Crisis of courage

Sen. Jon Kyl:

In a speech to Harvard University's graduating class of 1978, Alexander Solzhenitsyn attacked the West's weak confrontation of communism. His words remain instructive today as we face a different ideological threat.

Mr. Solzhenitsyn warned that "The Western world has lost its civil courage..." and rhetorically asked, "Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?" He lamented that "[N]o weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower."

Solzhenitsyn's beliefs in faith and courage undoubtedly drew the attention of a new generation of leaders. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II – like the giants of America's founding – came to their positions of authority at a historically propitious time and helped supply the essential willpower of which Solzhenitsyn spoke. Under their strong leadership, communism collapsed, democracy and free-market economies gained currency, and liberty seemed to be on the march worldwide.

Unfortunately, our respite from ideological confrontation was short-lived. And, once again, the same lack of courage has inhibited the West's struggle against global terrorists, many of them state-sponsored.

Solzhenitsyn actually foresaw much of our current predicament in that 1978 commencement address. He observed that "Political and intellectual bureaucrats ... get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists." Consider, for example, the UN's weak resolutions against Iran.

Solzhenitsyn also observed: "When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' civil rights. There are many such cases."

Indeed there are! The reaction, especially in Europe, to Saddam Hussein's death sentence is a case in point.

Here at home, the Supreme Court last June held in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that an alleged terrorist's civil rights were violated because, notwithstanding two centuries of precedents to the contrary, the president didn't have the authority to establish military courts to deal with terrorist detainees. But US public opinion did not support the notion that detainees should be entitled to American constitutional rights, and Congress responded by passing the Military Commissions Act, which denies habeas corpus protection to alien detainees and allows them to be tried in a process similar to military courts.


At stake in the war on terror is nothing less than preserving Western civilization, as Solzhenitsyn sensed almost 30 years ago: "The fight, physical and spiritual for our planet, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started."

It is clear that many of Sen. Kyl's senate colleagues are not up to the challenge. Too many of them are too desperate for our defeat. They take the absolutely ridiculous position that an insurgency without the capacity to defeat us has in fact done so. They take this ridiculous position for political gain. They also hope to inhibit future operations where the use of force is needed against our enemies. The neo quagmirest are feeling triumphant in their search for our defeat.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends

The Christmas of the survivors of Trump's first year in office?