They aren't making enemies like they used to

"What has shocked and dismayed me, way beyond the sadness and regret of our losses, has been the willingness, even the eagerness, among many on the left who want nothing more than to see our side lose," writes Bill Whittle in an anecdote-rich essay of heroic breadth -- and length [via Brian of A Map of the Cat] -- a powerful rebuttal to the arguments of those moral relativists in and outside of the MSM who don't understand the difference between Prisoners of War and Unlawful Combatants:

I have not seen or heard of a single case of anything less than exemplary conduct regarding enemy regular-army soldiers . . . So why were the Taliban and Al Qaeda and Fedayeen insurgents treated so differently? Why the hoods and shackles? Why the humiliation at Abu Ghraib?

Whittle's answer to his own question is particularly apt given the recent Newsweek flap and the New York Times' latest attempt to smear GW and our military by churning up and wallowing in the gory details of the previously reported deaths of two Afghan inmates at Bagram in 2002 that "emerge in a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times." While not condoning prisoner abuse, Whittle explains why detainees at Bagram and Abu Ghraib are unworthy of our respect:

It is not because they are opposing us. It is -- to put it as bluntly as possible -- because they are cheating . . . They have willfully and repeatedly broken the covenant of Sanctuary.

They violate the Sanctuary of the Uniform. They violate the Sanctuary of Surrender. And the most reprehensible of all is the violation of the Sanctuary of Mercy.

They aren't making enemies like they used to:

There exists between soldiers a bond that cannot be described. There is the obvious connection of a soldier to his comrades, but there is too a strong sense of respect and kinship with the soldier on the other side of No Man’s Land, shivering in cold wet places just the same, under orders and doing his job, too -- just wanting to get the thing over with and go home.

"I used to wonder why civilizations fell," concludes Whittle:

No longer. I see it now before my eyes, every day. Civilizations do not fall because the Barbarians storm the walls. The forces of civilization are far too powerful, and those of barbarism far too weak, for that to happen.

Civilizations fall because the people inside the Sanctuary throw open the gates.

"These shameless and honor-free fanatics have been rigorously coached to lie about mistreatment and torture," he reminds us, giving the knife one more twist in the gut of those feckless fellow travelers of the left who are so out of touch with nature and human nature that they are no longer able to recognize the enemy:

. . . and despite this transparent fact, every utterance they make is breathlessly quoted and trumpeted by the press as absolute truth.

These people, who pride themselves on nuance, see no difference between a naked human pyramid of ten prisoners lasting two minutes and piles of corpses six million deep. Both shameful, therefore, both equal in their eyes. And we are the ones who only see things in black and white?

But all is not lost.  Thanks to the internet, "The defeatism and cynicism of our betters is no longer the only voice we hear." Hear, hear!

Update:  We love this one-liner from gEye at The Glittering Eye:

Sissy Willis has the Reader's Digest version of Bill Whittle's latest essay.

Thanks, gEye.

Comments

[goomp]

Should the views of the left triumph I believe we are witnessing decline and fall of Western Civilization. Hopefully the good judgement of the majority of our people the stong moral character of 19th and 20th century America will prevail. The internet is one important means to help break the decadent philosphies of the leftist liberals.

[Michael]

Sissy

In reading this, especially the comment "those feckless fellow travelers of the left who are so out of touch with nature and human nature that they are no longer able to recognize the enemy", I was reminded of Sharansky, and how right he is about just this kind of thing. He says the great challenge in fear societies is to confront evil, since there are clear repurcussions for doing so. The great challenge in a free society is to SEE the evil, because we blind ourselves with relativistic shades of gray. Soon the evil looms ready to destroy us, waiting at the gates, and we open them because we have lost the moral clarity to recognize the evil.

The more I read his book, the more I realize what a visionary he is for these times.

[Mr.Kurtz]

There is a stunning speech by Janice Rogers Brown over at http://dagney007.blogspot.com/ that is an excellent companion to Whittle's remarks regarding moral relativism and what they really want.

ps I couldn't leave a comment this AM. Maybe it's broken.

[Sissy Willis]

Excellent comments, gentlemen. 'Haven't read Sharansky yet -- it's in my pile -- but have quoted him often in support of these very points. The Janice Rogers Brown speech is totally awesome. Thanks so much for the tip.