In war the choices usually are between the bad and the far worse... Let's learn from history.

There is an excellent piece in Real Clear Politics by Victor Davis Hanson that is both uplifting and forewarning. When Osama Bin Laden gave his famous post 9/11 rant about reclaiming Al Andalus, many of us around the world had no clue what he meant. But, if we had studied our history, we would not have been surprised nor later on mystified nor incredulous about what "a clash of civilizations" really means. In his eloquent way, Mr. Hanson describes our predicament:

Ours is the first generation of Americans that thinks it can demand perfection in war. Our present leisure, wealth, and high technology fool us into thinking that we are demi-gods always be able to trump both human and natural disasters. Accordingly, we become frustrated that we cannot master every wartime obstacle, as we seem otherwise to be able to do with computers or cosmetic surgery. Then, without any benchmarks of comparison from the past, we despair that our actions are failed because they are not perfect.

But why did a poorer, less educated, and more illiberal United States in far bloodier and more error-ridden wars of the past still have greater confidence in itself? Was it that our ancestors, who died younger and far more tragically, did not expect their homeland to be without flaws, only to be considerably better than the enemy's?

Perhaps we have forgotten such modesty because we have ignored the study of history that alone offers us guidance from our forbearers. It now competes as an orphan discipline with social science, -ologies and -isms that entice us into thinking that the more money and education of the present can at last perfect the human condition and thus consign our flawed past to irrelevance.

[clash of civilization] [war on terror] [Iran] [Iraq] [Afghanistan] [Islam]