Over say the next half century or so, do you see another great power rising up to counter-balance the United States or do you see the U.S. remaining the world’s sole super-power for the foreseeable future?
There will be always rising powers, in our case either the EU or China. Should they both have democratic systems, I see no real danger. Should China develop, in the manner of imperial Japan or Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, a sophisticated war economy under autocratic auspices, or should Europe recoil from its unhealthy socialism and in reaction embrace an authoritarian and dangerous nationalism, then we could have problems. But the proper attitude is not to worry about others, but only worry what we do — in Grant’s words not caring what the enemy will do to us, but what we can to do to him. As long as we keep an honest humane society, coupled with economic power and a spiritual citizenry, then for some time to come it would be insane for anyone to attack the United States.
Was there any sort of significant antiwar movement in the U.S. after Pearl Harbor? If so, could you give us some details on that?
Very little; what was sizable on December 6, 1941 suddenly went mute by the 8th. But then a much poorer, much more endangered populace was still in large part rural or lived in small communities, felt shame, and knew that America was good or at least better than the alternatives. The rise of big government, big corporations, and anonymous suburbs have created a sort of transience and unaccountability, enhanced by enormous wealth and materialism. The Clintons on the Left and the Enron people on the Right are good examples — the lifestyles of each, the similar improper financial deals, the abuse of language, the sense of entitlement, all that is the same. Bill Clinton is the Ken Lay of politics — pampered, insincere, duplicitous, felonious, smug, and star-struck. Both are reflections of the corruptions of the time; the one mouths concern for the poor, the other for free markets, but they both like Aspen, peddle influence, and share the same values.
In your book “Carnage and Culture” you stress that one of the comparative advantages that Western cultures have in war is their ability to rapidly replace men and equipment lost in battle. Since the United States does not have a draft or the ability to rapidly replace our technologically sophisticated weapons, have we lost an edge that Western societies have traditionally had in battle?
I don’t think so. A draft with a cohort of youth 30 million strong would be too large to integrate easily into a high tech military. The key is civic militarism in the sense of laws, rights, and legal protections; thus a Green Beret, albeit a professional, is far more a product of the classical tradition than a draftee in Korea or Iraq who enjoys no legality, but is more like a galley slave than a conscript soldier. An American enlisted man is more like a voting hoplite than are Saddam “draftees.” The military has done a better job in creating a harmonious diverse populace than has the university — and often its soldiers are better trained, disciplined, and more astute than many of our college students.
In times past, how have other nations dealt with terrorism?
The antidote is well known and works — overwhelming power, an articulated policy that explains the moral issues involved, and a strong sense of national purpose and resolve. The sicarri, the great Mahdi, the assassins, the kamikazes, they all ended up badly — though they were terrifying at the time. Al Qaeda will share their fate, and bin Laden will be a footnote to history, no better known than Isama Cho, who was the rage of 1930’s in Japan, and whose ideology was felt to be frightening and unstoppable. The U.S. Marines took care of him and his brood on Okinawa, and they will again with the far less dangerous Islamic fundamentalists. The United States Air Force and Special Forces are much more capable warriors than killers with head bands and hoods.
