The Fallacy Of The Oasis
On Independence Day in 1941, America watched as the world burned. Hitler and Nazi Germany had overrun France, Poland, and the Balkans in the previous eighteen months, and had just taken on Soviet Russia the month before. They appeared to be on their way to realizing Napoleon's quest of taking Moscow. In the Pacific, the Japanese had overrun much of eastern Asia and threatened the British and the US; in five months and three days, they would make war on us in surprise attacks on American military bases throughout the region, including Pearl Harbor.
Sixty-six years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to warn us of the danger. America had adopted an obstinate isolationism in the hope of avoiding the second World War, a strategy FDR knew was useless. He told America that we could not watch liberty extinguished abroad without soon losing it ourselves:
My fellow Americans: In 1776, on the Fourth day of July, the representatives of the several States in Congress assembled, declaring our independence, asserted that a decent respect for the opinion of mankind required that they should declare the reasons for their action. In this new crisis, we have a like duty.In 1776 we waged war in behalf of the great principle that government should derive its just powers from the consent of the governed. In other words, representation chosen in free election. In the century and a half that followed, this cause of human freedom swept across the world.
But now, in our generation in the past few years a new resistance, in the form of several new practices of tyranny, has been making such headway that the fundamentals of 1776 are being struck down abroad and definitely, they are threatened here.
It is, indeed, a fallacy, base on no logic at all, for any American to suggest that the rule of force can defeat human freedom in all the other parts of the world and permit it to survive in the United States alone. But it has been that childlike fantasy itself that misdirected faith which has led nation after nation to go about their peaceful tasks, relying on the thought, and even the promise, that they and their lives and their government would be allowed to live when the juggernaut of force came their way.
It is simple I could almost say simple-minded-for us Americans to wave the flag, to reassert our belief in the cause of freedom and to let it go at that.
Yet, all of us who lie awake at night all of us who study and study again know full well that in these days we cannot save freedom with pitchforks and muskets alone after a dictator combination has gained control of the rest of the world.
We know that we cannot save freedom in our own midst, in our own land, if all around us our neighbor nations have lost their freedom.
That is why we are engaged in a serious, in a mighty, in a unified action in the cause of the defense of the hemisphere and the freedom of the seas. We need not the loyalty and unity alone, we need speed and efficiency and toil and an end to backbiting, an end to the sabotage that runs far deeper than the blowing up of munitions plants.
I tell the American people solemnly that the United States will never survive as a happy and fertile oasis of liberty surrounded by a cruel desert of dictatorship.
And so it is that when we repeat the great pledge to our country and to our flag, it must be our deep conviction that we pledge as well our work, our will and, if it be necessary, our very lives.
FDR knew that the idea that we could disengage from the world, ignore the forces gathering against liberty and freedom, and exist as an oasis was a dangerous fallacy. Much of what he says in this speech rings as true today as it did then -- and like then, many of us simply aren't listening.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 4, 2007 10:37 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (2)
Comments (18)
Posted by NahnCee | July 4, 2007 11:12 AM
OK, so we *did* get involved in WW2, breaking out of the isolationist mindset.
And now, 50 years later, exactly what has that involvement gotten us as a country?
We have a horrifically dysfunctional United Nations where our enemy-masquerading-as-an-ally France consistently does its damndest to poke a stick in our spokes at every single turn.
We have a European Union (which we fought to protect and to emancipate) which is slowly giving itself over to our real enemies, Islamist terrorists. This, in turn, enables those terrorists to get closer to us, and it also enables them to sneak across our borders.
We have rising anti-Semitism in every country of the civilized world. Which is what we went to war in WW2 to do something about.
We have governments in the Middle East and elsewhere holding sham elections and then claiming 99% voter approval, at the same time they are demanding more money from our government.
We have had governments in Europe run their elections on one plank only - that being an anti-American one, and a promise to their voters that they will NOT support America or our activities.
We have a lot of people outside the United States actively rooting for China to overtake us because they'd rather live with a powerful, successful and murderous communist megalith than with America as the sole super-power.
One of our true allies is Japan, who we mercilessly beat into submission in WW2. Maybe the solution would be to nuke Europe like we did Japan, and figuratively yell at them, "Snap out of it!"
But in any case, tell me again why pulling back into Fortress America and daring them to come after us isn't a viable option, especially since everything we worked for last time around has been thrown overboard by the ingrates we died to save.
Posted by NahnCee | July 4, 2007 11:17 AM
OK, so we *did* get involved in WW2, breaking out of the isolationist mindset.
And now, 50 years later, exactly what has that involvement gotten us as a country?
We have a horrifically dysfunctional United Nations where our enemy-masquerading-as-an-ally France consistently does its damndest to poke a stick in our spokes at every single turn.
We have a European Union (which we fought to protect and to emancipate) which is slowly giving itself over to our real enemies, Islamist terrorists. This, in turn, enables those terrorists to get closer to us, and it also enables them to sneak across our borders.
We have rising anti-Semitism in every country of the civilized world. Which is what we went to war in WW2 to do something about.
We have governments in the Middle East and elsewhere holding sham elections and then claiming 99% voter approval, at the same time they are demanding more money from our government.
We have had governments in Europe run their elections on one plank only - that being an anti-American one, and a promise to their voters that they will NOT support America or our activities.
We have a lot of people outside the United States actively rooting for China to overtake us because they'd rather live with a powerful, successful and murderous communist megalith than with America as the sole super-power.
One of our true allies is Japan, who we mercilessly beat into submission in WW2. Maybe the solution would be to nuke Europe like we did Japan, and figuratively yell at them, "Snap out of it!"
But in any case, tell me again why pulling back into Fortress America and daring them to come after us isn't a viable option, especially since everything we worked for last time around has been thrown overboard by the ingrates we died to save.
Posted by Joshua | July 4, 2007 11:21 AM
Indeed, in today's world of pervasive economic, technological and cultural globalization, this is even more true now than it was when FDR said it. Isolationism is today far beyond merely unwise; it is practically impossible.
Of course, this same globalization also makes our task that much more difficult. It occurs to me that the most difficult, yet most vital, part of winning this war will be to keep the Westphalian order of sovereign nation-states viable in an environment where globalization is slowly eating away at it, from both the nation (cultural) and state (law and order) sides. If the nation-state model collapses into an single, enormous, amorphous mass of overlapping diasporas and tribes, America's fate will be sealed, regardless of how well we do militarily. Then the only question will be what form the post-Westphalian order will take: a collection of superempowered despots, an EU-style nanny super-state writ even larger, or of course an Islamic caliphate.
Posted by mrlynn | July 4, 2007 11:29 AM
NahnCee, in the age of the Internet, jet travel, the atomic bomb, biological weapons, and Islamic terrorists disguised as civilians in every country and waging war on the somnolent West, there is no more 'Fortress America'.
September 11th, 2001 should have made that clear, but too many of our citizens are still too unwilling or unable to confront this reality.
In the end, the only way to preserve the American experiment is to ensure that our enemies cannot succeed in their evil designs. We cannot do that by hunkering down. Rather we must pursue them to the ends of the Earth, and destroy them.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by Publius Hamilton | July 4, 2007 11:34 AM
While I share her frustration with our forgetful allies, NahnCee seems to have missed FDR's main point:
" I tell the American people solemnly that the United States will never survive as a happy and fertile oasis of liberty surrounded by a cruel desert of dictatorship."
Fortress America is a myth, and FDR knew it. What did we gain by getting involved and defeating the Nazi's, Fascist's, and Imperialist's? Our freedom. They would have set their sights on America once Russia and Britain fell. Even if we singlehandedly defeated the combined might of Germany and Japan, the cost in lives would have been catastrophic.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
The defense of freedom is perpetual. We face a similar problem today and future generations will have their tests.
The moral of the story? Freedom is not free.
Happy Independence Day!
Posted by mrlynn | July 4, 2007 11:42 AM
Asks Joshua, "Then the only question will be what form the post-Westphalian order will take: a collection of superempowered despots, an EU-style nanny super-state writ even larger, or of course an Islamic caliphate."
The best answer would be a Pax Americana, extending the benefits of the American experiment ("Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness") to the entire globe.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by mrlynn | July 4, 2007 11:50 AM
Asks Joshua, Then the only question will be what form the post-Westphalian order will take: a collection of superempowered despots, an EU-style nanny super-state writ even larger, or of course an Islamic caliphate.
The best answer would be a Pax Americana, extending the benefits of the American experiment ("Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness") to the entire globe.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by NahnCee | July 4, 2007 11:55 AM
Rather we must pursue them to the ends of the Earth, and destroy them.
Fine, then let's get to the destroying part, and skip the "trying to bringing democracy to the benighted" part.
Posted by Grumpy Old Man | July 4, 2007 11:56 AM
Unlike World War I, which we would have done better to sit out, we were probably destined to enter WWII. The danger of a uniformly hostile Eurasia was a real one.
Roosevelt did, though, manipulate his way to intervention when the popular majority clearly favored staying out. Among other things, an internationalist no one had heard of, Willkie, was imposed as the Republican nominee, tremendous pressure was placed on Japan and an uncompromising stance taken. It took an actual surprise attack to get us into the war.
Today, though, the reasons for foreign intervention are much attenuated, and the use of 1938 analogies is misplaced and misleading. We need to revisit the older concept of avoiding foreign entanglements.
Posted by NahnCee | July 4, 2007 12:00 PM
Rather we must pursue them to the ends of the Earth, and destroy them.
Fine, then let's get to the destroying part, and skip the "trying to bringing democracy to the benighted" part.
Posted by jdwhit | July 4, 2007 12:27 PM
NahnCee,
Publius Hamilton is correct. Freedom is not free, and more importantly; Freedom is never fully paid for. No matter how much blood is spilled in payment for our freedom, at some point, we as a people will face another threat. I predict that if our great nation survives another 1000 years, a historian looking over our history would find that at a minimum, every other generation had to fight for our freedom and had to pay a price in the blood of our finest young people. I would further predict that more times than not, this toll would fall on every generation, and at times a generation would have to stand tall more than once.
You need to read more history so that you can understand that our nation was built on the horrific sacrifice of brave men and women who stood against great odds and overcame. If I remember right, all but a few of the signers of the Declaration of Independence ended up loosing their life, fortunes, family or freedom. They paid dearly for their desire for a free nation. This has gone on from that day to this day, we are a free nation because when the time comes our citizens will lay down their lives to protect the freedom of their fellow Americans. This loyalty to an ideal is what makes our nation so hated and feared as well as what makes us who we are and gives us the strength to face our challenges.
I believe that America is the beacon of hope to the world, and I believe that America came into being and has survived against great odds because we as a nation and as a people are pleasing to God. We were founded as a Christian nation, with Judo-Christian tenets at the very core of all of our founding documents, principals and at the center of our national values. May America continue to stay strong, may we as individuals return to God and as a nation reflect his purpose, and may God continue to pour his grace upon our nation, as surely we will cease with out it.
Posted by mrlynn | July 4, 2007 2:16 PM
NahnCee: "Fine, then let's get to the destroying part, and skip the 'trying to bringing democracy to the benighted' part."
The two go hand-in-hand. Look at Japan, Germany, and even South Korea today. America's umbrella favors those who embrace America's values, freedom of life, liberty, and property, in a word: the dignity of the individual. These ideals are constantly under seige, as jdwhit eloquently says above. We best defend them by extending that umbrella to more and more of humanity.
One day, perhaps, the Pax Americana will encompass the entire world. Then we have have a true world union. We must keep our eye on that distant goal.
In the meantime, let us this Independence Day rededicate ourselves to the American Ideal and to those in uniform who even now represent the best we have to offer.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by Anon | July 4, 2007 4:42 PM
But one question to the historians on FDR's agitation for war in 1941: did he begin this on June 22 (the day of Germany's invasion of Russia) or sometime before it became apparent that Hitler was about to invade the country that was the object of affection of so many of FDR's coterie?
I admit I have not researched FDR's speeches and actions to compare his rhetoric pre- and post- Barbarossa, but it would not surprise me if there was a seachange on the day Lillian Hellmun's "motherland" was invaded.
Still, there was no doubt that FDR had it right on 7/4/41 regardless of what brought him to that point.
Posted by Palamas | July 4, 2007 5:20 PM
BZZZZZZZ! That's wrong, Anon, but thanks for playing anyway. Lend-Lease, which helped keep the British going through much of the war, was finally passed by Congress in March of 1941, after much prodding by FDR. The insinuation that Roosevelt didn't care about events in Europe until after the invasion of the Soviet Union is beneath contempt, as well as historically ignorant.
Posted by NahnCee | July 4, 2007 6:02 PM
Look at Japan, Germany, and even South Korea today. America's umbrella
Yes, but don't you see that the only one of those three that's giving value back for standing under our umbrella is Japan? Germany has done everything possible to get in our way and has made it absolutely clear that they prefer the Frogs to us. I also haven't noticed them getting too mean to their internal Islamists so I'm wondering what kind of an ally they would be when push comes to shove, or scimitar comes to beheading.
South Korea is too busy trying to bring the North in from the cold and demonstrating in the streets about American imperialism to actually *do* anything helpful. How much have we spent on South Korea since 1950, and how much have they given back? My guess is nil, more or less a zero.
Posted by Drew | July 4, 2007 6:58 PM
For those who forget, or never learned:
The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
There are no "time-outs", it is always a tied game; and, as soon as one enemy has been defeated, another will pop-up.
Have a Happy, Safe & Sane, Independance Day!
Posted by Anon | July 4, 2007 10:16 PM
Wow, Palamas. A question is posed and you lash out that the asker (me) is beneath contempt. As I said, I have not researched the issue myself, but judging by the obvious nerve I touched, I think I need to dig deeper.
The Lend-Lease Act was passed in March, but FDR did not approve funding under it until October. Further, the Atlantic Charter (FDR's joint pronouncement with Churchill on the aims of the powers) was in August of 1941. But in any event, I never implied that FDR--or anyone in America outside the fringe group that Lindberg fell in with--was ever ambivalent about whether Britain or Germany won the war. The country was always rooting for Britain and Lend-Lease was a way of supporting Churchill without our own declaration of war.
But my initial question still stands: when did FDR change his mind about wanting to stay out of the war? Clearly, the speech quoted by Captain Ed (given three weeks after the invasion of the Soviet Union) shows FDR as itching to fight. What made him change his mind? I don't know. If you had responded with a level-headed post, I might have been satisfied with your explanation that Lend-Lease proves FDR always wanted to enter the fray (or at least wanted to lbefore Barbarossa). But since you squealed so contemptuously, I can't help but think there is a "there" there.
So onto my research . . .
Posted by LarryD | July 5, 2007 12:16 PM
NahnCee, Japan was the only one of those we conquered and occupied by ourselves.
But none of them has been the source of danger for two generations, and that was our profit. It's a form of Enlightened Self Interest, the good we're doing them is to reduce our security issues, the benevolent effects make it easier ethically, win-win-lose vs win-lose-lose.
The enemy this time around is fighting for a way of life that is rural and tribal, there are only two ways to "drain the swamp". Complete annihilation (genocide) or haul the areas out of the non-integrated gap and into the functioning core. Iraq, in fact, was and is a much better candidate than Afghanistan, because they were and are more modernized. Think of it as a bigger scale version of the anti-insurgency strategy "clear and hold".