Chastising Their Insolence

480px-Edward_Moran_Burning_of_the_PhiladelphiaRegardless of one’s position on “imperialism,” “neo-imperialism,” “liberal internationalism,” and other attempts to describe, project, or critique an American role in the world, the assumption that a nation will seek to take care of its own hardly counts as unusual, and rather more counts as obviously required by any meaningful concept of national community. If there will be exceptions to the general rule, times that we may choose to look away or may simply fail to recognize our responsibility to each other, the high-definition murder of American journalists, submitted as a direct political challenge and broadcasted to the world, would not likely be one of them.

Democratic Senator Bill Nelson put the matter succinctly if a bit narrowly: “All you need to do is see the videos of the beheading, and then you’re not worried about mission-creep.” I offered my own version of the same argument immediately after the Foley execution: In sum, it is hard to imagine a world in which acts like the murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff simply as Americans, in connection with an American decision to rescue others from imminent annihilation, did not produce among Americans a demand for punishment as both practical and moral necessity. Yet there is a tendency even among many would-be supporters of President Obama, or of his plans to “degrade and ultimately destroy” “the group known as ISIL,” to diminish and disdain politically aggravated homicides as actual and compelling bases for a specifically American reaction. We are asked to treat our outrage as mere emotion divorceable from supposedly more serious concerns: “Not something for the US to wind itself into a tizzy over” were the ill-considered words of one journalist. If usually more judiciously, area experts and all-purpose pundits alike will typically revert to modes of analysis that fail to consider the American response as, whatever else it is or becomes, a response to injury. It does not seem to matter to the legion of critics how much emphasis the President puts on what he calls a “core principle of [his] presidency,” as he reiterated it in his speech to the nation: “If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.” They warn of obstacles to achievement of a desirable end state in and around Iraq and Syria, or even of “a trap,” but seem never to recognize that failing to react – even if only to render exemplary punishment of the executioners and their friends – would also entail practical consequences, not only in regard to the offender’s future calculations or abilities to repeat or escalate, and not only in regard to the conduct of potential imitators, but in regard to our concept of ourselves, which in turn is not a matter of statistical cross-comparison of theoretically similar instances.

In another era it would have been easier to justify military action in the language of honor, also the language of class, though it would be another mistake, or another version of the same mistake, to treat honor as an obsolete idea rather than a term for inherited knowledge of how the world works, in particular in regard to how and why we come to fight, or discover a will to fight. According to a recent poll conducted after the President’s speech, a large majority of Americans favor action even while, in even greater numbers, not expecting it to “eliminate” the group known as ISIL. The seeming contradiction, some substantial segment of opinion seemingly in favor of a project expected to fail, is easy to explain in human terms: We do not now actually require the group to be fully eliminated – assuming we could even agree on what level of destruction equated with elimination. We require that its members now suffer grievous punishment at our hands, and we know we are capable of causing them to suffer and die virtually without limit, a fact whose brute significance they, and anyone tempted to stand too close to them, may come to recognize.

A bit more than two hundred years ago, on the occasion of America’s first overseas intervention, a president received authority not to eradicate the “Barbary Powers” or extinguish the practice of piracy, but to “protect our commerce & chastise their insolence—by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels.” That president, Thomas Jefferson, who was long acquainted with the issue of state-supported piracy, especially hated for the practice of abducting Westerners, acted with broad popular and congressional support, though without a formal declaration of war. Among the results of the ensuing actions involving a detachment of only six ships was the first American military victory on foreign soil, on “the shores of Tripoli.” Prior to that point, the American frigate Philadelphia, which had been captured and turned against the American Navy, was set on fire: hardly the last time American arms would fall into an enemy’s possession, and have to be destroyed. Though we may imagine an 1804 Twitter reacting with the sophomoric snark that is our 2014 default, no doubt with additional concern over merely producing more pirates, the action by a small group of Marines under the command of Lt. Stephen Decatur was called “the most bold and daring act of the age” by no less a figure than Admiral Horatio Nelson. As for greater matters, over the course of decades, Barbary piracy was in fact eradicated, with the aid of allies who prior to the American intervention had previously been content to pay ransom and tribute.

As for the, of course, in many ways very different efforts today and going forward against a different type of enemy of humankind, it may well be that American words and actions already imply or eventually will require annihilation of this peculiar Levantine and Iraqi movement in detail, alongside escalated investment in the welfare of many who, at least in American eyes, rightly or wrongly, may not seem to qualify as particularly deserving recipients. Responding to a particular injury does not preclude response to larger or supposedly larger matters: Confronted directly, such events reveal their greater significance spontaneously, and, more important, authentically engage us in it. In the meantime, however, if we needed to burn Philadelphia – the city itself, not a ship – then we might do so, if that is what it took for us to send the necessary message to the enemy, and to the world, and to ourselves.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

Posts in this series

0 comments on “Chastising Their Insolence

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

    3 Pings/Trackbacks for "Chastising Their Insolence"
    1. […] development and actions of ISIL have threatened American interests and impugned American honor; therefore, it must be confronted. Policymakers should take both threats seriously, and acknowledge […]

    2. […] If I find the time, I will finish and publish a more developed piece on America’s stance toward the Islamic State, partly in response to a post on by Adam Elkus and Nick Prime that, in the process of proposing a theory for understanding and formulating American anti-IS strategy and policy, happened to link to a post here. […]

    3. […] authors even link to one of this blog’s treatments of the topic. […]

    Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



    Noted & Quoted

    TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

    For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

    The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

    Comment →

    Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

    Comment →

    [E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

    Comment →
    CK's WP Plugins


    Extraordinary Comments

    CK's WP Plugins