The World's Coming Encounter With Andrew Jackson
by Tom Holsinger
November 28, 2002

The American people won’t tolerate being attacked at home by foreign terrorists. This is THE dominant factor in the war against terror. Americans' definition of victory here is security from attack at home, which even the Democratic Party does not understand, let alone foreigners. This war began when we were attacked at home and will end when further danger of that has passed. We’re fighting for our security at home, not to create a better world elsewhere, but the latter is all the Democratic Party proposes.

The Democrats banished their national security faction long ago, and feel military policy is merely a variant of domestic policy - either pork-barrel spending or armed social work among ungrateful foreigners. Every problem looks like a nail if your only tool is a hammer. Democrats are unable to accept the existence of evil or the necessity of winning in war. This resulted in collapse of public confidence in the Democrats' ability and willingness to protect the American people, even if many Democratic internationalist proposals have merit.

It is highly unlikely that the Democratic Party will regain national office for the duration of the war against terror, even if takes a generation and one or more Republican administrations fail seriously. Replacement by GOP primary challengers is more likely in such event.

Europeans, especially the EU, are quite similar to American Democrats here (with greater aversion to using force), but are noisier and more righteous about it as they don't have to face American voters or, on the Continent, even their own due to the incestuous nature of their parties and parliamentary systems. This happy freedom from responsibility permits them to act almost entirely for domestic advantage. They need only minimize terrorist use of their countries as sanctuaries to satisfy security requirements, and can otherwise grandstand as desired.

Europe's peril arises from different issues. They do not seem to have noticed that America's new ”National Security Strategy” - http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html - entails pre-emptive regime change there, including the EU’s, albeit by peaceful means. Governments inhibiting Europe’s “return to strong economic growth” threaten “vital” “U.S. national security interests”. Such blunt statements by a hyperpower are ominous.

That document is a useful guide to what is coming - elimination of terrorist regimes with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in order of threat to America, then elimination of terrorist regimes, then elimination of failing/shaky states possessing WMD if they won’t give those up, elimination of terrorist-supporting regimes (including the EU’s, though the Bush Administration won’t admit this), and finally elimination of such factors fostering terrorism as is feasible, which might include the mere existence of otherwise acceptably behaved tyrannical regimes of Islamic countries. This is a tall order, even for the U.S., and questions are properly raised about American ability and willingness to see this through.

Which brings us back to the American people. Failure to defeat terrorism means further attacks at home, so lack of resolve is not an issue. Ditto for ability. Americans in general, particularly their Jacksonian element, tend to believe in using all available force when involved in a serious war, and being attacked at home qualifies as one. Walter Russell Mead said in Special Providence: "The only reason Jacksonian opinion has ever accepted not to use nuclear weapons is the prospect of retaliation.”

The United States will use whatever means are necessary to win the war against terror, up to and including genocide against whole countries and peoples. See the Autumn 1997 article by Polmar & Allen in Military History Quarterly for what would have happened to Japan had it not surrendered in 1945. The American people, unlike those of Europe and Israel, have a very tribal attitude towards enemy civilian casualties in a major war. Those concerned about fanaticism by foreign peoples are ignorant of American history and power. Japan was fanatical. A clash of civilizations involving the United States would be short, brutal and totally one-sided - significant portions of Asia and North Africa might be reduced to subsisdence-level agriculture and population levels.

That America is capable of genocide doesn’t mean it will happen. Its people made great adjustments and sacrifices to win the Cold War, and showed amazing patience, flexibility and inventiveness. America’s ability to teach a horse to sing should not be underestimated, but the differences between the war on terror and the Cold War should likewise be kept in mind. The U.S. was not constantly involved in military hostilities during the Cold War, and was never attacked at home. There may be a limit on American patience with prolonged military hostilities in the war against terror, though that prospect is unlikely and remote.

The greatest danger is that further major terrorist attacks in America might cause its people to erupt in Jacksonian fury, as opposed to repeated minor attacks which would result only in expulsion of all non-citizen Muslims. Genocide would require identifiable targets, though, so prior elimination of regimes giving terrorists geographic sanctuaries would do much to avoid the possibility.

Foreign governments should definitely plan on the U.S. government doing exactly what it proposes, and most should hope that it succeeds given the Jacksonian alternative. Some could much profit from America remaking the world for its better security at home. Consider that $700-$800 billion in foreign assets held by the Saud regime might become available when that regime passes. Europe could offer sanctuary to the Fair Maid Of Money.

Europe might also benefit from American innovations in the war, such as emerging population surveillance/control technologies whose first mass experimental subjects will be Palestinians. Such technologies could be used to address social problems in Europe, and perhaps replace declining European arms exports, both of which would gladden the hearts of its dirigiste bureaucrats.

But Americans will be safe at home. What happens to the rest of the world remains to be seen.