By Dawn's Early Light

A Veteran's View of Freedom

My dad has a long-time friend who was his high school coach, a fellow missionary working with my dad's parents, and a decorated veteran of World War II, winning the Silver Star for bravery.  Charles D. Holsinger recounts his wartime service in the Pacific in his riveting book "Above the Cry of Battle" .

Recently Coach Holsinger sent my dad a letter enclosing a speech he gave on Memorial Day 2005, and, with his kind permission, I thought it might be fitting to reprint it for Independence Day 2005. 

"Back in history our forefathers searched for a fitting example for those who were killed fighting for their country.  They came up with the statement that stems from Jesus' sacrifice, 'He or she paid the ultimate sacrifice.'

When Betty and I went to the Philippines as missionaries, the American cemetery on the outskirts of Manila became a special place for me.  In appreciation for what the U.S. did for their country, the Filipino people dedicated land as a memorial for those who gave their all.  There are 17,000 plus white marble crosses.  There also is a tremendous colonnade with 32,000 plus names of those who are missing in action.  It is a stark reminder that freedom is free, but it is not cheap! 

I am a World War II survivor because of God's grace and the Bible, which also enabled me to maintain my sanity.  I memorized God's Word and made it a part of my life.  My foxhole verses at night were Psalm 4:8, Micah 7:8, and by day I lived by Proverbs 3:5,6.  Every morning I prayed, 'Lord, by life or death help me to be a good soldier.'

After Guadalcanal, a defining moment came in my life, when I was on the island of New Caledonia.  We didn't know it, but we were getting ready to take back the Philippines.  The colonel had called us together by companies, and the gist of his message was:  'Men, we will all go but we won't all come back.  Be ready to meet your Maker and see the chaplain.'  Lots of guys took New Testaments.

That night I struggled with the Lord.  Finally, I said, 'Ok, Lord, I'll go anyplace and do anything you want me to do, even be a preacher.'  I had such tremendous peace it scared me.  I ran back to my tent and told the six guys that were having a bull session what I had done.  One guy said, 'Hey, if you were going to be a preacher, what would you preach?'  And I explained to them the way of salvation.  One by one they excused themselves.

The first day in battle in the Philippines, those six men from our company were dead!  As I dug in that night, I knew in my heart that I had made the right decision.

I took away from the war two lessons:  First, Proverbs 16:10, 'Man makes his plans, but God directs his steps.'  And second, in God's plan there is no such a thing as big or little decisions.

People ask:  Do you ever think about the war?  Yes, do I ever!  Not one day passes that I don't think about it and the many comrades, who landed in the Philippines with General MacArthur and paid the ultimate price for freedom.  The thing that lingers most in my mind for these past 60 years are the men who died in my place.  I didn't plan it that way, but in God's plan it happened.  Let me explain.

Have you ever settled an issue by doing stone, paper and scissors?  Or did you flip a coin or draw straws to win or lose?  On more than one occasion God's plan for my life depended on whether I won or lost the toss.  There were decisions that were completely out of my control.  Go with me to the battlefield for two events.

On this certain night, as usual it was stone, paper, scissors time.  Three men would dig foxholes together on one side of the ridge and three on the other side.  I lost for my two partners, so it was a second choice for me.  Then the three of us had a debate over who should be at the front end of the ridge.  Because of seniority, the sergeant took the back position and assigned me to the front.  That night the enemy attacked.  The three men on the other side were killed, the sergeant and the man next to me were severely wounded, and I survived.  In the morning, another soldier came to my rescue and we cleaned out the enemy.

It was now time for promotion and I had seniority.  But the first sergeant had friends and promoted Andy to sergeant/squad leader and Hank to corporal/assistant squad leader.  We dug in that night, and saying I was somewhat angry was an understatement.  The two men were assigned to dig in at each end of the squad, and the rest of us dug in between the two squad leaders.  The plan for the next morning was that I would be the first scout out.  That night the Japanese launched an attack and a mortar shell hit on the edge of Hank's hole and his arm was blown off.  In the middle of the night I was promoted to assistant  squad leader, and I would bring up the rear rather than leading the attack.  We moved out at about 8:00 a.m. the next morning.  In a matter of minutes Andy and the two scouts were killed.  Under fire I was promoted to squad leader.  In about 12 hours I went from private to staff sergeant!

Three times I was the only one left in my squad.  The only explanation for me standing here is Proverbs 16:10, 'Man makes his plans but God directs his steps.'  The Lord had spared my life!

Would I do it again?  Yes.  If they'd take me, I'd go to Iraq tomorrow!"

May you all have a truly thankful and blessed Independence Day.

Memorial Day Weekend

I, like most of my fellow citizens, am a proud American.  As my wife and I get closer to the arrival of our daughter and first child, my mind reflects on the blessing of liberty my family enjoys.  With great sacrifice we enjoy these freedoms.  This freedom was paid for at great cost by men and women who believed they were creating something larger than themselves.  From our nation's birth through the Civil War, America's involvement in two great wars and wars in Asia and the Middle East, good men and women have laid down their lives that others may enjoy what we here at home most treasure.  In memory of the fine individuals who have given the ultimate sacrifice, I would like to reprint the Gettysburg Address, given November 19, 1863.  President Lincoln's words are applicable today.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.  We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that the nation might live.  It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.  It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.  It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

May God bless our veterans, the families of the fallen, our nation and our friends of liberty.

Update: Chicago Boyz has an excellent post on "Honor the Dead, Help and Support the Living".  Join them in adding to their $1,000 contribution to the Wounded Warriors Project.  (May 31, 2005)

The Duty of the Strong to Protect the Weak

My dad recommended to me today President Bush's statement on the death of Terry Schiavo after 13 days without food and water as she lay in a permanent vegetative state.

"Today millions of Americans are saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo.  Laura and I extend our condolences to Terri Schiavo's families.  I appreciate the example of grace and dignity they have displayed at a difficult time.  I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others.  The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.  In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life."

Noble words indeed.  May God welcome you into His care Terri, and may His Spirit be with your family and those you leave behind.    

Still Hoping for a Marxist Utopia

Eric Hobsbawm, the noted Socialist-Communist historian, has a piece in today's Guardian (hat tip: RealClearPolitics) "The Last of the Utopian Projects". He laments how Perestroika hastened the Soviet decline and brought about an aggressive bid by the US for "global domination".  Let's break down a couple of his key points and address them:

"Did perestroika herald 'the end of history'? The collapse of the experiment initiated by the October Revolution is certainly the end of a history. That experiment will not be repeated, although the hope it represented, at least initially, will remain a permanent part of human aspirations. And the enormous social injustice which gave communism its historic force in the last century is not diminishing in this one. But was it 'the end of history' as Francis Fukuyama proclaimed in 1989, in a phrase that he no doubt regrets?"

Mr. Fukuyama's book "The End of History and the Last Man" (1992) asserts that history is directional and that its endpoint is capitalist liberal democracy.  Mr. Hobsbawm dreams of the Marxists goals being accomplished now by different means, and is no fan of the "capitalist liberal democracy" that Mr. Fukuyama believed in 1992 was nearby.

"He was doubly wrong. In the literal sense of history as something that makes headlines in newspapers and TV news bulletins, history has continued since 1989, if anything in a more dramatic mode than before. The cold war has been followed neither by a new world order, nor by a period of peace, nor by the prospect of a predictable global progress in civilisation such as intelligent western observers had in the mid-19th century, the last period when liberal capitalism - under British auspices in those days - had no doubts about the future of the world."

It is interesting Mr. Hobsbawm's view of the post Cold War period.  Taking the concepts one by one that are in bold:

1. "There is no new world order" - I would suggest that there is indeed a new world order, one that is currently being defined and played out in the diplomatic battles between the US and its former allies in Europe, the US and China in Asia, and by the US and the totalitarian regimes in the Middle East that are resisting democracy.  The new world order is characterized by US hegemony and its pursuit, post 9/11, of Idealistically spreading democracy for a Realist self preservation from foreign threats such as terrorism.
2. "Nor by a period of peace" - Communism didn't prevent the greatest tragic war of the last century.  On the contrary, the Cold War created stability among the core superpowers while proxy battles raged during a 50 year period on the Korean Peninsula, Latin and South America, Afghanistan, South East Asia, in the Middle East and the non-Commonwealth African countries.  By contrast, the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union and failure of Perestroika is characterized by less conflict and more stability with an increasing number of state actors.
3. "Nor by the prospect of a predictable global progress in civilisation" - Interesting choice of words with "predictable".  What about what we do have today in history, a non-predictable "global progress in civilisation" as democracy takes root in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Georgia, Iraq, Palestine, possibly Lebanon and Egypt?  Who would have predicted this progress? Certainly not the Left. This is explored in my earlier post on the Left reconsidering the Iraq invasion in "Could Bush be Right?" 

It is ironic, though not surprising, that Mr. Hobsbawm cannot find "progress" in the democratic movements in the Middle East and former Soviet Union.

"What we have today is a superpower unrealistically aspiring to a permanent world supremacy for which there is no historical precedent, nor probability, given the limitation of its own resources - especially as today all state power is weakened by the impact of non-state economic agents in a global economy beyond the control of any state, and given the visible tendency of the global centre of gravity to shift from the North Atlantic to the zone of south and east Asia."

There was no history for the rise of Communism or its decline, but that did not preclude the ideology of having a major impact on the fate of the world in the 20th century.  We have only two to three centuries of global interaction on an interconnected scale to have "historical precedent".  Looking regionally, it is easy to compare China during its height, Rome at is apex, or Britain at its zenith as being superpowers of their time.

I also would like to argue with his second line of reasoning, that "all state power is weakened by the impact of non-state economic agents in a global economy".  The power of the US government, especially on the federal and state levels, seems to have increased as symbolized in the creating of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act, and the rise of immigration as part of the national debate.  It may be true that totalitarian states and some countries in Europe are weakened, but this is not a universal truth. 

With respect to the shift of gravity from the North Atlantic to South East Asia, I would argue that the center of gravity in both cases is the United States.  The attraction and direction of that gravity is pointing more towards Asia as the US chooses to reinforce its alliances with South Korea, Japan (see this DEL post) and Australia to counter North Korean recklessness and Chinese assertiveness.  This is also due in part to the abdication of "hard power" politics from the countries of the European Union and their focus on the only coin remaining, "soft power".  Asia is moving towards greater "hard power" and the center of gravity in global power politics will follow it.

I believe, while Mr. Fukuyama's book was poorly timed, in light of the post Cold War history and the developments in the world post 9/11, that it may prove more durable than Mr. Hobsbawm's ideas expressed above.

Your comments are greatly welcomed and appreciated.

UPDATE: Reader T. Hazelwood has an insightful forum discussion from FrontPage Magazine with a former Eastern bloc intelligence Agent here.  It makes a good link between Communism encouraging Muslim extremism against the United States. (March 15, 2005)

Democracy vs. American Exceptionalism

I am reading Samuel P. Huntington's "Who Are We?".  He casually makes the observation:

If American identity is defined by a set of universal principles of liberty and democracy, then presumably the promotion of those principles in other countries should be the primary goal of American foreign policy.  If, however, the United States is "exceptional", the rationale for promoting human rights and democracy elsewhere disappears.

I am a believer in "American Exceptionalism", that the United States is a unique and special country with a special destiny.  Or, put another way by Jonathan Winthrop, America is a "City on the Hill".

Huntington's words are challenging to me, for if he is right that each idea is mutually exclusive, then we cannot have both democracy in the Middle East by the hand of America and believe that America is a unique country because of its democracy.  However, I firmly believe, as stated here in this blog, that democracy throughout the world is fundamental to preserving American democracy in the long term.  I also firmly believe in American exceptionalism.  How else to describe the continued desire for millions to come to our land, for other nations to look to our lead, and the Providence that seems to have been shown upon our land?

Cannot we have a world where liberty is the desire of all people and that the United States is blessed with the virtue and calling of promoting it?  American exceptionalism runs beyond our democratic institutions but includes the core of our history and national identity.  The United States stands for liberty, opportunity, equality, prosperity, religious freedom and the right to dissent.  Based on our country's Protestant roots, there is an evangelical quality to our desire to spread democracy. 

While I believe the United States to be exceptional, I do not believe that this will always necessarily be the case.  As long as our nation is true to its core values and the ideas rooted in the wisdom of its founding, America will continue to be exceptional.  A secular America will lose its evangelical passion to promote democracy and would slip into the abyss of relativism, and that would, frankly, leave America a second version of Europe. 

Man the State and War

In attempting to formulate my thoughts on Part II of the "UN at the Crossroads or Cliff?" post, I revisited an old foundational book on international relations,  Kenneth N. Waltz's "Man, The State, and War".  Waltz was probing the issue of why nations go to war and analyzed conflict through three paradigms.  The paradigms are given below with an exceptional commentary by Mitchell B. Reiss, Director of Policy Planning Department, US State Department, in a speech given at Tufts University.  I strongly recommend the speech if you have the time.

1. War as a consequence of the nature and behavior of man

"The first was rooted in man himself--what Christian theologians call original sin, or the imperfect and imperfectable nature of man. In a world of evil men, those who wish to live in peace must prepare for war, whether they like it or not. Goodness is not self-evident, nor is it necessarily natural. Peaceful people cannot reason, negotiate, or appease the wolves and predators in their midst--the Hitlers, Stalins, and bin Ladens of the world. Violence must be checked by violence."

2. As an outcome of the internal organization of states

"Waltz realized that this explanation was true but insufficient. Human behavior is just as much a product of society and nurture as it is of choice and nature. Human beings create communities and regimes, but we are also defined by them. Fascist or totalitarian states ruled by elites behave differently than democratic governments accountable to their people. Thus, a second source of conflict is the internal character of the state--the public beliefs and practices, opinions and expectations, political systems and institutions of government that frame human behavior."

3. As a product of international anarchy

"But Waltz goes further. If the structure of the state and its system of governance shapes human behavior, then the structure of the international system must also shape state behavior. International politics is different than domestic politics, though, because no entity possesses a legal monopoly on the use of force. The countries of the world inhabit a self-help system, competing freely and independently to secure their own interests and promote their national security. There is no global structure capable of preventing one state from attacking another. This is the third source of conflict--a condition of anarchy that does not make war inevitable, only possible. Waltz argued that states must be prepared to use military force if necessary to protect themselves. No one else will do it for them."

His analysis was insightful during the Cold War, with wars being caused by nation against nation state and internally due to a failed state.  However, Dr. Waltz was quoted in March 2000:

"'Never in modern history has a country been as secure as we are now,' he says. 'We have to invent threats. We have to dramatize them just to justify spending on defense.'"

Waltz, the realist that he was, didn't see the external threat to the US since his focus was on the nation state and the collective international system.  His criticism of US defense spending speaks volumes when the attacks of 9/11 were just a little over a year away.  The US clearly didn't have to invent threats as the destruction in New York, D.C. and a field in Pennsylvania clearly demonstrated.  (For a continuation of Waltz's views, including his disgust with the Bush administration, see or read this UC Berkeley interview).

Just as many were blind to the threat of small-cell, organized terrorists using modern technology, computers, planes and box cutters mixed with a blindly zealous religious ideology, many are looking to solve the Greater War on Terror (GWoT) with old paradigms and Cold War institutions. 

I am afraid the Western European approach, the collective head-in-the-sand approach of the EU and the UN, will not be of much value in deterring future threats.  Collective irresponsibility is not a solution but a prolonging of the current war.  Reiss takes Waltz's arguments and modernizes them, stating:

This new reality forces us to address what goes on within the borders of sovereign states. The transnational and subnational nature of today’s threats elevates the quality of regimes to the level of global importance. As a result, the United States cannot remain neutral about the internal structure of states. We must take a clear stand on the dynamics at work within foreign societies. We must help the governments of weak, corrupt, or failing states become effective, responsible, and successful.

Nowhere is this challenge more pressing than in the broader Middle East. Throughout that region, decades of political and economic corruption have produced resentment, humiliation, and hopelessness. Needless to say, this psychology does not mean that the people of this region will all become terrorists. But it does mean that the siren song of fanaticism sounds more appealing in their ears. [Bold is DEL selected]

Bringing democratic change to corrupt regimes is the only long-term solution to solving US security concerns.  Democracy encourages life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Blind religious zealotry cannot survive in this type of environment.  International structures that do not promote or support democracy are not in long-term US interests.  Freedom is.

UPDATE: My site statistics show that this is a popular post especially for college students.  If you have found this analysis helpful, please let me know in the comments section, or if it isn't let me know that too.  If any of you would want to send me your paper on Man the State and War, I would be very curious to read (in strict confidentiality).  College was a great time and I miss being around students who care about politics and how international relations work.  Thanks for stopping by. (2.16.05)

Year End Thoughts

2004 has been a good year personally.  On a broader level, it has been a pivotal year internationally.  Several key moments that are worth highlighting in order of relevance:

1) Re-election of George Bush to a second term for President.  This was an impressive achievement.  Bush had lost the vast majority of popularity he gained from his actions post 9/11, registering in some polls slightly less than 50% approval ratings prior to his majority victory.  The Bush campaign was brilliant.  Brushing off the conventional wisdom that independents would decide the election, he secured and expanded his base.  Not only did Bush win re-election, but he expanded yet again on the Republicans' majorities in both the House and Senate.  Leaving domestic politics aside, the victory was a clear demonstration by the electorate that Americans support Bush's bold international vision, even though it is very unpopular abroad.  This bodes very well for the Greater War on Terror and must have left the followers of Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi very much afraid.

2) The first democratic elections in Afghanistan.  This is quite a turnaround from the Taliban running the country.  Over 10.5 million people registered to vote.  This change ends the stranglehold of the oppressive mullahs, allows education for women, and gives the people the opportunity to make their own destiny.  While Europe and the left believe "War is not the answer", it is hard to see that without the US led invasion of Afghanistan, how the freedoms the Afghans now enjoy would have ever happened.  What was once described by the Russians and English as the "Graveyard of Empires" is now a Muslim democracy.

3) The Battle of Fallujah.  By destroying the last major base of operations for al-Zarqawi, where he and his minions committed gruesome torture and beheadings, the stage is set for January 2005 elections.  It has been a terribly high price for America to pay, far greater than I had expected.  However, 9/11 proved that accepting the status quo and appeasing the radical militant elements in the Middle East and allowing them to grow and establish firm bases of operations was a strategic blunder.  While Bush may fail in creating democracy and security in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, the failure to act bold and try is not a solution, but rather prolonging another 9/11.  Freedom is the only real solution to changing radical Islam.  It will be a long and costly struggle, but freedom and our way of life are worth the sacrifice.

4) Real elections in Ukraine.  The will of the people in not accepting a corrupt election in a former Soviet Republic was beautiful.  The crowds taking to the streets, peacefully, demanding that their election be fair and rejecting the corruption of the old Soviet system was heartening.  Democracy is gaining ground, even as the liberal left abandons those whose only hope of receiving freedom is from an active American foreign policy.

The common theme to be proud and encouraged by for 2004 is freedom and democracy.  I pray for safe elections in Iraq next month.  It is easy to lose site of the objective by focusing on the suffering of our men and women and the residents of Iraq.  The Battle of the Bulge was a difficult time for Allied forces at the end of the Second World War in Europe, but it was a key to victory.  2004 was a year of progress achieved at a great cost.  Hopefully in 2005, we will see the consolidation of our gains in '04 and an expansion of freedom.

Have a Happy New Year!

Beginnings

"I must study politics and war so that my sons may have liberty - liberty to study mathmatics and philosophy, geography natural history... In order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music and architecture..." paraphrasing John Adams in a letter to his wife Abigail.  The full quote can be found here.

The West finds itself at a crossroads.  America finds herself at a crossroads.  Decisions made now will effect generations to come.  I pray we choose wisely, with conviction as a country, and lead those who will come along with strength, endurance and integrity. 

I hope that this blog serves as a vehicle to refine my thinking and to contribute to the discussion about our nation's future.  The generations before us have built a great democracy.  It must be defended and preserved, such that freedom can be expanded to those who live without freedom, and to our generations to come.