The World's Most Famous Question

"To be or not to be - that is the question." - Hamlet

In the days that follow his father's funeral, Hamlet utters perhaps the most famous line in English literature. Bereft, confused, depressed, Hamlet seeks to order the chaos that has become his daily life. His question, posed here, leads to an inquiry into suicide, whether or not it can provide the panacea for all of Hamlet's trouble. The play becomes one man's journey to participate or withdraw from life.

One of the loyal readers of We Happy Few has asked me to discuss the idea of citizenship, its obligations and its benefits, in American society. Only a few days ago, the US government recalled several thousand Marines from their civilian lives to active duty, according to this article in the Washington Post. To clarify for all readers here, the Marines divide their reserve into two components: an "active reserve", that drills monthly and trains for two weeks in the summer, and an "inactive reserve", that does not require any drilling. Those on the inactive ready reserve or IRR remain there to fulfill their final obligation for voluntary service to the United States. Essentially, they lead civilian lives until a major manpower shortage renders their duty essential. Because they are Marines, they accept these recalls and report despite disruption to families, businesses, etc.

The US maintains a military presence on every continent, and at the current time, our strategic goals and manpower to implement those goals do not coincide. Two events will happen: either US foreign policy will change or more people will be added to the ranks of the military. Thus, the Marines on the IRR call-up exemplify this process. The government will get the troop numbers it needs before it changes its global strategy. Manpower, believe it or not, is easier to solve than US foreign policy.

But from where will these bodies come? Much has been made in public and private conversations about the relative lack of participation of the American elite in the ranks of the military. Much has been made of the paucity of public officials who neither served themselves nor have offspring who have joined the military. Much has been made about how the US entangled itself in this mess and how we can't seem to get out of it.

A few weeks ago, I engaged in a debate with some dinner partners who are exceptionally brilliant people. They, admitted detractors of the President and his policies, could not understand why we had engaged in this war and why we could not get the troops home. Additionally, they could not understand why more people had not risen up in the streets to protest this war that will kill our youth and bleed our treasury. I countered that the few people felt the pain of the war, and the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful are not dying in the impoverished streets of Baghdad. After all, the US Civil War ended because the pain of 600,000 American deaths brought both sides to the table with the South unequivocally surrendering.

But the problem is more severe than a military engagement in the Middle East. The problem originates with the perception that rights are granted for free, and that someone else will do the dirty work. The thinking that "because I pay my taxes, I am participating" eventually will financially and socially bankrupt our country. In Israel, where everyone in the country serves in the active military and reserve for most of his or her life, government officials do not take military decisions lightly. Because every one participates, every one bears the pain.

Thus, pose Hamlet's question to those around you, to those who this month begin their college careers, to those who three months ago finished theirs. Will they "be"; will they participate, will they actively do more than working towards personal goals? Or will they "not be"; will they prefer someone else to do the work that must be done? And then ask the question of yourself.

Another Round in the Never-Ending Slugfest

"'Now in Latium the state of affairs was such that they could endure neither war nor peace.' Of all unhappy states the unhappiest is that of a prince or a republic brought to the extreme where it cannot accept peace or sustain war."
- Niccolo Machiavelli quoting Livy, Discourses on Livy, II.23 (trans. by Tarcov)

Two recent developments elucidate the continuing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah/Syria/Iran. First, the Israeli military has a chink in the armor, causing considerable nervousness at home with its citizens and stiffened resolve abroad with its enemies. According to the Washington Post, the Israeli military received the first bloody nose to its reputation as one of the world's most lethal fighting forces, and that wound has stirred anxiety from Tel Aviv to Haifa to Negev. All militaries worth any salt, by nature, will examine and re-examine their structure and training, probing for weaknesses, and undoubtedly, the Israeli Defense Forces will emerge from this recent skirmish with more rigorous training and a new commitment to applying overwhelming force. To quote Ross MacKenzie of the Richmond Times Dispatch, "the rule for the Israelis is the first war we lose is the last one we fight."

Second, the latest chapter in the peace process has already ended, and the war chapter resumes. According to the Washington Post, Israeli special forces sought to prevent the resupply and rearming of Hezbollah units. The IDF interdiction force, small and stealthy, battled Hezbollah forces and apparently suffered casualties. The Israelis claim the mission proved successful.

Both of these developments reveal that Israel has now occupied the dangerous middle that Machiavelli describes above. The legend of Israel's military contributed to many of her enemies staying home and avoiding prolonged battle. Sure, punks have taken potshots at the IDF over the years, but few nations have attempted full engagement. Now, Hezbollah is emboldened by its perceived success. Likewise, Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, now licks his chops for a chance at Golan Heights. Others must be saying that Israel is prime for the taking. At this moment, Israel can neither withstand more war nor can she accept the peace offered by the UN. The fact that the IDF sent a covert force to do what the Israeli Air Force had done before the cease-fire reflects a weakened resolve, possibly beholden to international pressure to stop the conflict. But then again, everyone in the world except the Bush administration and many American citizens blame Israel for this conflict.

The issue here is how force is used and to what political end is sought. Livy and Machiavelli describe that the Romans offered the Latins, engaged in open rebellion against the state , two choices: citizenship and peace or total annihilation. Reaching this point, however, required an initial committment, as ugly as it may be, to victory. Peace settled through an intermediary neither effected it nor made it last. Crippled, the rebels had no choice but to accept the honor to join the citizenry of the Roman republic, and Rome survived because she stayed out of the middle.

Many in the Israeli government will demand changes in the military because they will sense, as the Roman Senate once did, that only victory assures peace. An armed Hezbollah will not sue for peace. A broken and defeated Hezbollah will.

Senator Knucklehead goes South South West

"Great indeed is the admiration aroused by an eloquent and wise speaker, whose hearers judge him wiser, and more understanding, too, than the rest. And if in such a speech there is also weightiness blended with modesty, then no achievement can be more admirable; and all the more so if these qualities are found in a young man." - Cicero, On Duties, 2.48 (ed. Griffin and Atkins)

Many have argued that the 20th century sound-bite, brought into American homes via the television, killed oratory. Whereas Lincoln produced the Gettysburg Address and Washington delivered his famous Second Inaugural, modern leaders strive only to utter one sentence or two that the media will repeat ad nauseum. Hence, the oratorical success of today is to beat a phrase into constituents' heads.

Despite the television's assault on the human brain and the evidence that it turns one's brain to spiceless gazpacho, people have not totally become unthinking, unfeeling beings. Thus, politicians still must tour, greet people, and when called to do so, speak to more than just a harem of television cameras and snappily dressed reporters. Voters still expect to hear leaders in the flesh.

Senator George Allen learned a vicious lesson about the sound-bite. While it needs only to burrow in your brain for success, it can also step outside, grab you by the trouser leg and slam you mercilessly to the ground, over and over again. According to an article in The Washington Post, Allen, speaking to a crowd in southwestern Virginia, ridiculed his opponent's volunteer employee and uttered the word "macaca" while publicly addressing the young man, SR Sidarth. Sidarth, an American of Indian descent, took umbrage with the statement. His opponent, James Webb, accused Allen of rascism. Allen retorted he meant no offense, and he then listed several excuses for using the term.

No one, including Allen, can say for sure what exactly he intended. Herein lies the problem, in three possibilities: either Senator Allen made a rascist comment in public about another person; or he equated the term "macaca" to Mr. Sidarth's hairstyle, a mullet; or he delivered a speech in which he did not know the meaning of the word he used. When compared to the quotation above from the Roman senator, Cicero, all three of these possibilities reveal a major failure of a leader.

First, if he intended to belittle a citizen based on race, Senator Allen is foolish and mean. His remarks stir only the nasty to laugh and the level-headed to turn away. If he tried to make "macaca" sound like "mohawk," he proves he cannot speak eloquently. We are, after all, what we say, and eloquence and precision of language counts. If he does not know the meaning of the words that he says, then he is ignorant. All leave little to celebrate for a leader of the state and the nation.

Cicero wants the leaders, both old and young, of a republic to realize that words reflect character. Weightiness implies wisdom; modesty implies humility. No matter how fast human lives become, people still value these qualities. On the day when the census reminds that in Washington and elsewhere new hopefuls immigrated here by the thousands and have now become millions of residents, Senator Allen should note that voters still want their best emotions stirred. People will vote for more than just a sound-bite, Senator, but they will reject the unadmired and unwise.

Chalk Another One Up for the Good Guys

Since last week, the details of the recent plot to destroy planes and murder people over the Atlantic have dribbled out of the United Kingdom. While many questions remain, the leaders of the United States and Great Britain remind that we still fight a pitched battle with Islamic madmen. The plot has shocked many of the law abiding, but it really should not. We are fighting a war against people who see no value in law, secularism, and justice meted out from human judges. Their energy comes from the purely emotional: fear, anger, hate, revenge.

More astounding are the apologists, those concerned with the "fairness" of treatment for the terrorists, those who resent the term "Islamic fascists", those who criticize the US for failing to act as thoroughly as British gendarmes, those who laud the savvy of the terrorist enemy. While the crafty terrorists indeed have adapted, morphed into a lethal virus despite increased surveillance on all their activities, the victory for the Good Guys recently proves that the West can adapt quicker than they can. Will the terrorists exploit a weakness? Perhaps, and given that we live in an open society that allows individuals to worship and speak as they please, we will always permit the fear, anger, hate, and revenge that they preach. However, with each criminal act they dream up, there are millions of citizens who love the life of freedom. We win, hands down, in the clash of civilizations. They will never birth the caliphate on the shores of democracy.

Recently, I read an article by Richard Haass, a brilliant man with a superb diplomatic pedigree, that challenges the semantics of the "war on terrror." Part of his thesis contends that we need not think of this as war, replete with militaries, battles, uniforms, conventions, etc. Instead, we, as the targets of terror, need to accept its lethality as a part of quotidian life. "Terror" is not an enemy but a disease, and we can no more purge it from our lives as we can the threat of cancer. Better to prevent than defeat it.

Haass makes other salient points about the conflict: the uselessness of believing democracy means unequivocal peace in the Middle East, the need for enhanced police work, the imperative of denuding terrorism of its appeal. However, I challenge this assertion that we should abandon the metaphor of "war on terrorism" because, according to Haass, wars begin and end, and this one will not. If we examine the history of the 20th century, we find several instances when ideologies were defeated by arms and diplomacy. Nazism and its ugly step-sister, Communism, were defeated by short wars of combat and long wars of diplomacy, economic pressure, and covert activity. Imperial Japan was defeated and occupied and then produced a capitalist democracy that has become a legitimate economic world power. Likewise, Germany, divided and occupied, revealed what exactly was at stake: West Germany thrived while East Germany descended into the totalitarian nightmare that was the utopian promise of Mother Russia.

Terrorism acts on impulses sent from the Ideology Nerve Center, the Islamic fascism that shuns modernity and economic prosperity. We must wage this war in the same manner that we defeated the Soviets, with careful and patient economic pressure and a publicly spoken recognition that we are fighting a belief that threatens the way of life for millions of freedom loving people around the world. The shopkeepers of Bali hardly want Australian tourists to remain at home. And neither should we.

A Connecticut Yankee in the Athenian Court

The politician said, "I am the same man and do not alter, it is you who change, since in fact you took my advice while unhurt, and waited for misfortune to repent of it; and the apparent error of my policy lies in the infirmity of your resolution, since the suffering that it entails is being felt by everyone among you, while its advantage is still remote and obscure to you all, and a great and sudden reverse having befallen you, your mind is too depressed to persevere in your resolves" (The Landmark Thucydides, 2.61, translated by Strassler).

Was that the speech of defeated Senator Joe Lieberman? No, but today Old Joe woke up and must have thought that Pericles got it right when Athens was fighting Sparta in a war for survival. The people of Connecticut, like their spiritual Athenian kin, had had enough of this silly conflict, and now it was time to get the bum out who supported all this icky violence. Amazing how quickly all of Joe Lieberman's former allies jumped onto newcomer Ned Lamont's Democratic yacht and sailed for calmer waters. Sure, alliances in politics are fickle, and Senator Lieberman cannot expect to have support when he has been voted a has-been.

If you believe MoveOn Poltical Action Committee executive director, Eli Pariser, you would conclude that Lamont's victory begins the end for the Republicans. In his column in today's Washington Post, Pariser states that the Lieberman, etal.'s policy of triangulation, "the policy of seizing the middle ground no longer makes sense in an era when any attempt at bipartisanship is understood as a sign of Democratic weakness and exploited accordingly." Never mind that Lieberman carries more credibility with both parties than any other senator because he actually has conviction. Never mind that Lieberman is trying to work from the position of the minority with an administration and Congress dominated by Republican idealogues. Never mind that Lieberman does not sway, neither in his support for liberal Democratic policies nor in his calculated understanding that we have serious foreign policy concerns that cannot be simply mended with a cursory "just bring 'em all home." Never mind that Pariser and his ilk predict a metastasizing cancer of Republican defeat due to the primary loss of one of the only Democrats with actual power in Washington. Never mind logic while you're at it.

If you believe the lead editorial of the Washington Post, you won't buy MoveOn's assumption, and you won't believe that Old Joe is a has-been. Here, the Post editors make the correct argument that statesmanship, Lieberman's ability to reach "across the aisle in an effort to cooperate," made him a "sap" in the eyes of voters. In fact Lieberman's defeat yesterday may be an enormous mistake by the Democrats. Imagine Old Joe triumphantly returning to Washington with no strings attached to his golden chariot. Woe to you who abandoned him if you don't capture control of Congress.

Senator Lieberman understands that, like Pericles, he has not changed but the resolve of 300,000 primary voters has. Irony abounds when we hear the Democrats call for bi-partisanship in the age when President Bush refuses to compromise, and then the Democratic leadership turns on the one man in the Senate whom people believed could work with the other side. More irony and some healthy servings of humilty on the way for Senator Clinton and her band of merry Lamont Who? supporters. Maybe they should figure out a way to reach "across the aisle" before November.

A Banjo's Guide to Peace

What is peace? The obvious answer, and therefore incomplete, might be an absence of war. Is it a time and place when all people live harmoniously? If we judge with that standard, we might think of Heraclitus, "From the strain of binding opposites comes harmony" (translated by Brooks Haxton.) Harmony, justice, equality, words that conjure the idea of peace, but do not entirely define it.

Heraclitus considers the lute when he writes his maxim. (For our purposes, we will consider the lute's more attractive descendant, the banjo.) The string, bound at two end pegs and pulled taught over a drum, produces a correct sound when struck. If either end releases its hold, the string will slacken and fail to emit the proper note. The string must have tension.

The commentators, politicians, and combatants on both sides of the major conflicts of the world all profess a desire for peace, naturally under conditions that the other side deems entirely unacceptable. Iraq, for example, teeters on the edge of civil war according to some experts. Others, including President Bush, deny the possibility of civil war due to the success of the elections. It may be impossible for us to know if Iraq has descended into civil war until the bloodletting really begins. Terrifying to contemplate that the carnage has not yet begun should civil war result in Iraq.

However, before we make this judgment or define the criteria for civil war in Iraq, let's look back to the Romans on the eve of their civil war. Julius Caesar's famous crossing of the Rubicon begins the demise of the Roman republic. As the civil war ensues, one Roman senator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, flees the general and his minions. Realizing that capture means death, Cicero pens his last work, On Duties, for his last lesson to restore the republic should Caesar's dictatorship fail. As we know, it did not. However, the constructs for republic lie clearly explained in this text. He says, "Our concern should always be for a peace that will have nothing to do with treachery" (1.35, translated by Griffin and Atkins).

Thus, how can justice and its companion, peace, be provided to the people of Iraq? First, justice is not revenge. Can the Middle East shirk its love affair with revenge? Second, justice is self-evident. Can the Middle East eliminate corruption? Third, justice, in a governmental sense, is secular. Can the Middle Eastern governments abandon theocracy as the first principle of government? Intuitively, I believe that the answers to these questions are "yes." I invite any reader to explain how.

Without justice, peace is an illusion, complete with tacit, disguised threats of violence and revenge. But without the inherent "banjo-string" tension of opposing parties, harmony is as much illusion. The fledgling democracies of Iraq and Lebanon must have citizens who, despite their differences, believe in the secular and not divine sense of justice. Let God have His due in Armageddon, but for now, the only hope on Earth is for people to appeal to their reason and prop up the rule of law not the rule of the bullet. As Cicero said before his impending execution, "nothing is liberal if it is not also just" (1.43).

Paris in the Heart of America

MoveOn.org of Michael Moore fame has created another amazing publicity campaign. Currently, I am attending a seminar at a small liberal arts college in the heart of the United States. Upon entering the library, the academic center of the campus, I noticed a flier entitled, "Are You Feeling a Draft?" with President Bush cariacatured to resemble Uncle Sam. The flier, created by the student wing of MoveOn, details the current military crisis, shortage of manpower, and delivers the tirade against the President for his malfeasance. Fair enough considering libraries and colleges exist to stimulate discussion and debate.

However, its concluding paragraph is most striking: "So unless you like the idea of graduate school in Fallujah, we need to pay careful attention to what our President is saying, versus what it really means." Take a moment to think about what this organization touts in this flier. Regardless of the soldiers and Marines who serve in Iraq think about the political failures or successes of the war, they nonetheless serve under the command of the President. In most cases, these soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, of whom an enormous majority do not have the benefit of a college education, volunteer to resign control of their life. The word "service", often uttered with respect given to those willing to perform it, originates from the Latin word, "servare." That Latin word does not mean, "to do something so others don't have to." It means "to save." That definition finds no footing in MoveOn's flier. Instead, MoveOn lauds the cowardice of those privileged enough to pay for education but savvy enough to duck responsibility. MoveOn instills fear in place of honor. MoveOn wants the college elite to question their future. MoveOn rewrites the definition, "you do it so I don't have to."

Let us turn back 3000 years for a m0ment to consider cowardice. Its defintion proves elusive, but its examples abound. In Homer's Iliad, Hektor stands with wife and child as the Greeks besiege his city of Troy. Hektor, cognizant of his impending death, holds his own child aloft and exclaims, "Zeus, and you other immortals, grant that this boy, who is my son, may be as I am, pre-eminent among the Trojans, great in strength, as I am, and rule strongly over Ilion: and some day let them say of him: 'He is better than his father' (6.476-9, translated by Lattimore). Hektor does not flee the way Paris, the cause of the conflict, does in a previous military engagement. Paris, the younger Trojan, favors the pleasures of the bedroom to the duty of the battlefield. He is the quintessential college libertine. Hektor cannot flee from his obligations for in addition to the Trojan citizenry, his son, wife, and reputation as a leader depend upon his courage. Paris has no such obligation.

Any successful, lasting society must instill the value of earning, not granting, privileges. Our society will be "saved" by those who understand it.