By
Bruce Brager
Read history, folks. Maybe . . . maybe. . . you might learn something. Maybe not, but we can always hope. On rare occasion, people learn from experience, even world leaders.
Julius Caesar was once held captive by Mediterranean pirates. The United States fought the Barbary pirates, successfully, to the shore of Tripoli. Putting it mildly, the problem of piracy in this area took a long time, and different methods, to solve. By today’s standards, I am sure Romans would have questioned Caesar going after the pirates – or declared that we need to respect the pirate culture. Jefferson, in keeping with practice of drawing a line the sand to let your enemies know how far they can safely go, and letting know what to expect, would have pledged not to send ground troops. There would have been no dramatically successful Marine landing party. The Marine Corps hymn would have ended up “From the halls of Montezuma to (eight musical beats with no lyrics).
The modern use of “line in the sand” sets the line up as a limit at which point we have to take action. This cleaver idea tells our enemies what they can do safely. Throw in the idea of proportional response; we make it even easier for the bad guys to know what they can get away with. It is not very useful to effectively let an enemy know what we are going to strike no matter what the enemy does – see Saddam Hussein and our second Iraq War. Respond logically, but not recklessly. However, it is equally bad to rule out any method of striking at enemy, short of the big bad three, first use of nuclear weapons, use of chemical or bio weapons. There are many, many arguments against using massive ground forces to strike ISIS. Not the least of which is getting involved in a 1,000 year old quagmire for something that is not, at least not yet, an existential threat to this country. But I really wish Obama would stop announcing what he is not going to do against ISIS. He sometimes shows a reluctance to use force reminiscent of Jimmy Carter. Funny thing is -- when he uses force, he uses it well. This was not true of Carter.
Maybe we should take a lesson from the Mafia in dealing with more regional enemies. Make them an offer they can’t refuse. Behave -- you have a good friend. Misbehave -- you have a deadly enemy. A credible threat to kill someone if they take some action usually prevents action. Add it to a carrot and success becomes more likely. The problem with ISIS is that threatening lethal force against people who seem to welcome lethal force may not accomplish much. The best stick is cutting off their recruitment. Give people an alternative to hopelessness and terror. Don’t label them rabid dogs.
We get several things wrong with the “line in the sand” from the Siege of the Alamo.
First of all, it probably never happened. Second, those who wanted to stay at the Alamo crossed the line. The real lessons are the many errors of Mexican commander Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Laying siege to the Alamo gave too much military importance to the post. It gave the Texans time to declare independence and start forming an army. Murdering the few Alamo prisoners made a military defeat into the political victory for his enemies. Santa Anna’s leisurely pursuit of Sam Houston and his army showed an arrogant underestimation of a more dangerous enemy, out to take vengeance for the Alamo and the 400 prisoners murdered after the Battle of Goliad. Santa Anna’s mismanagement culminated in the carelessness which led to his major defeat at San Jacinto. Good thing our leaders never make any of these mistakes.
If we fast forward a few years, we see Confederate President Jefferson Davis ordering the militarily unnecessary firing on Fort Sumter, providing the far more politically astute Abraham Lincoln the excuse he needed to move against secession. His moves against secession, which Davis provoked, eventually led Lincoln to move against slavery.
We don‘t fight terrorism by adopting the same policy against terror victims that was used against Nazi victims in the 1930s. Keeping desperate people from reaching freedom is grotesque. Millions of people died because our political leaders lacked the guts to try and change the xenophobia of the American public. A lot of Americans died anyway when the war came.
Listen to the collection of clowns known as the Republican leadership on carefully admitting Syrian and Iraqi refugees. I guess they believe that is better to let thousands die than risk one or two bad guys, admittedly really bad guys, getting past our normally excellent border controls.
Our final case study for fighting ISIS, and most other major problems, is looking at Lincoln. He had to put up with alleged experts criticizing every idea he had. He showed patience, the willingness to try new ideas and new methods – most famously the Emancipation Proclamation (made permanent in the 13th Amendment, near the end of his administration).
One big irony, for Democrats at least, is that we actually can learn from George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Reagan learned from his dangerous foreign policy errors and ended the Cold War. Bush, in the last year or so of his term, learned from his economic errors and, with the aid of the Democrats in Congress, started saving the economy. Maybe the many experts who criticize virtually every method of doing virtually everything should put their talents to coming up with solutions, usually more than one, to our many problems.
Historical circumstances tend not to repeat the same way. But the lessons do repeat: the lessons of thinking, of leaders having the courage of their conviction, of leaders having convictions. I believe Napoleon III said show me which the people going so I may lead them. If not him, a whole lot of modern “leaders” might have said the same thing.
All opinion pieces reflect solely the views of the writer(s) and do not reflect the opinions or views of CAB News Online.
