

A hundred thousand schoolchildren clustered on Boston Common and were led in an oath administered by Mayor James Michael Curley: "I promise as a good American citizen to do my part for the NRA. I will buy only where the Blue Eagle flies."

I don't see a lot of folks complaining about that. The 68'ers in Europe would have been far ahead of the game if they had honestly appraised the nature of Fascism and recognized its continuing posterity in themselves.

Posted by: chuck at May 20, 2007 11:19 PM

chuck: I think that's the most ridiculous characterization of the period I've ever read

I didn't grow up in that period, but I did grow up on the left and that accurately describes what I beleived. Berman did grow up in that period, and he was a part of that movement.

Two days ago Alphie, who no doubt will post here any second, compared the anti-Islamist movement to the Ku Klux Klan. I was never that ridiculous, which is probably why I had to walk away from the movement.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 20, 2007 11:29 PM

but I did grow up on the left

And how did that happen? I knew one socialist family in high school, a few teachers of that persuasion, and later some red diapers babies, the daughter of the secretary of the CPUSA, and various others, but the left was not much in evidence in the early sixties, it was rather a combination of different strands: the psychodelic, arts and crafts, sex, and rock and roll "flower child" strand, and the civil rights strand. The leftist strand was quite different and really developed later during the opposition to the Vietnam War, and was characterized by support for North Vietnam, China, and Cuba.

I would guess you were born in the early 70's. That is late enough that your parents might have been politicized, but it was a very different period than the early sixties. Even in Europe in the early sixties the "movement" was more cultural than political. The Free University of Berlin and other centers were political, but the young folks flocking to London and traipsing about the continent were generally not, rather, they were experimenting with drugs, sex, and rock and roll.

If you were really worried about Fascism, then it was more the result of effective apocalyptic propaganda developed in the late 60's than something that concerned young Americans in the early sixties. I am saying that that fear was the result, not the cause, of the movement.

Posted by: chuck at May 21, 2007 12:52 AM

Hi -

I, too, grew up on the left: my father is in academics and that's all we had, growing up. Anti-Vietnam war, etc.

Me, I went out and saw the world. That's when I realized that there are more than one sides to the story. I spent the first half of the 1980s in Germany, doing my graduate degree, and that cured me of what little socialism remained in my thinking: seeing how poorly it actually worked, plus the walls keeping the Eastern Europeans in, should of cured anyone who could actually think instead of parroting dogmatic phrases.

And I was born in '56 as a child of the '68 generation.

Posted by: John F. Opie at May 21, 2007 01:13 AM

chuck: And how did that happen?

It just did. I could have just as easily grown up as a conservative. My mother is a lefty and my father is a (very moderate) Republican.

I have always known there are two sides to the political story because I grew up with both in the house. But I chose the left because it suited me then. (Neither the left nor the right suit me today.)

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 21, 2007 01:36 AM

I was born in 1970, by the way, so I'm smack in the middle of the X Generation. Raised on macaroni and cheese and the Brady Bunch, not acid and Vietnam.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 21, 2007 01:39 AM

Seems to me that people like Kouchner can be categorized as the sane, non-hypocritical left.
It will be nice to have a French Foreign Minister with that kind of pedigree.

BTW, I spent my 20s as a leftist (active in the Israeli environmentalist movement and voting proudly for Meretz), but I think you'll find an aweful lot of Israeli leftists moved to the right after Intifada II. (Last election I voted Kadima, the one before that Shinui, and the one before that Labor.)

Posted by: jonorose at May 21, 2007 02:14 AM

Left/Right is a false dichotomy. The real dichotomy is between totalitarianism and freedom. There is no significant difference between fascism and socialism - they're both about domination of others and telling people what to do.

Nowadays, the PC-left has very little in common with the old socialist left. What it has retained is its totalitarian desire to rule.

Posted by: Yafawi at May 21, 2007 03:54 AM

Anti-totalitarian liberal:

One who believes totalitarianism is the ultimate enemy of peace, and should be countered, using military force if necessary.

Neocon:

One who actually applies Anti-totalitarian liberal doctrine in the real world and gets blamed for the consequences.

Posted by: Randall at May 21, 2007 06:11 AM

Seems to me that people like Kouchner can be categorized as the sane, non-hypocritical left

I agree, jonorose. It seems many on the left have become fed up with the hypocrisy that results in tacit support for reactionary, extremist regimes and excuses or justifies acts of terrorism.

In fact because of this a whole bunch got together and wrote the Euston Manifesto

Posted by: mertel at May 21, 2007 06:50 AM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 05/21/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

Posted by: David M at May 21, 2007 07:45 AM

"The Nazis weren't the creation of business, they came from the socialist gutter."

The Nazis came from neither camp. They recruited from those previously disinterested in politics and still do. Socialists do not usually or often become fascists, even if Mussolini defined such a career path.

Otherwise I tend to agree with Chuck. Opposition to fascism is, for many left-wingers, a method to call other fascists.

The reason there are still intolerant people marching on the streets and burning Jewish symbols is because the left are protesting fascism in that way.

Posted by: Andrew Brehm at May 21, 2007 09:26 AM

That was a fascinating and deep article, very few journalists are capable of that - or have the time I think for that caliber of writing.

One of my first thoughts was to be ashamed of the MSM for not jumping on that article. It's a treasure.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at May 21, 2007 10:01 AM

How sad that anyone would call these retards, intellectuals. They all fell for the claptrap of Collectivists, which is what they should have been rebelling against in the first place.

MJT,

I hope you find the time to read this essay on ideo-fascists: http://skarbutts.wordpress.com/2006/10/12/ideo-fascism-2

Posted by: redaktor at May 21, 2007 10:10 AM

If you were really worried about Fascism, then it was more the result of effective apocalyptic propaganda developed in the late 60's than something that concerned young Americans in the early sixties. I am saying that that fear was the result, not the cause, of the movement.

interesting.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at May 21, 2007 10:22 AM

Interesting Mertel. First time I've heard about the Euston Manifesto. Thanks for the link.

Posted by: Jonorose at May 21, 2007 11:21 AM

A few helpful old school left-right delineators:

Internationalism vs. Nationalism

Equality vs. Capitalism

Athesism vs. Christianism

So, if you think we should mine the border between America and Mexico, if you think talk of income inequality is "class warfare" and you don't think evolution should be taught in school, you be on the "right."

If you don't believe in any of the above, you just might be a lefty.

Posted by: alphie at May 21, 2007 12:51 PM

alphie,

Thanks, as always, for providing the comic relief. Better to think of the divide as simple right and wrong. And the left hasn't been right yet.

Posted by: redaktor at May 21, 2007 01:26 PM

There's a legion of deposed monarchs who might disagree with you, red.

And Lenin would probably have been a more believable liberator of Iraq than George W., even if the results might have been the same.

Posted by: alphie at May 21, 2007 02:08 PM

There are many reasons why intervention in the Balkans was so much more politically successful than intervention in Iraq, one of which was the immediacy of the threat against large groups of civilians. As for the arguments of leftist hawks like Paul Berman, I'm reminded of a quiz I saw years ago on the inside of a comic book: "What number do you get when you multiply 147 X 54 X 173 X 0 X 491 X 13? In other words, Berman and Hitchens and Tom Friedman and Glenn Reynolds all made eloquent arguments in favor of attacking Iraq. But in the middle of thier equations was the Bush/Rumsfeld regime - the zero that they should have seen in 2003. And that's a reason that Paul Berman should hate the Iraq invasion: the damage it's done to the ideal of miltary intervention in the cause of democracy.

Posted by: Joseph Angier at May 21, 2007 03:24 PM

Alphie,

Not much room in your worldview for Jewish rightists, is there? (Or atheist, or Hindu, or "pagan"...)

And I love the supposed opposition between capitalism and equality. Never mind that there has rarely been such gross inequality in all the world as was found in Communist states.

Enforced equality is against nature. It necessarily implies totalitarianism. Which, I'm sure, troubles you not at all.

Posted by: Mastiff at May 21, 2007 04:29 PM

I have no worldview, Mastiff.

I prefer to decide individual issue on their own merits.

I'm not a big fan of communism really, but it has its uses. A little of it keeps the peasants from stormin' the gated communities.

Posted by: alphie at May 21, 2007 04:54 PM

I prefer to decide individual issue on their own merits.

... unless of course it involves someone getting killed - then according to alphie, there is no setting, no circumstance, no issues to even consider...

does he really think we are that gullible?....

Posted by: mertel at May 21, 2007 07:12 PM

Michael, has alphie ever posted anything worthwhile?

Posted by: bgates at May 21, 2007 07:13 PM

it does not cease to amaze me how much time people spend reacting to an idiot like alphie and give him a platform.

at some point this begins to be a problem in its own right.

Posted by: fp at May 21, 2007 07:28 PM

angier,

the left is too busy hating and wanting to punish the west to worry about minor issues such as that.

Posted by: fp at May 21, 2007 07:30 PM

hey, josh,

if it's a good article they won't touch it. now, crap, that's something else.

Posted by: fp at May 21, 2007 07:33 PM

andrew,

there is a misconception that the left-right is a straight line continuum. it is rather a circle, where the extremes meet. for there's little difference between the far-left and the far-right. how much different was stalin from hitler. fascism is fascism -- be it right or left.

(well, there some differences, but they are less significant than the similarities, at least insofar as the consequences for the public are concerned).

Posted by: fp at May 21, 2007 07:37 PM

jonorose,

you were fooled by kadima too, huh?

ah, well, problem is what's the alternative? after all there is neither meretz nor will there be shinui.

Posted by: fp at May 21, 2007 07:41 PM

mertel,

I'm not anti-war.

I'm just against war as political theater.

Posted by: alphie at May 21, 2007 07:52 PM

"I'm not anti-war."

Especially one against the Jooooos!

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 21, 2007 11:51 PM

there is a misconception that the left-right is a straight line continuum. it is rather a circle, where the extremes meet. for there's little difference between the far-left and the far-right. how much different was stalin from hitler. fascism is fascism -- be it right or left.

I would quibble over the geometry, but that is basically accurate.

Communism = Authoritarianism with socialist slogans.

Fascism = Authoritarianism with nationalist slogans.

They're the same basic thing in slightly different packages.

Both result in mass graves full of 'undesirables'.

Posted by: rosignol at May 22, 2007 04:29 AM

Michael, were you reading Enid Blyton just before you wrote this one? ;-)

Posted by: J.B.S at May 22, 2007 06:14 AM

Don't you know the difference between communism and fascism?

In one man exploits man, the other is vice versa.

Posted by: mertel at May 22, 2007 06:56 AM

I thought this was a good and interesting article.

It doesn't appease my qualms about military interventionism, though. It's not about how leftist one can be while advocating war. I'm as anti-totalitarian as anyone. However, if you believe that war runs a high risk of creating totalitarianism instead of destroying it, you will therefore be skeptical about military intervention, always.

History is not without evidence of that claim, either.

Posted by: glasnost at May 22, 2007 10:16 AM

JBP: Michael, were you reading Enid Blyton just before you wrote this one?

I don't know who that is, so no. I was reading Paul Berman just before I wrote this. :)

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 22, 2007 10:42 AM

glasnost: if you believe that war runs a high risk of creating totalitarianism instead of destroying it, you will therefore be skeptical about military intervention, always.

What you say is often true of inconclusive wars.

The war against German totalitarianism (to use everyone's favorite example) certainly didn't create it.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 22, 2007 10:44 AM

which is why it's so critical to know when to go to war and when not.

it has now come to a point where the west never goes to war when it should and goes to war when it shouldn't.

there've been so many atrocious blunders and lack of spine that the chances of the west recovering from them is practically nil.

Posted by: fp at May 22, 2007 11:28 AM

<>

That's a perceptive analysis, Joseph. Those of us who ARE interventionists have, no doubt, learned to better appreciate the importance of who is doing the intervention, although to claim that all those guys "should have" known better in 2003 is going farther than I would. I have certainly learned the hard way that isolationism is much more deeply rooted in the US (and everywhere else for that matter) than I would have hoped. The challenge, for those of us who do not shrink from being called interventionists, is to look for better ways to do it in the future. Unfortunately it may take a generation to answer that question.

Posted by: Gene at May 22, 2007 11:35 AM

gene,

illusions and utopia always beat reality. the latter is hard, the former is easy -- just thought experiments. it's when the illusions hit reality that the shit hits the fan. and then the conclusion is that the problem is with reality, not with the illusion.

not even 100mil deaths have convinced some on the left; and not even utter self-destruction has convinced a majority of the arabs/muslims.

Posted by: fp at May 22, 2007 12:00 PM

not even 100mil deaths have convinced some on the left; and not even utter self-destruction has convinced a majority of the arabs/muslims.

The idea that you are building a perfect society is particulary destructive when combined with the notion that the ends justify the means.

Maybe this is part of the reason the jihadis and the marxists understand each other so well?

Posted by: rosignol at May 23, 2007 07:16 AM

yes. and they both hate western society, though for different reasons. there's multiculturalism also.

what i would really like is to see the jihadis succeed in building their 7th century caliphate and watch what will happen to the left in it. unfortunately, that would require suicide.

Posted by: fp at May 23, 2007 09:08 AM
Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn