Assured Destruction in Two and a Half Minutes

Two-and-a-half minutes to midnight. That is where we are.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists clock is an indication of dangerous times. And these are dangerous times, indeed. The clock indicates how close humanity is to a catastrophic act of self-destruction – an extinction-level event – according to the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board. And before you dismiss their concerns as the unrealistic ranting of eggheads who never leave the lab (as noted Trump apologist John Podhoretz did in January), consider this: They’re not just boffins in white coats. The Bulletin’s Science and Security Board consists mostly of international security experts, like Steven Miller (Director of the International Security Program at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs), and Lynn Eden (Emeritus Senior Research Scholar at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation).

If the people whose jobs are to actually study the state of global security – the people whose research directs government policy here, and around the world – say that our species is closer to Doomsday this week than it has been at any time since the 1980s (remember… when Ronald Reagan joked about bombing Moscow, and the USSR murdered the 246 passengers on KAL 007?), then we should probably take them seriously.

Two-and-a-half minutes to midnight. Let’s think about that; let’s think about what has happened over the last two months.

The clock announcement didn’t really come as a surprise to anyone who reads a newspaper (either on paper, or on the Web). The sense of rising tension has been hard to ignore over the last few years. Bashar al-Assad’s genocidal war against his own people in Syria, the consequent refugee crisis, the terrifying black legions of ISIS, the onward march of xenophobic entho-nationalism, Russia’s rising imperialistic ambitions, the melting ice caps: if I believed in prophecy, I might think that W.B. Yeats was writing about our own times a century ago:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Talking tough

And here, in the United States, the President, the chief executive and commander of the world’s most formidable military, the most powerful person in the world, is talking pre-teen tough on Twitter, striding through international events like a schoolyard bully, looking to pick a fight with anyone who denies his ego and fails to turn over their lunch money.

Today, we all woke up to news that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said that “all options are on the table” with regard to the US’s growing confrontation with North Korea. Nuclear-armed North Korea. North Korea with a ballistic missile program. The pariah state that, nonetheless maintains fairly friendly relations with China and India. Nuclear-armed China and India. No one likes the idea that Kim Jong-un has nukes; but you can be sure they’re even less excited that the United States (which unapologetically incinerated hundreds of thousands of Asian people with its nukes in 1945) might consider the nuclear option, when “all options are on the table.”

In case you forgot, it’s two-and-a-half minutes to midnight. Can you hear the ticking?

At its press conference on in January – it seems so long ago now – the Bulletin was clear that America’s new president was not the only factor in the jump to two-and-a-half minutes. Things have been bad, and getting worse over the past year, and this “already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a US presidential campaign” after which then-President-elect Donald Trump enthusiastically advocated nuclear proliferation. With tensions rising around the world, and with the international security situation poised to fly off the rails, this is not just crazy talk. It’s very, very dangerous, very frightening crazy talk: “In short, even though he has just now taken office, the president’s intemperate statements, lack of openness to expert advice, and questionable cabinet nominations have already made a bad international security situation worse.”

When I was a child, growing up in the 1980s, I used to have a recurring nightmare. I was always sitting in my family’s living room in suburban Montreal looking out the big picture window. All of a sudden, there would be a flash of light, as bright as the sun, but where the sun couldn’t be. Then I would hear a shrill whining noise that would build and build until the glass of the window would blow in. And I would wake up.

The Day After

It wasn’t such an unusual nightmare to have in the days of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the 1980 Olympics boycott, SDI, and the MX missile. I know many contemporaries who had the same dark dream – or something like it – over and over again. In my case, it was certainly reinforced by The Day After on ABC, and a classroom screening of Peter Watkins’ 1965 docudrama The War Game in ninth grade. What we felt then – and what I tell my students when I teach Contemporary American History – was not fear that a nuclear war might happen, but the expectation that it would happen.

I have been having the nightmare again; twice since Inauguration Day. The Doomsday Clock announcement only made me feel less crazy.

It has always been something of a wonder that we have never had a nuclear war. Since 1949, the United States and the Soviet Union, now Russia, have been staring daggers at each other, armed with the most terrifying weapons human intelligence has ever devised, but not using them. There was the RDS-46, the B41, the Minuteman, and SATAN-2; and yet they were never launched in war. As the 20th century wore on, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and now North Korea, tested and built their own stockpiles. There are about 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, armed and ready for deployment – enough to obliterate the planet – but there were more than 60,000 by the end of the Cold War. Yet for all of this, no nuclear weapon has been used against humans since the US bombing of Nagasaki 71 years ago.

The reason is simple: the detonation of even one small-yield nuclear weapon in combat would invite retaliation and inevitably trigger a sequence of events that could destroy the planet. Our species has successfully navigated Scylla and Charybdis because our always-imperfect governments and leaders have understood the reality of Mutual-Assured Destruction, or MAD. No one, not Lyndon B. Johnson, Leonid Brezhnev, Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev, Mao Zedong, Harold MacMillan, Charles de Gaulle, or anyone else was willing to be the person to start a nuclear holocaust. Even if some humans did survive – a scenario addressed in a fascinating literary subgenre of the 1960s best represented by Pat Frank’s novel Alas, Babylon hundreds of millions, if not billions would die, leaving the survivors to scrape through a toxic nuclear winter.

Atomic shadows

Even if a global nuclear war were winnable, it could only be a Pyrrhic victory. As flawed, arrogant, or oppressive the leaders of the nuclear-armed states might always have been, they all nonetheless recognized the moral enormity of nuclear weapons. They cannot be used without killing millions of both the enemy and their own people and, at the end of the day, they have recognized that these are people. Real people. Reagan described them as “Ivan and Anya, Jim and Sally.” Sting sang that the Russians “love their children, too.” What has kept us alive for all of these years is empathy.

And this is what frightens me: We have very good evidence that the most powerful person in the world, a man with 7,000 thermonuclear weapons at his personal disposal – weapons whose proliferation and use he casually advocates – is a narcissistic solipsist apparently devoid of empathy.

Nothing that President Trump has done or said as the chief executive, as a candidate, or as a private citizen, suggests that he believes other people are, in fact, people with their own lives, feelings, and needs. With a stroke of the pen, he barred all Syrian refugees from entering the United States, almost certainly condemning tens of thousands to misery and death. That he did so while simultaneously failing to note in his Holocaust Remembrance Day message that six million actual Jewish people died in the camps – not merely unnumbered, abstract “victims” – suggests that he cannot recognize or comprehend the suffering of others. And when the courts struck down his executive order, he just tried again. The news that TrumpCare will ultimately rob 24,000,000 people of their health insurance, while providing a windfall for his wealthy friends, doesn’t seem to worry the president at all.

Indeed, President Trump seems to regard other people as an abstraction. They exist as undifferentiated masses – the “million and a half people” he believes packed the National Mall on inauguration day, the “three to five million” illegal voters, the hordes of immigrant terrorists and murderers, even the nameless, faceless “Americans” of his imagination – but not as individuals. People are not subjects to President Trump, they are objects who exist solely in relation to his own ego. Even his daughter Ivanka, whom he says he’d “be dating” if he wasn’t her father, is a hot “piece of ass.” What is important are his delusions of persecution: by the free press, by President Obama, by anyone who doubts his greatness.


This kind of narcissistic solipsism is fairly harmless in a reality TV star, and it is very likely the secret of President Trump’s mythic success in the real estate business. But in the leader of the world’s greatest nuclear superpower it is the stuff of apocalyptic nightmares. The solipsist denies the reality of what lies beyond his own mind; the narcissist is emotionally isolated and unable to feel empathy. How can we count on a man incapable of empathy to consider the consequences of Mutual-Assured Destruction?

The President’s staff and congressional Republicans seem to think they have everything under control. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer feeds President Trump’s narcissism and shrugs away his delusions, repeating them without explicit endorsement from the podium. House Speaker Paul Ryan dismisses the President’s allegations of massive voter fraud, but thinks “it’s fine” for him to indulge his self-aggrandizing fantasies with a special investigation, while using his cult of personality to advance a cold, callous, conservative agenda. They are playing at a kind of rodeo brinksmanship, and they will ride this horse for as long as they can, and as long as they get what they want.

They are courting disaster. They are riding a bronco to the brink, and when they go over, like Slim Pickens astride a hydrogen bomb in the closing scene of Dr. Strangelove, the consequences will be catastrophic.

It’s two-and-a-half minutes to midnight. Maybe less.

Kristallnacht is Coming

Toppled headstones at Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery in University City, Mo. (Photo courtesy of KTTN News)

Toppled headstones at Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery in University City, Mo. (Photo courtesy of KTTN News)

Antisemitism. The bomb threats to Jewish Community Centers, and the vandalism to a Jewish cemetery in Missouri this week are just the latest manifestation of our dark, persistent social neurosis.

If you’re Jewish, you kind of expect this sort of thing. It’s depressing, disappointing, distressing – but it’s part of the background noise of daily life. What’s different now is how frequent and numerous these more public, directed incidents have become. This is a step beyond the usual casual antisemitism and, although coincidence is not causation, it’s hard not to see the connection between the political climate and these incidents. What worries me is that these things will inevitably get worse.

I have met, and spoken to antisemites of the most virulent type. They are mostly timid, fearful creatures who get strength by testing boundaries, and seeing how well they can push through them. They will start with small attempts to outrage, and gaining skill and strength, they will inevitably escalate to larger outrages. They conceive of themselves as the dispossessed, the “forgotten men,” and see Jews as both a great monolithic power that stands between them and their birthright, and a tiny minority community they can dominate and, yes, destroy.

When the Nazis came to power in Germany, Jews like Walter Rathenau were among the most prominent people in the country, but Jews made up about 0.8% of the total population. Today, in the United States, Jews like Jared Kushner, Bernie Sanders, Wolff Blitzer, and many others, are among the most prominent people in the country, and Jews make up about 1.4% of the population. The proportion is larger, and Jews are close to the centre of White Nationalist power, but that makes us both more threatening, and more vulnerable. To the antisemite, Ivanka Trump is not reassuring; she is a race-traitor, and an emblem of the awesome danger of infection and defilement posed by “the Jew.”

And that last category is important, because it is not a category controlled by Jews, liberal gentiles, or any rational people. As Sartre noted, “the Jew” is a creation of the fevered mind and dark imaginings of the antisemite – just as, it should be noted, “the Muslim” is a product of the Islamophobe’s mind.

So things will get bad. Very bad – and very soon. Just as the archetypal serial killer escalates from torturing pets, to butchering neighbourhood animals, to hunting humans, seeking greater gratification with every boundary crossed, so will the antisemite progress from a nuisance, to a problem, to a danger, to a vandal– to a murderer.

This is the reality: Kristallnacht is Coming.

The Chamberlain Moment: A Letter to Justin Trudeau

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain arrives at Heston Airport, returning from a meeting with Adolf Hitler in 1938, bearing

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain arrives at Heston Airport, returning from a meeting with Adolf Hitler in 1938, bearing “Peace for Our Time.”

Dear Mr. Trudeau:

I write to you from the United States in an atmosphere of crisis and fear. I am a Canadian citizen who has lived and worked in this country for more than a decade. I earned my doctorate, in American history, from an American university, and I married an American. But I have never abandoned my citizenship, or my connection or attachment to Canada. It is the homeland to which I hope someday to return.

My Canada is not merely a geographical location or a political abstraction; it is a place of the spirit, a constellation of ideals of democracy and human rights, of universal values of integrity and decency. I have not always agreed with your policies, sir, but I have never doubted your commitment to these values. More than any other world leader, you have made them the centrepiece of your political vision.

I look around me, appalled by the policies of the new American administration, frightened for the future and, quite frankly, despairing for the quality of our humanity – not just here, but around the world. President Trump has made the world far more dangerous than it has been for decades, and has imperiled the interests of our homeland and the welfare of the world. He is poised to destroy the United States’ relations with our mutual ally and economic partner Mexico, and has jeopardized the North American Free Trade Agreement. He has pledged to cripple NATO and undermine the UN, the international organizations that most define Canada’s role as the world’s honest broker. We can no longer dismiss President Trump’s words as mere populist bluster. The consequences of his foreign policies will be catastrophic for Canada and the world.

I only wish that was the worst of it but, as you know, President Trump’s policies are worse still. A little over two weeks ago, he signed an executive order on refugees and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. With the stroke of a pen, he turned his back on tens of thousands of people fleeing starvation, misery and death in Syria. He closed America’s doors to permanent residents and visa holders merely on the basis of their faith and national origin. Travelers from those lands have been prevented from embarking on flights to the United States. Those who were in transit at the moment when the President’s pen met paper were turned away upon anding. Although the courts halted the implementation of the order, there is no guarantee that this will be more than a temporary respite. The new administration’s policies are driven by Islamophobia and white nationalist chauvinism; it is inconceivable that it will let the matter drop.

I won’t address how, rather than dealing a blow to Islamic extremism and ensuring American security, these policies will almost certainly have the opposite effect. Others have written about this, and I am sure you are being well-advised. I will, however, note that they contradict every ideal that open, diverse democracies like Canada claim to defend. They are hateful and inhumane. They gainsay the Canadian values that you have so eloquently championed time and again.

I am an immigrant in the United States; I am the descendant of immigrants and refugees. One of my ancestors fled the persecution of Puritans in Britain and arrived in the New World in 1635. His descendant was a United Empire Loyalist who fled to Halifax during the American Revolution. I am the grandson of Jews who left Central Europe in the last days of the Hapsburg empire, a step ahead of religious persecution. Others like them were less fortunate, such as the passengers of the SS Saint Louis, and the millions of others who, denied safe haven in the United States and Canada, perished in the Nazi death camps.

What we face today, in America and around the world, is no longer a question of policy or diplomacy; it is a question of humanity. You and Canada have accumulated substantial political and diplomatic capital since you took office a little over a year ago. People around the world welcomed your strong and principled statement on 28 January that Canada would welcome refugees fleeing persecution, terror and war regardless of their faith. Many read it as a clear rebuke of the Trump administration’s xenophobic policies. Two days later, at a rally in Jersey City in support of refugees, the crowd chanted “hey hey, ho ho, we want a leader like Trudeau!”

Yet I learned today that you plan to make an official visit to the United States, to meet with President Trump, on Monday. I understand that the United States is Canada’s largest trading partner, and most powerful ally. I am as aware as anyone of the significance of the world’s longest undefended border which we share with the United States. I recognize that you feel that you must balance the material and economic interests of our country with ethical principles. I believe your father called it a strategy of “constructive engagement.”

But there can be no constructive engagement with an authoritarian narcissist advised and directed by a cabal of white nationalist ideologues. President Trump, indeed the world, will inevitably view your visit as an endorsement and legitimation of his policies – at best! At worst, he will regard it as a vassal’s supplication. You stand to undermine all of the good will you and our country has accumulated. Consider the gravity of this historical moment: Do you really want to be remembered as an appeaser, returning home after your planned visit to Washington, striding off of your plane waving a paper, and claiming to carry “assurances” from President Trump?

Mr. Trudeau, you must take a stand. You must repudiate hate and explicitly condemn President Trump’s policies. Above all, you must recognize that you cannot travel to Washington to pay obeisance and shake the hand of a man whose every utterance and gesture denies every value you hold dear.

Canada’s call to history has always been to be a defender of democracy, human rights, and common decency. You have an obligation, as our leader, to step up to this historical mission.

Best Regards,

Matthew Friedman


donald-trumpMany of the people who voted for Donald J. Trump, appear to have voted the way they pray. That is, I have often noted, with some bafflement, that there are some religious Christians (a minority, to be sure) who beseech the creator for specific “gifts.” They pray to win the lottery, or to pass the final exam, or to get the job. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with this, but it seems strange. Rabbi Treister always taught that, in the Jewish tradition, one prays to praise God, for thanks, or for the welfare of the community and others. So the concept of praying for specific, material benefits seems foreign to me.

Likewise, the idea of voting for specific, narrow, parochial, and often personal benefits strikes me as a little odd. For example, many of the voters who cast their ballots for Trump seem to have assumed that a Trump presidency would benefit them, personally. That is, by voting for Trump, they would keep their industrial jobs, would see their personal income increase, would feel personally safer, would not have to interact with unfamiliar foreigners in their daily lives.

While this kind of voting seems just as puzzling to me – perhaps because of my background in a Westminster-style parliamentary system, I always assumed that one voted for (or against) broader issues, relating to the community as a whole, and what kind of community one wanted it to be – what I really wonder is this: What happens when your god ignores your pleas?

I mean, there is no way that any Trump policy will be able to address the personal, individual needs and desires of 60 million people, so many – if not most – of his supporters are going to be terribly disappointed, as many already are. So what happens to people when, despite their most fervent prayers, their god abandons them?

Short Memories: Thoughts on Complicity

We have short memories.

They are selective. One of the running jokes in my family is my mother’s ability to recall how she dressed me on a certain fall day twenty-nine years ago, but not what we discussed five minutes ago. It is funny, then – innocuous things remembered, or simply gone. We would worry about incipient Alzheimer’s, except that she has been this way as long as I’ve known her.

Family memory works similarly. There’s an old story about how we ended up here, in the US, in an indefinite exile that turned into a permanent one. My great-grandfather’s cousin, or brother, or friend, depending on the rendition, had revolutionary sympathies. He may or may not have been part of a pro-independence organization once known for its terroristic tactics.

He was a kid.

He was pushed up against a wall and shot by authorities trying to protect the population from itself. The rest of the family got on a boat. We have not forgotten being marked, by our religion and accent, name and complexion. The injustice of it all colored my youth. For nearly a century after my ancestral homeland achieved independence, I avoided visiting the former colonial power, convinced that it would be unpleasant for people like me, and shocked when it was quite the opposite.

We remember the wrong of 1900. We remember what it was like to be marked as Other, and killed for the difference. Then we act like it only happened to us. We remember being perversely special, exceptional in our oppression. We forget in an instant that our Otherness was passed to other groups. We gave it to them, gleefully, when we walked into City Halls and police forces, and then we held the difference that we bestowed over the heads of the perversely special. We can’t let it go.

We have short memories.

My father was one of too many children. He was poor. His father was an abusive alcoholic. His mother was a saint. My father remembers being spat upon as a child, because he was destitute, and because he was the wrong ethnicity. His particular family misery was never individual. Too many kids, too much drink, too much abuse, too much foreign.

My mother’s mother had children out of wedlock. Everyone knew it. At school, my mother had to “confess” why she and her siblings needed a turkey from a religious benevolent organization. Her father, in one of her fuzzy memories of him, told her that she was a mongrel. She lived in a public housing project whose brutalities nobody escaped. She worried about making us look respectable, moved us to an all-white neighborhood, and cried when I took a Black boy to my first school dance. When my sisters and I were teenagers, she was always convinced that we might be pregnant – that we would be marked, again, by our origins.

My father almost never drinks. He moved us to a neighborhood where the white people are his white people, so he wouldn’t be the only one. By then, though, they all identified us with the racially-mixed place I’d grown up, and with its people of color – so the kids would hiss “Blackawanna” when I walked past.

My mother frowns at women who have children with different fathers. She shops at the second-fanciest grocery store in town, to appear afloat but not pretentious. She volunteers, like a proper middle-class white lady from the suburbs. When told her that I had found information about her muddy family history, she was overjoyed. When I told her what it was, she pretended not to hear me. When the pastor of the Baptist church where her great-great grandfather had preached told her – gently – that the congregation and its preachers had always been Black, she smiled. “No, we’re white.”

They have short memories. Or long ones. I’m never sure.

I was home for Christmas. My mother was talking about one of the women at the shelter where she works – a Black woman pregnant with her ninth child. My father shook his head. “Those people would be much better off if they’d stop having so many children.” I stared. I called him out. His mother had been one of “those people,” a generation ago. He conceded, that time. But he still doesn’t see it – how we got to be white. How we yanked the ladder up behind us.

My brother, who is affable, works in a prison. He looks like a cop. He believes that the people in his jail put themselves there. He feels bad for them, but he thinks that the justice system works. I want to ask him about our great-great-grand-uncle, and if the system worked when he was shot against a wall because of his religion, and his accent, and his complexion, but I know that he wouldn’t see the connection.

We have long memories, but they only work backwards.

We have short memories. We walk through the streets unmolested, because we know that nobody will shoot us like they shot great-great-grand-uncle. We remember our ancestral injustice and carry it like a banner of protection. It isn’t a very roomy cloak, but we’ll be grateful for it when we see the ones without it being shot in the streets, or strangled. We remember our roots, then get too entangled in them to see out. We forget that our root ball connects to a tree, or a water source, or even the soil. It’s just us, underground, blind to what we’re perpetuating.

The Forever War


The President goes to war

Today, thirteen years after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, America is once again girding for war. “Once again” might not be quite the right phrase to use, since it suggests that we are on the cusp of a transition from a state of peace to a state of war, yet this country has not been at peace for more than a decade.

From the perspective of this day in 2014, President George W. Bush’s speech from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln off the coast of California on 1 May 2003 seems like a sick joke. For those too forgetful, or too young (like many of my students) to remember, the president strode heroically across the carrier’s flight deck from a Lockheed Viking ASW bomber, clad in a Navy flight suit, with his aviator’s helmet under his arm. Under a red-white-and-blue banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished,” the president announced that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” A few moments later, he added, “the war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless.”

He lied.

President Bush cheerfully lies to the American people

President Bush cheerfully lies to the American people

The proof is that, since 2004 the United States has lost more than 4,000 soldiers in Iraq and 2,300 in Afghanistan, while perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani civilians have lost their lives, and hundreds of thousands more have been maimed, dislocated, their lives destroyed. And all of this since President Bush claimed that the mission was accomplished.

So here we are, more than a decade later, with President Obama wearily announcing that, despite his predecessor’s speech, despite the promised US withdrawal, this country is committing itself once again – there’s that phrase! – to war, this time against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. For now, these will be air operations, deploying America’s vast resources of aircraft, drones and cruise missiles against the jihadists who have overrun much of Iraq. It does not mean that the United States will be sending troops in any number to the region to face off against the new enemy on the ground. At least that’s the story.

Because we – Americans, Canadians, Britons, whatever – like to remember history in terms of nice, discrete packages, where great empires rise and fall, where crises come and go, where wars begin and end, it’s the kind of story that we can believe. This time, the old song goes, won’t be like the last time. Indeed the last time,  and the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before that, has faded into vague memories that flicker fitfully on movie screens to teach us moral lessons of courage, sacrifice, grief and pain.

We remember that the Second World War was the good war; the one where there was no moral messiness, where we (and, incidentally, our Soviet, French, British and Commonwealth allies) did the right thing and stood against the brutal butchers of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We forget that we ended the war by incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in places with names like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hamburg, and Dresden. We forget how greatly Nazi expansion benefitted from the Western democracies’ benevolent indifference to the goose-stepping legions that marched through Spain, Libya, Ethiopia, the Sudetenland, and Austria.

We remember the heroic hardships the American GIs, indeed soldiers from the whole free world, endured to defend South Korea from the violent embrace of the Hermit State and the Chinese Red Army’s surge across the icy Yalu River in 1950. We forget that Douglas MacArthur wanted to use this as a pretext to bring nuclear Armageddon to China, and that the war, more than a half-century later, is still not over, but remains suspended in the tense unreality of a permanent ceasefire without peace.

We remember the spectacular victory of Panama when, over the weeks of Christmas and New Year’s a quarter century ago, American soldiers stormed from their Blackhawk helicopters to restore order and democracy and, to the pounding beat of MTV music, bought a drug-dealing caricature of a banana republic dictator to justice. We forget that Manuel Noriega had been our agent, and that he acquired the cash he invested in the Columbian cocaine cartels working for the CIA. We forget the thousands of civilians who died in Panama City’s El Chorillo neighbourhood, and others like it.

My Lai

My Lai

We remember the horrors of Vietnam; we remember that it was a mistake, built on a lie, enabled by paranoid Cold War fantasies; we remember that we confronted the worst of American arrogance there, and hope that we came out better. Sometimes, we even remember the bodies of women, children, and the elderly at My Lai, cut down by fresh-faced American boys ordered to “waste ’em all.” But we forget that, after the boys came home, paid their penance, and were rehabilitated as heroes, the dying went on. We forget that our arrogance and our bombs brought the genocidal Khmer Rouge to power and helped bury the uncounted millions in Cambodia’s killing fields. We forget the Vietnamese refugees who, after we washed our hands of our defeat, sailed in boats swamped to the gunwales across the South China Sea by the millions, and drowned by the tens of thousands.

Above all, we forget that, in 1964, we were going to answer the fabricated provocation of the Tonkin Gulf, and achieve our noble aims – just as we will fifty years later – with airpower alone. We were going to secure the peace by pummeling the enemy into submission with F-4 Phantoms, F-105 Thunderchiefs, and B-52 Stratofortresses – America’s unbeatable advantage over the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army. But 3,500 marines landed at Da Nang in the spring of 1965 to guard our bases, followed by thousands… then hundreds of thousands. Within four years, there were more than a half-million American soldiers and airmen “in country,” and the generals wanted yet more.

We remember the last time, and the time before that, and the time before that as if they are somehow separate from this time, as if all of our wars can be easily compartmentalized from all of their deaths and misery, as if this time won’t be like the last time. It will be different.

Mass Execution

Mass Execution

Like all of us, I have watched the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria with a combination of disbelief and horror. I have wept over the thousands displaced, raped, tortured, and butchered by the faceless black legions marching like the soot behind a flame across the map of Iraq and Syria. I shuddered in disgust as I forced myself to watch the videos of the beheadings and the mass executions, so I could bear witness to the atrocities of our historical epoch.

If I believed that evil was a living thing – a dark force with a positive, material existence in history – then I would believe that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, like the Nazis, slavers, and the US Army cavalrymen grinning and posing in that old photo over the mass grave at Wounded Knee before them, were it. But I know that nothing in history is ever that simple. The Islamic State’s soldiers are in the right as they understand it, they are fighting a holy, righteous crusade in the name of God, as they understand it. Mass murder is a moral act for them, just as it was for Paul Tibbets on that clear August morning, or for Richard the Lionheart as he entered the gates of Acre.

I can well understand the visceral desire, the demand for justice; for evil to be crushed and for us, under the banner of civilization, democracy, and all that is good and moral, to be the instrument of that justice. But then I have to ask where we Americans, or “Western Civilization” broadly – the butchers of millions, the slavers, the genocidal exterminators of the First Nations of the Americas – derive the authority to act in the name of all that is good and moral. How can a mass murderer be the judge and executioner of a mass murderer?

And haven’t we all been here before? Wasn’t the War on Terror supposed to defeat terrorism? President Bush declared war thirteen years ago promising to “wage this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.” Invoking the divine, he was certain of victory: “Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.” What happened to that victory?

This was not to be just any war. It had specific goals, outlined in the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. One of these was to “win the war of ideas and diminish the underlying conditions that promote the despair and the destructive visions of political change that lead people to embrace, rather than shun, terrorism.” Yet here we are, a decade later, and those conditions have not been diminished, but greatly enhanced. The black legions of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have clearly not shunned terrorism and – let us be honest – they would not have had this startling success had people in Iraq, Syria, and around the world, not in their despair embraced the message. By its own standards the War on Terror, which has run longer than any war in our history, has been an abject failure, a disgrace, a bloody farce.

A Predator drone at work

A Predator drone at work

The invasions, the occupations, the suspension of civil liberties, the militarization of American life, the “targeted killings,” the drone strikes – none of these have brought security to America and the world, and none of these have diminished “the underlying conditions that promote the despair and the destructive visions of political change.” They have created and expanded them. The monster of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is the monster created by war, and despair – our war. Here we are, thirteen years after it all began, and the President has committed us to reinforcing failure, to escalating the conditions that created the crisis in the first place. Maybe we should stop and think about this.

There is a great fallacy at work here – at the White House, in Congress, on the cable news talking-head shows, in social media, at the water-cooler – that the military option is the only option. “We have to do something,” we all piously intone, and that might well be true. But why does it seem reasonable to anyone that the escalation of a strategy that has not only failed, but has made things worse, is the only or even the best option? It’s like turning up the heat to save someone who is dying of thirst.

All consideration of what has to be done begins with dropping bombs and launching missiles, inevitably continues with “boots on the ground,” and ends – no, wait, it doesn’t end. This is the endless conflict. War is no longer our state of exception; it is our state of being.

“We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.”