I happened, once again, upon an old quote from Jean-Francois Revel: "Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it." Sadly, Revel is stating the obvious. But then, it really isn't obvious to most people. Even when you point out what is happening, they are so unfamiliar with history, and so unschooled in ideas, they have lost the thread of modernity's narrative. Possessing clarity, Revel did not lose this thread.
In the post-9/11 introduction to his book, Anti-Americanism, Revel criticized de Gaulle for justifying France's withdrawal from NATO in 1966 on account of American tardiness to help France in two World Wars. "And yet that was precisely the purpose," wrote Revel, "in the light of past experiences, of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: to guarantee the automatic and immediate military intervention on the part of the United States (and the other signatories) in case of aggression against one or another member state." Thus Revel concluded, "Emotional prejudice can blind even a great man to the inherent absurdity of some of his positions."
President de Gaulle was unclear with regard to the situation of France and, indeed, the whole of Europe. He ordered all U.S. soldiers out of France. On hearing of this, President Lyndon Johnson told U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk to clarify de Gaulle's position by asking whether de Gaulle's order included American soldiers who were buried in France.
This recalls another episode, in 2003, when Secretary of State Colin Powell was confronted on the subject of U.S. empire-building by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey. Powell clarified the matter in the following words: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years ... and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise have returned home ... to live our own lives in peace."
The former Archbishop also asked Powell if America was becoming too reliant on "hard power" as opposed to "soft power." In his larger answer, Powell said: "The United States believes strongly in what you call soft power, the value of democracy, the value of the free economic system, the value of making sure that each citizen is free and free to pursue their own God-given ambitions and to use the talents that they were given by God. And that is what we say to the rest of the world. That is why we participated in establishing a community of democracy within the Western Hemisphere. It's why we participate in all of these great international organizations. There is nothing in the American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power -- and here I think you're referring to military power -- then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with. I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe [from Hitler]. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan. So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world."
Colin Powell's statement is the clearest imaginable. He speaks on behalf of American soldiers who died on foreign soil, fighting against countries that attacked and invaded their neighbors -- fighting against dictators like Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Ho Chi Minh. Shamefully, history has often been revised and retold from the perspective of the dictators. Only this has been done cleverly, with indirection and style. Lies have been repeated as truth, and many truths have been omitted.
Today, without the American "hard power" and without America's nuclear deterrent there would be no free world at all. There would be Russia's sphere of influence and China's sphere of influence. It is doubtful that Europe by itself could withstand Russia's power. In the Far East, the position of South Korea, the position of Japan, and the position of Taiwan would become impossible. These countries, and many others, would become satellites of China.
And what of America itself? Would we suddenly place ourselves under the French nuclear umbrella? Or would we succumb to a socialist "soft" power-play backed by Russian or Chinese "hard power"?
Already, even with American power intact, the country is being lost for want of clarity. For a long time we have surrendered our principles, both economic and political. We toy with socialist schemes -- as if these could ever work. These schemes, however, are about power. As Revel said, "Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it." When everything is examined with a view to the whole, that power which is trying to destroy our civilization goes by the name of "socialism." In reality, it is a clique that pretends to speak for the poor and for minorities, and has always championed American nuclear disarmament. And now, it seems, this clique has the power to make nuclear disarmament a reality.
What will happen when the United States reduces its nuclear arsenal below what is needed for deterrence? Will the world be safer? Or will it become more dangerous? To answer correctly, one must have clarity, which has been called "the good faith of philosophers." But we have neither good faith nor philosophers. We have politicians . And we have a president preparing a trip to Moscow where he will sign away the bulk of America's nuclear missile forces.
We are in a muddle. Those who see clearly have fallen silent, either because they are dead or because they no longer fit our "culture." We prefer our illusions, just as we prefer sugar mixed with everything we eat. As Nietzsche wrote in Thus Spake Zarathustra, "A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death."
