FLASHPOINT: POLAND

Hitler invaded Poland from the west in the fall of 1939. Several days later Stalin invaded Poland from the east. The two powers divided Poland between them, thus beginning 50 years of oppression of the Polish people by totalitarian regimes. The once great empire vanished from the political map for the next five years. England and France had a treaty with Poland and declared war on Germany as a result of the invasion.

As the war drew to a close in 1945 with the Russian armies steamrolling the Germans from the east, it was clear that the Polish people were only exchanging one occupying force for another. The Soviets displaced the Germans in Poland and had no intentions of very leaving once they had "liberated" the Western half. The Big Three - Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, divided up Europe at Yalta, drawing lines on a map - lines that meant freedom for some and slavery for millions of others. The Polish People were not consulted.

The results of Yalta and the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe put Churchill in a difficult position. England had declared war on Germany for the same reason, after all. Churchill had drawn up a plan to make war on the Soviets, but it was a pipe dream. The world had just gone through the most cataclysmic event in the history if mankind. Sixty Million people worldwide had died in the war, hundreds of millions were displaced. The world was reeling from the violence - another war was unthinkable.

Besides, while America and Russia had risen from the ashes of WWII as the new world superpowers, the British Empire was finished as a force. The empire had been in steady decline for decades, and the war was the final nail in the coffin of British Imperialism. England was broke, and needed to focus on rebuilding its Island home.

All of this is in the history books. You leaned it in High School (Well, maybe not if you attended a public school. But you know all about recycling and gay, bi, trans-gendered rights). What is less known is how close the West (The United States) came to declaring war against the Soviet Union in the early 1980s over - you guessed it - Poland.

THE "HOLY ALLIANCE"

Ronald Reagan met Pope John Paul II for the first time in 1982. At that meeting they spoke for almost an hour, alone in the Vatican Library. Israel had invaded Lebanon the day before, but the focus of their conversation was on a subject much closer to the hearts of both men - the Communist domination of Eastern Europe.

Reagan and the Pope believed that a free, non-communist Poland would be an arrow through the heart of Soviet oppression. They agreed to a secret campaign to undermine and hasten the downfall of the Soviet Empire. Regan's National Security Adviser said, "This was one of the great secret alliances of all time."

Regan and John Paul II had something else in common - both had survived an assassination attempt - attempts made only six weeks apart - and both believed that they had been spared by God because they were destined for a special mission on Earth.

DARK HOURS FOR POLAND AND THE WORLD

Solidarity was the key to the downfall of the Soviet grip on Poland. In 1981 General Wojciech Januzelski declared Martial Law. Poland's communications with the free world were cut, and 6,000 Solidarity leaders were detained. Hundreds were charged with treason, nine were killed. The Union was banned and Lech Walesa was taken into custody and locked up in a remote hunting lodge. Polish security forces took to the streets.

The world was once again on the brink of war - over Poland. The American Armed Forces had been decimated by President' Carter's cuts in military funding, but the military buildup under President Regan was already well underway. Regan was prepared to go to war if the Soviet Union invaded Poland to crush Solidarity. American Troops stationed in Europe were aware that something was up as they were put on alert status.

Crushing sanctions were imposed on Poland, but by 1984 it became apparent that they were only hurting the citizens, and were mostly lifted. The country was flooded with communications equipment - radios, printing presses, and a network of Catholic Priests carried messages to Solidarity leaders in hiding. Technology, food and cultural exchange was withheld from Moscow in retaliation for continuing oppression in Poland. By 1985 it was clear that the Communist government of Poland had failed to suppress Solidarity.

An inch at a time the Soviets were forced to succumb to the moral, economic and political pressure imposed by Regan and the Pope. Political prisoners were released and Walesa's trial on crimes against the regime was abandoned. The country's economy collapsed. President Reagan lifted U.S. sanctions on Poland when Warsaw pledged to open a dialogue with the church. Four months later Pope John Paul II traveled across Poland, demanding human rights and praising Solidarity - to the cheers and adulation of millions. Solidarity was legalized on April 5, 1990, and in December, nine years after he was arrested and his labor union banned, Lech Walesa became president of Poland.

There was a soldier named Joseph Plum Martin. Martin joined the Army when he was 17, and he fought continuously for the duration of the war - the Revolutionary War. Martin participated in the Battle of Brooklyn, the Battle of White Plains, the siege on Fort Mifflin and the Battle of Monmouth. Following the skirmishes at Whitemarsh, described below, he encamped at Valley Forge, witnessed John Andre being escorted to his execution and was also present during the climactic Siege of Yorktown. Quite a combat carreer.

Later in life Martin wrote a memoir of his time in the service. "A Narrative of a Revolutionary Soldier - Some of the Adventures, Dangers, and Sufferings of Joseph Plum Martin," is an astounding document - true source material from the Revolution - a hard look at the war from the viewpoint at the bottom - the opposite of what we normally read. The War for Independence from the point of view of a 17 year old Army private.

The conditions under which these men fought were often equal in harshness to any that our troops today or in recent decades have endured or do endure. The pictures we have seen of ragged troops trudging through snow with only bloody rags on their feet are accurate, probably not severe enough. Once, of the eve of battle, Martin wrote,

“Here I endured hardships sufficient to kill half a dozen horses. Let the reader only consider for a moment and he will still be satisfied if not sickened. In the cold month of November, without provisions, without clothing, not a scrap of either shoes or stockings to my feet or legs, and in this condition to endure a siege in such a place as that was appalling in the highest degree.”

Government shutdown? Forget Government Shutdowns. Congress had no money to pay these men.

When Americans of such strength and endurance marshal all their human reserves to endure unspeakable hardship for the sake of American Freedom, who could believe that the citizens of that time would look down upon them, the soldiers? But look down upon them they did – soldiers were a lower form of life in their time. They were given the blame for much of the hardship that the country endured during the struggle.

Martin wrote a paragraph that stunned me in its similarity to the point of view and the experiences of the grunts of the Vietnam Era. Consider this remarkable passage:

"Those men whom they wish to die on a dunghill, men, who, if they had not ventured their lives in battle, and faced poverty, disease and death for their country, to gain and maintain that Independence and liberty, in the sunny beams of which, they like reptiles are basking, they would, many or the most of them, be this moment, in as much need of help and succor, as ever the most indigent soldier was before he experienced his country's beneficence. The soldiers consider it cruel to be thus vilified, and it is cruel as the grave, to any man, when he knows his own rectitude of conduct; to have his hard services, not only debased and underrated, but scandalized and vilified. But the Revolutionary soldiers are not the only people that endure obloquy, others as meritorious, and perhaps more deserving then they, are forced to submit to ungenerous treatment."

Let that sink in for a moment. Look at the sentence I put in bold. The soldiers of the American Revolution consider it unfair cruelety that they are made out to be the bad guys in this war. It is all the more cruel, "cruel as the grave," when a man knows in his heart that the honor and hard work and risk and sacrifice that he put into his service to his nation is not only downplayed, or ignored, but more, it is actually "scandalized," he is actually made the object of public scorn.

The American Revolution. Vietnam. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Thank God the American people seem to be starting, finally, to realize the importance of military service and sacrifice and the need to recognize that service for the noble act that it is. Too late for some, that recognition, to our everlasting shame as a nation.

On December 17 in 2004 the idyllic little Belgian village of Houffalize hosted a celebration of the veterans of the Battle of the Bulge in WWII who had fought for the liberation of that town.

Houffalize was a strategically located crossroads right in the center of the Bulge, south of Liege and just north of Bastogne, on the Ourthe River. The Germans fought bitterly to hold the town, which was almost completely destroyed in the fighting.

The extraordinary thing about the celebrations taking place in 04 was the graciousness of a people towards the foreign veterans, given that the townspeople themselves had endured some of the most brutal fighting of the war. 192 residents of Houffalize died, all but eight of those at the hands of their "liberators."

It's hard to wrap your mind around the scale of civilian casualties and human suffering that took place in 1944 Europe. One eyewitness wrote, "One cannot say enough about how these people have suffered." Even the livestock was gone - either butchered by the Germans or killed by Allied bombing. Bodies lay unburied in the streets, entire families were wiped out. Belgian investigators who arrived to assess the damage in January found only 130 people remaining from a pre-war population of 1,325. Most of those were living in the vaulted basement of the rectory, no food, no clothing, no heat during the most severe winter in memory.

And yet the people of Houffalize today find it in themselves to thank their liberators and to remember the sacrifice of those who fought for the freedom of all of Europe.

"We salute you and pay respect to our American friends," Mayor Jose Lutgen told the veterans during a reception following the ceremonies. He recalled "those terrible days" when Houffalize had reached what seemed like rock bottom, then to be freed "by young soldiers who landed in the midst of enemy fire."

"You all were heroes," say Mayor Jose Lutgen to the veterans attending the ceremonies. "And today, 60 years later, we welcome you again as the heroes who helped us retrieve our lost freedoms."

Lost freedoms retrieved at a terrible price.

The statistics tell us the price but don’t tell the story. “One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic.” That monstrous quote is attributed (probably inaccurately) to Joseph Stalin, one of the most evil figures of the 20th century. There were 192 civilian casualties in Houffalize during the Battle of the Bulge. That is the statistic.

But this is the story:

The Americans were stretched too thin to hold the town of Houffalize. They departed from there on December 19, 1944., concentrating instead on defending the town of Bastogne. The Germans moved in on December 20. Their occupation with the greatest battle of the war didn’t keep them from taking time to arrest and interrogate civilians in an effort to root out resistance fighters. They ordered the Mayor, Joseph Marechal, to round up resistance fighters who were then arrested and killed.

On December 22-23, six “suspected” resistance members were beaten and then shot. On December 24 two more were killed, and three more on December 26th. Merry Christmas.

Then the allied bombings began. Civilians in Belgium were always safer from bombs when their towns were occupied by Americans. German occupied towns were targets for allied bombing, civilian casualties be damned. It was a cost of war.

The American ninth Air Force struck on Christmas Day, in an attempt to destroy German armor and block road access through the town. Two townspeople died under the Christmas Day bombs. The next day, 28 died in the second wave of bombings. On December 27, eight more were killed. This continued nonstop for almost 30 days. On the 28th, two died. On the 29th, another. On the 30th, three, on the 31st two. On each of the first five days of 1995 civilian residents of Houffalize died in American bombings. But it was the bombing raid of January 6 that residents described as “atrocious, frightful, horrible, terrible, terrifying.” On that day 119 people died in a thirty minute US bombing raid, between 3:25 and 4:00 am. The dead ranged from 85 year old widow Josephine Martine, to three year old Jacques Decker. More died on January 8,9,10,12,19,20 and 29. By then, most of the population was either dead or had flown for their lives.

The information above was gleaned from the book “The Bitter Road to Freedom,” by William I. Hitchcock, whose meticulous research of source material gives us insights into the human side of the tragedy that was Houffalize in the winter of .44 - .45. Hitchcock writes, “During this month of fighting four members of the Bollet family were killed; five members of the Delme family died, and six of the Dubru family. The entire Hoffman family – father, mother, and four children – was wiped out. Joseph Marechal, the mayor, returned to his village to find his own family dead beneath the ruins….Twenty-seven of the victims were under the age of fifteen.”

Not naked numbers, but human beings with names, families, hopes and dreams for the future. Not a list of casualties but a story of human suffering in a terrible time. Through all that the people there find it in themselves to forgive, and even to honor, those who, however unwillingly, caused much of that suffering. It is a stark and terrible reminder of the terrible cost, paid in flesh and blood, paid by children and mothers and families, for lost freedoms regained.

General George S. Patton was a study in contradictions, a man whose knowledge, skills and principles made him one of the best combat leaders in American History, while nearly causing him ignoble defeat in that same arena. There are mostly just two opinions expressed about Patton - either he is dismissed as a knuckle-dragging troglodyte or hailed as a brilliant war leader.

One of the contradictions pits his bawdy language against his faith. Patton was asked once if he read the bible.

His response, "Every Goddamned Day."

Here is more of General Patton's faith on display, in a prayer he wrote for the safety of his soldiers and victory for his cause:

"God of our Fathers, who by land and by sea ever led us to victory, please continue your inspiring guidance in this the greatest of our conflicts. Strengthen my soul so that the weakest instinct of self-preservation, which besets all of us in battle, shall not bind me to my duty to my own manhood, to the glory of my calling, and to my responsibility to my fellow soldiers. Grant to our armed forces that disciplined valor and mutual confidence which insures success in war. Let me not morn for those who have died fighting, but rather let me be glad that such heroes have lived. If it be my lot to die, let me do so with courage and honor in a manner which will bring the greatest harm to the enemy, and please, oh Lord, protect and guide those I shall leave behind. Give us the victory, Lord."

by Demosthenes

During the recent Presidential primary debates there has been rhetoric from candidates in both parties about restoring America's image around the world. The argument usually goes something like this: "The United States has been very arrogant in foreign policy. We have stopped asking for help from our allies around the world and adopted a 'go-it-alone' mentality." Frequently the speaker will add analogies to high school bullies, or cowboys to support this arrogant characterization.

Since analogies seem to be in vogue these days, please allow me to make one of my own. The United States is much more like Tiger Woods or the New England Patriots. (If you are not a fan of golf or professional football, please indulge me, as the point will become evident). The common trait here is dominance;, both are completely dominant in their particular sport. Tiger is expected to win any tournament he attends, and the Patriots have just completed an undefeated season on their way to a fourth Super Bowl title. The other common trait is that other players or teams – and even many fans – despise them.

I know many football fans who this year wanted nothing more than for someone, anyone, to beat the Patriots. Fans would root for their team's archrival in a game against New England,; proving once again the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." This perverse desire for schadenfreude was present even if the Patriots' had never beaten the fan's team or their record was irrelevant to the fan's playoff dreams. So, why would fans behave this way? Why do some golf fans hate Tiger Woods? The answer is that it is human nature to be jealous of and wish for the fall of the person on the top.

Most of us have felt this very human emotion, and most often we recognize its poisonous effects and attempt to move beyond it. Nevertheless it is this emotion, and not some foreign policy slight, that motivates many of those who hate the United States. America is the undisputed super power of the world; our Navy and Air Force are so technologically superior to any other nation that we can completely dominate the air and seas on a whim. Our Army and Marines are by far the best-trained and most -skilled warriors on the planet, and no enemy would dare face them on a conventional battlefield.

Moreover, our economy is unrivaled; with many single states have greater GDPs than other developed nations. The American entrepreneur is responsible for many of the most revolutionary inventions in the last hundred years (the light bulb, airplane, personal computer and internet to name a few). The answer to that oft repeated refrain "why do they hate us?" is "because we are the greatest nation in the world" or to put it more simply "jealousy." Much like the New England Patriots, no opponent has defeated the United States and we are hated for the same reasons.

If this argument is true, what are we as a nation to do? Some would argue that we should cease our foreign military operations; we must acknowledge that our actions are perceived as imperialistic and try to be a more humble nation. This belief assumes first, that the behavior of the US is somehow nothing more than braggadocio, and second, that other nations will respond favorably to our more humble foreign policy. Each of these assumptions is wrong.

The United States, far from being an imperialist bully, is the most generous nation in the history of human civilization. [Each year we spend billions of dollars in aid to countries all over the globe; from fighting AIDS in Africa to disaster relief and various food programs. American volunteers, such as doctors without borders, travel to the most deprived nations on the planet and donate their time and effort trying to help people.

Our military is often the world's first responder in times of unimaginable natural disasters; immediately after the devastating tsunami in Thailand the United States dispatched an Aircraft Carrier group to the region. The US Navy and Marines flew endless helicopter missions to evacuate the wounded and bring water and food to those thirsty and starving people unable to help themselves. Following the disaster, the American people donated millions of dollars to help Indonesia and Thailand rebuild, a charity effort spearheaded by two former Presidents. The American people offer their military and financial support to nations all over the world without any expectations of repayment or expectation of future in-kind aid; you would think more countries could show a little more gratitude.

The United States is the only country with the ability to respond rapidly to virtually any situation, offering aid to those in need – and yet they hate us. We freed Asia and the Pacific Isles from the tyrannical grip of Imperial Japan – and yet they hate us. America fought back the forces of Nazism, liberating Europe and northern Africa from the Axis powers – and yet they hate us. The United States forced the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in doing so destroyed the greatest threat to human freedom and prosperity the world has ever known – and yet they hate us. Today we are struggling to end the despotic rule of Islamofascists whose regimes subjugate women, deny freedoms of expression and religion, and proclaim that all must worship as they do or die – and yet they hate us.

Those who claim we must act more humbly in order to improve our national image have woefully misunderstood the situation. The nations around the world that hate us, similar to those who hate the New England Patriots, will only be happy when we lose. Far more is at stake, however, than a mere football game. Those who hate America wish to see us defeated and humiliated, no longer able to project our national power around the world to aid humanity and liberty. Sadly, I fear that some of the politicians seeking this nation's highest office would be willing to oblige this desire; an event I can only pray never comes to pass.

Now that most reasonable people seem to agree that the surge in Iraq is working, I felt it was appropriate to re-post an article I wrote earlier this year. As you read this remember that throughout the history of human conflict wars have had shifts in momentum and the ultimate truth is that every war has been lost by the side that quit first.
This article first appeared at http://www.firstthings.com

by Demosthenes
The Medal of Honor is the nation's highest decoration for bravery during combat operations. The President presents the medal in the name of Congress to a member of the military who has "distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States." Congress has awarded the medal posthumously to three soldiers during the War on Terror. The most recent was that to Navy Lieutenant Michael Patrick Murphy.

In June of 2005, Lt. Murphy was leading his four-man SEAL team in search of a terrorist leader along the mountainous boarder between Afghanistan and Pakistan. At an elevation of over 10,000 feet, the team was discovered and attacked by a force of 40 Taliban fighters. The Taliban forces had the high ground and quickly surrounded the SEALs. Despite being outnumbered and miles from the nearest reinforcements, the SEALs repelled attack after attack, killing large numbers of the enemy.

After 45 minutes of fighting and with one member of his team already severely wounded, Lt. Murphy determined that his team would not survive without immediate reinforcements. He moved himself to a completely exposed position to get cellular reception to call in a Quick Reaction Force. During the conversation, Lt. Murphy was shot several times, including a hit in the back that caused him to drop the phone. Still under fire, he retrieved the phone and completed his call for help, concluding it by saying, "Roger that, sir. Thank you." He returned, now severely wounded, to continue the fight with his men.

A contingent of helicopters was sent to attempt a rescue of the embattled SEALs. Taliban forces using a rocket propelled grenade shot down the lead helicopter before it could land, killing all sixteen men onboard. The other pilots witnessed the "unbelievable firefight" as the SEALs continued to repel continuous enemy attacks. After two hours of continuous fighting, the team had nearly exhausted its ammunition, and all four SEALS were seriously wounded.

Ultimately, Navy SEALs Matthew Axelson, Danny Dietz, and Patrick Murphy were killed. The fourth man, Marcus Luttrell, blown over a ridge by an explosion of a grenade and later shot, managed to evade Taliban fighters for four days (killing six more Taliban himself in the process) before being rescued. Luttrell tells the whole the story of SEAL Team 10 in his book, Lone Survivor. It was on the basis of his account that Congress voted to award Lt. Murphy the Medal of Honor.

What makes men like Lt. Murphy do such extraordinary things? There is a phrase commonly used in the military: "Drive on." This simple line is used in myriad settings, to convey in two simple words that difficulties must be overcome. It means that you never quit, that you keep going, that you always find the will to accomplish your mission. The military teaches and endlessly develops the will of its members to drive on. Combat is hard. It’s much, much harder than most people ever realize, but in combat you can never quit. If you quit, you lose; if you lose, you die. The only way to win is to drive on, even—and even especially—when you don’t think you can go any further.

Sun Tzu, whom the American military reads carefully and holds in high regard, taught that victory on the battlefield is achieved by defeating your enemy's will to fight. Military training is hard because the job of soldiers is hard. You've been deployed to war for the third time in less than three years – drive on. You've been out in the mountains for several days, and you’re cold, tired, hungry and then it starts to rain – drive on. You've witnessed friends being wounded or killed – drive on. You're surrounded, outnumbered and severely wounded and the only way to get help is to walk into the open to make a phone call, almost assuredly sacrificing your own life – drive on. The will of American soldiers is constantly tested. The will of soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan—I speak from personal experience now—is strong. It must be so; the job demands it. On the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States military most certainly has the will to fight and win.

But the will of our nation, the will of the American people who do not face the enemy in battle, can be shockingly different. It’s amazing, almost inexplicable, that those who go into battle and those who face death are more determined to fight and win than those who remain safely at home. The United States is a nation of economic and military might unprecedented in the history of the world, and yet this supremacy has somehow been attended by the weakening our national will. After the success of World War II, a victory that cost the lives of over 400,000 American military personnel, America seemed to lose its will when the going got tough. A stalemate in the Korean War was followed by "Peace with Honor" in Vietnam. Ironically, the first Gulf war and the action in Kosovo further weakened the American will: the acceptable casualty rate in war became effectively zero. Sun Tzu's theory, if applied to democratic nation-states, would most assuredly hold that victory could also be achieved by defeating the will of the civilian populace. As a former soldier, I worry that that is exactly what is happening.

Set aside the reasons for going to war in Iraq and its handling to date. We might not like where we are, just as Lt. Murphy did not like finding his team surrounded and outnumbered ten-to-one. But like Lt. Murphy, we can only ask ourselves what we ought to do next, what’s best for United States and Iraq. We have invaded another country and removed a man recognized by the world as a dictator, an abuser of human rights, and a threat to the international community. In freeing the Iraqi people from a cruel regime, we inadvertently exposed them to massive civil upheaval and malicious interference from neighboring states and terrorist organizations. Having subjected the Iraqi people to these serious threats, are we not obligated to protect them until they are capable of protecting themselves? Don’t we have to walk out into the open to make that phone call, even though we might get shot?

American politicians and the public were overwhelmingly in support of this war at its inception. Now, many—probably most—want to quit. They have lost the will to fight. Shortly after the attacks of 9/11 the President, in readying the nation for war, repeated the words of Todd Beamer from United Flight 93, who began the American counterattack that today by saying, "Let's roll." After six years of fighting the War on Terror and four years in Iraq, although we are caught in a tough spot, it’s time to drive on.

Imagine you happen across a heated public argument between the members of a church group and some bikers. The bikers are big, burly men with tattoos and piercings, clad in black leather and straddling thundering-chromed motorcycles. The church people are middle-class families carrying their Bibles and singing hymns. Quick: whose side are you on? If you’re like most readers of the Continental Conservative Dispatch, you’re on the side of the bikers.

On March 20, 2006, Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania wasn't on anyone's side. He wasn't thinking about religious freedom, freedom of speech, or tort law. Instead, Mr. Snyder wanted to bury his son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder, who was killed in action while serving in Iraq. The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), however, had other plans. Its members wanted to use the Snyder family's suffering to push their radical agenda: the pending damnation of America for our tolerance of homosexuality. The WBC proudly proclaims that "God Hates Fags" and states that its mission is "preaching the Gospel truth about the soul-damning, nation-destroying notion that 'It is OK to be gay'."

Based in Topeka, Kansas and founded by Fred Phelps in 1955, the WBC has about 70 followers, almost all from two families, who tend to inter-marry because marriage outside the church is forbidden. They are not affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA or any other mainstream Christian organization. But for its bizarre and offensive tactics, the WBC would be a lunatic fringe organization plunged in the obscurity that it so richly deserves.

But the WBC has discovered a fascinating pathology of our media culture: it’s possible to get media attention for an odious message by delivering it in an especially odious way. Protesting at the funerals of American Soldiers killed in the War on Terror, WBC members display signs with messages like "Priests Rape Boys," "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11." The WBC staged similar protests at the funerals of Fred Rogers ("Mr. Rogers") and Coretta Scott King.

Late on the evening of September 11, 2001, President Bush told the nation, “Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the best of America.” On a much smaller scale, the same thing has happened with the WBC. Appalled that members of the WBC were disrupting funerals of U.S. servicemen, several members of the American Legion Motorcycle club in Kansas formed the Patriot Guard Riders (PGR). With chapters in all fifty states and over a hundred thousand members (full disclosure: I’m a member), the PGR has a simple mission: honor the heroes and their families and, if necessary, provide a human wall between the WBC protestors and the mourners. A "captain" of the PGR will contact the family and request permission to pay homage to the soldier and then word is spread to all members in the area. With very little notice, in good weather and bad, the PGR assembles, mostly on motorcycles, and lines the streets around the funeral with American flags to honor those who gave all.

PGR members represent the real America. They are blue-collar and white-collar, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, white and black. Many are Vietnam veterans, who personally felt the hatred and contempt of protesters upon their return from the battlefield. Others are veterans of the current wars, who know first-hand the sacrifices their comrades have made. Regardless of their background all share a common goal: the desire to show our gratitude and provide a modicum of comfort to the families who have suffered a terrible loss.

After almost two years of WBC members harassing and desecrating the funerals of fallen Americans, Mr. Snyder, the man from York, who was burying his son, decided to fight back. He sued Fred Phelps and the WBC in federal district court in Maryland alleging defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Phelps and the WBC defended on First Amendment grounds, claiming that they had free speech and free exercise rights to do as they had done. The court rejected this defense, and a jury found for Mr. Snyder, awarding him over $2 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages. Phelps says he will appeal the verdict, and some legal experts think he has a good chance of prevailing.

From a legal point of view, the case is a close one. On the one hand, there is no doubt that, just like the KKK or the Weathermen or the Neo-Nazis, the WBC is entitled under the First Amendment to express its odious message. On the other hand, the First Amendment gives no one a right to an audience, and so everyone else should be free to walk away from the WBC and not be subjected to its message. Nevertheless, the WBC cannot in effect create a captive audience for its message by hijacking a private funeral ceremony and subjecting the mourning family and friends to their insane views.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this case, the jury sent a clear message that the American people stand with Mr. Snyder and the PGR, not the WBC. While it’s easy to be sympathetic to Mr. Snyder’s legal arguments, perhaps the PGR’s counter-protest to the WBC is even better than a remedy at law. The existence of extremist groups is nothing new in our society. Lunatics come and lunatics go, but America is a more open and civil society than ever before. Lunatic hate-groups like the WBC always fail because by and large Americans are animated by compassion, by love for their fellow men, and by profound belief in personal liberty. It is this America that Richard Nixon was talking about when he coined the phrase the "Silent Majority."

In the face of the Fred Phelps of our society the Silent Majority still stands. The rejection of the WBC's venom is evident in both the jury verdict for the Snyder family and the massive support for groups such as the Patriot Guard. The PGR – lining the streets with American Flags in honor of the fallen – is standing for the rest of the nation. The silent majority is still alive and strong in this nation, respecting those who serve, honoring those who have fallen and rejecting those who preach hate.

I sat with my young son at the top of our back yard late on a cool October evening. A small fire crackled in the fireplace and hot dogs sizzled over the flames. We were poking at the coals and talking about the brooding woods around us, here at the top of this dark hill.

Our little home is nestled into the southern side of a hill, a steep, wooded ridge running Northeast to Southwest, a few miles north of Philadelphia. The woods were infused with a palpable sense of history that night up on that hill, a feeling that filtered down through the shadowy branches of the trees, mixing with the starlight.

We were enjoying our cookout on hallowed ground, my son and I. The steep backyard where we live our comfortable suburban lives had been consecrated by the blood of patriots, and it was important to me that my boy should understand the significance of that.

There was another teen aged boy, I told him, quite possibly just your age, who sat on this same hill among the trees. The boy's name was Joe. Joseph Plum Martin, in fact, and he sat on our hill, maybe right here in this same spot, two hundred and thirty years ago.

It wasn't a cool October night when that boy was here, though. It was the first week in December, 1777, and while winter hadn't officially begun, it was already brutally cold. And Joe, even though he was only as old as you are now, was already a seasoned veteran of war.

Joe was cold that night, and he was hungry, and he was very, very tired. He hadn't been paid since summer. He and the other young men serving under General George Washington had suffered two major defeats in battle. Philadelphia had fallen to the British. Washington's spies had determined that the British, commanded by Sir William Howe, were well entrenched in Philadelphia and were far too strong to attack.

But Joe was itching for a fight, so he hoped that Howe would come to them. They were dug in up here on this fortified hill, after all, and felt confident of their position. Besides, they wanted to take out their frustration on some Redcoats.

Years later an aging Joseph Plum Martin wrote down some of his memories of that night on this hill:

"We had a commanding position and were very sensible of it. We were kept constantly on the alert, and wished nothing more than to have them engage us, being in excellent fighting trim, as we were starved and as cross and ill-natured as curs. While we lay there, there happened very remarkable northern lights. At one time the whole visible heavens appeared, for some time, as if covered with crimson velvet. Some of the soldiers prognosticated a bloody battle about to be fought, but time, which always speaks the truth, showed them to be false prophets."

But a bloody battle was just what Howe wanted, too. He desperately wanted to destroy Washington's army and have done with it before winter set in. So Joe got his wish, and Howe marched 12,000 British and German troops - nearly his whole army - out of Philadelphia.

But try as they might, the British couldn't find a break in Washington's lines. They moved back and forth, about a mile away, and Washington's troops shadowed them. They tried to outflank the line on the left, right here on this hill, on the bitterly cold night of December 7th, 1777, in a series of fire fights that became known as the Battle of Edge Hill.

Finally Howe gave up, much to the disappointment of General Washington (and Joe), and retreated to Philadelphia to settle down for the winter. They were too strong to be attacked, so Washington took his army away too, leaving behind the blood of 90 dead and wounded to seep into the ground that you and I are sitting on now.

Joe marched away with the Continental Army to their winter quarters and settled down for what was to become one of the cruelest winters that any man has ever endured It was the winter of trial for men with the moral strength to risk and sacrifice all for a noble cause. It was the Winter of 1777 in Valley Forge.

Benedict Arnold
A Drama of the American Revolution In Five Acts,
by Robert Zubrin (Polaris Books, 104pp., $9.95)

Reviewed by James Austin Bishop

It's October in New York State, 1777. The brutal heat of summer lingered too long into autumn, but is now finally giving way to crisp, cool air. The leaves have shed their deep green mantle in an annual explosion of flaming yellow, burnt orange and blood red colors that has reached its peak, transforming this heavily forested region of New England into a natural wonder, the inexpressible beauty of which future generations will travel hundreds and thousands of miles to admire.

But today that beauty is undoubtedly lost on the Patriots whose own blood, shed here for an heroic ideal, soaks into the already fertile soil of Freeman's Farm, and the acrid smell of gunpowder spoils the senses for any appreciation of clean, free air.

British General John Burgoyne's army had been pressing the Continentals from the north, but his position was becoming increasingly precarious. Faced with a growing American force, the Brits nonetheless fought gallantly and had almost won the battle of Saratoga. The Continental Army, led by General Horatio Gates, had all but secured victory when the British formed a final desperate assault, bolstered by Hessian mercenaries. The American lines wavered and were in danger of breaking. General Gates did not appear on the battlefield.
Enter Benedict Arnold.

Arnold had been relieved of command by Gates after a quarrel over tactics. Despite having no proper command, Arnold, sensing impending defeat, rallied the men and drove them against the German troops holding the British center. Under tremendous pressure from all sides, the Germans withdrew into the fortifications on Freeman Farm.

In a stirring display of reckless courage, Arnold led one column in a series of savage attacks on the Balcarres Redoubt, a powerful British fieldwork on the Freeman Farm. He then wheeled his horse and, dashing through the crossfire from both sides, galloped northwest to the Breymann Redoubt. There he joined the final surge that overwhelmed the German soldiers defending that fortification. As he entered the Redoubt Arnold took a bullet in the leg. The resulting wound almost cost him his life. As it was, the injury was to plague him for the rest of his life.

Burgoyne surrendered on October 17, utterly defeated, in one of the most decisive battles in history. Historians consider the Battle of Saratoga to be the turning point of the Revolutionary war, convincing the French and the Americans themselves that an American victory was possible. Had Benedict Arnold died in battle that day, there would be few heroes of the American Revolution more hailed and revered today than he. Instead, Arnold lived to fall into disgrace, narrowly avoiding hanging, and his name has become synonymous with "traitor."

The story of the Revolutionary War is a story of miracles and dumb luck, unlikely heros and villains, selfless bravery and a nobility of ideals that, if fiction, might well be rejected by a publisher as stretching the credulity of a potential audience too far beyond their ability to suspend disbelief. It follows, then, that any successful retelling of that story would come from a mind in tune with the miraculous; a mind familiar with the possibilities inherent in causes larger than the self.

Enter Robert Zubrin.

Benedict Arnold, A Drama Of The American Revolution, In Five Acts, is as the title suggests a dramatization of the Revolutionary War. The historically accurate play is Zubrin's first, as well as his first work of historical fiction.

Zubrin is an internationally renowned astronautical engineer and the author of, among man other worksy, The Case for Mars, which no less a "possibility thinker" than Arthur C. Clark hailed as "the most comprehensive account of the past and future of Mars that I have ever encountered." Whether describing future possibility as with "The Case for Mars," satirizing current political events in The Holy Land, or dramatizing past historical fact in Benedict Arnold, it is Zubrin's ability to grasp the larger vision and to share it in a way that grips the imagination that makes his writing so compelling.

"The American Revolution has always fascinated me, because it was a moment that a people rose above its apparent practical self-interest to launch and win a fight for a visionary future," writes Zubrin, and visionary futures are a concept with which he is uniquely familiar.

Zubrin’s knack for characterization is on full display in Benedict Arnold, leaving the reader with strong impressions of the motives, passions and moral grounding that drove the players in this most crucial moment in American history.

"The key struggle was more moral than military," says Zubrin, and it is a testament to the men of that time that even the most common among them remained morally resolute through that struggle in the face of incredible hardship. It was three of the humblest and most unlikely of heroes, for example, who rose above the chance for personal gain to thwart Arnold’s treachery and save the cause, while Arnold himself, a genuine hero, succumbed to all-too-human passions - jealousy, greed, a beautiful young woman - betraying his beloved Washington and the Revolution itself. It is one of the miracles of the Revolutionary war, not that strong men like Arnold sold out, but that more like him did not.

"That miracle carries a message of real hope and challenge for our kind," says Zubrin. "It dares us to be great."

Zubrin captures the reader's imagination on the first page with the American charge into the Hessian lines and keeps his grip throughout; taking us from Benedict Arnold's most noble hour at Saratoga, through his decline at the delicate, manipulative hands of beautiful and treacherous spy, to his utter disgrace and flight to the British side - all in a single sitting.

Strap in for a visionary trip into the past. Gain insight along the way into the minds of such heros as Washington, Lafayette and Hamilton, villains such as Peggy Shipton and Captain John Andre', and understanding of the passions that drove one of the most intriguing personalities in all of American History – Hero of the Revolution and traitor to the cause - Benedict Arnold.

About the author:

Dr. Robert Zubrin is an internationally renowned astronautical engineer, a former senior engineer at Lockheed Martin, and he is president of the Mars Society, a non-profit group promoting planetary exploration, and founder of Pioneer Astronautics, a successful space technology research and development firm. Zubrin is the author of over 150 technical and non-technical papers in the areas of space exploration and nuclear engineering, and holds two US patents. His other books include the non-fiction Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization, and Mars on Earth, the hard science fiction novel First Landing, and The Holy Land, a science fiction satire on contemporary events.

By James Austin Bishop

Introduction

The core dilemma facing this nation as we move into the 21st century is the insidious weaving of political correctness into the fabric of American culture. There are two competing worldviews - opposing forces locked in battle, engaged in an epic struggle for the dominance of the American mind. The Culture War is indeed a war, make no mistake, and the winner of that war will determine the ultimate course of American cultural evolution.

Origins Of The Culture War

Steven Yates, PhD. and author of "Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong with Affirmative Action" recently wrote an article on LewRockwell.com entitled "Understanding the Culture War: Gramscians, Tocquevillians and Others" in which he in turn reviews an article by John Fonte of the Hudson Institute, published in Heritage Foundation's "Policy Review" entitled "Why There Is a Culture War. Together the two provide clear insight into the origins of the disease that is Political Correctness and nicely articulate the basis of the "Toquevillian America" philosophy which is the subject of this essay.

On one side of the Culture War are the "Gramscians", and on the other, the "Tocquevillians". The names are taken from the intellectuals whom Fonte credits with authoring the respective warring ideologies: The Italian neo-Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, French political philosopher and author of Prison Notebooks, and Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the esteemed and influential Democracy in America.

The Oppressors and The Oppressed

The liberal world-view so prevalent in America today can be traced directly back to Gramsci, whether or not modern liberals know the name - and most of them probably don't. Gramsci agreed with Karl Marx that every society could be divided into two classes, the "bourgeois" and "proletariat" - oppressor and oppressed, respectively.

But Gramsci took it a step further and divided the oppressed into subordinate groups instead of the single homogeneous proletariat of Marx. Gramsci identified these oppressed groups as "women, racial minorities and many criminals."

Gramsci distinguishes two ways that the dominant group exercises control over the oppressed group, whereas Marx had written only of one:

1. Direct control through force and coercion - political domination couched in terms of service to the economic interests of the bourgeoisie.

2. What Gramsci calls Hegemony, which is the tacit use of a values system that supports and reinforces the interests of the proletariat.

The oppressed groups don't even know that they are oppressed, according to Gramsci, because they have absorbed the values system, or "false consciousness", that represses them.

"False Consciousness"

Yates points us to one example of this - the radical feminists who speak of romantic candlelight dinners as a form of prostitution. If a radical feminist claims that dinner is prostitution, or that all sex is rape - even married, consensual sex, and if "ordinary" women object, then the objection arises only as a result of this "false consciousness" asserting itself.

The Marxist Revolution - Infiltrating the Institutions

Gramsci argued that before there could be any Marxist "revolution", it would be necessary to build up a "counter-hegemony". In other words, a system of values that undermined the oppressor group and that favored the oppressed groups would have to be instilled into the cultural consciousness. The entry points for the insinuation of this altered values system into the dominant culture would be those institutions that we take for granted - schools, churches, businesses, media, as well as art, literature and philosophy. Only by infiltrating these traditional sources of consciousness can the Gramscian revolution overthrow the shackles of the oppressors and usher in a true Marxist revolution.

Brainwashing the working class

In the opening of his new book, Hooking Up, Tom Wolfe says "by the year 2000, the term "working class" had fallen into disuse in the United States, and "proletariat" was so obsolete it was known only to a few bitter old academics with wire hair sprouting out of their ears."

But while terminology has changed, the underlying socialist philosophy remains as strong as ever. Wolfe points out that the "proletariat" in the United States, people who had undoubtedly never heard the name Saint-Simon, were nevertheless "fulfilling Saint-Simon's and the other nineteenth century utopian socialists' dreams of a day when the ordinary workingman would have the political and personal freedom, the free time and the wherewithal to express himself in any way he saw fit and to unleash his full potential."

Ironically, the working man thus described does not boast of having attained this level of freedom, indeed is often ashamed of it, because he has "been numbed by the..."intellectuals", who had spent the preceding eighty years being indignant over what a "puritanical," "repressive," "bigoted," "capitalistic," and "fascist" nation America was beneath its democratic façade". They have, in other words, absorbed the "false consciousness" of Gramsci.

"Organic" intellectuals

These intellectuals played an important role in the Gramscian vision of the transformation of society. Specifically, Gramsci called these "organic" intellectuals, as opposed to "traditional" intellectuals. Organic intellectuals were those who belonged to the repressed groups and were attempting to undermine the dominant culture, with the help of any "traditional" intellectuals who could be persuaded to defect. In fact, writes Yates, "changing the minds of "traditional" intellectuals was particularly valuable, as they were already well positioned within the dominant educational institutions." Thus began the "long march through the institutions" - a phrase we owe to Gramsci.

"Diversity"

Gramsci's notion of "organic" intellectuals is evidenced in today's demands within the institutions for more and more "diversity". But this is a diversity of faces, not ideas. "Traditional" intellectuals wield power, especially in education. But as Yates points out, the Gramscian gatekeepers control who is admitted into the ivy-choked halls of academia, and today's in educational institutions, dominated by feminists of "all stripes and colors (and sexual preferences and fetishes)" an outspoken conservative might save himself the trouble of applying.

Deconstruction

The reigning doctrine in our Gramscian educational institutions is deconstruction. The high priests of deconstruction were two Frenchmen, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. Of these Tom Wolfe writes, "They began with a hyperdilation of a pronouncement of Nietzsche's to the effect that there can be no absolute truth, merely many "truths," which are the tools of various groups, classes, or forces."

Relativism

Gramsci described himself as an "absolute historicist," his views deriving from the philosopher Hegel. All systems of value, all moral codes, are nothing more than the products of the period in history and the culture that spawned them. There is no such thing as absolute truth or objective morality. There are only value systems that represent the interests of the bourgeois or the proletariat, and the mission of the organic intellectuals is to undermine the dominant value system. The chief means of accomplishing this is to capture control of language, especially the language of morality.

The Language of Morality

Wolfe writes of the doctrine that "language is the most insidious tool of all." The duty of the "organic" intellectual is to "deconstruct the language, expose its hidden agendas, and help save the victims of the American "Establishment": women, the poor, nonwhites, homosexuals, and hardwood trees."

Capturing control over language, especially the language of morality, opens the doors to psychological control of the masses. "Most people will reject ideas and institutions if they become convinced of their basic immorality; most people, too, lack the kind of training that will equip them to untangle the thicket of logical fallacies that might be involved," writes Yates.

Having assumed control of the language of morality, especially in institutions such as the media and academia, the way is now clear for the Gramscian transformation of society.

Political Correctness

The deconstruction movement in academia is a systematic effort to destroy the values of "dominant groups": straight white Christian males of non-Marxist European descent. The values that are under attack are truth as the goal of inquiry, transcendent morality as the guide to human conduct, freedom and independence as political ideals, hiring and contracting based on merit. In a Gramscian world, all of these are myths of the dominant consciousness.

Yates points out that political correctness is the primary weapon in the war against those values. Academic schools of radical feminism, "critical race theory," gay and lesbian "queer theory," the preoccupation with "diversity" as an end in itself and all other forms of PC are direct descendents of Gramsci - they are the chief arm of enforcement of the Gramscian transformation of American society.

The Opposition

But there is a force arrayed against the powerful and moneyed drive toward a Gramscian world. Fonte describes this opposition force as the "Tocquevillian Counterattack."

The core philosophy here is that of American Excptionalism - the idea that there are normative values embodied in America that, far from being mere historical products, are to be embraced for what they are: the values that make America the special place that it is. Fonte describes a "trinity of American exceptionalism" that define the unique development of America:

1. Dynamism. This is the support for entrepreneurship and economic progress, including the changes that economic progress yields, and support for equality of opportunity for all individuals to participate in this process.

2. Religiosity. This is the idea that freedom is only possible to a moral citizenry - that moral values have their origins with God, that character development is a necessary component of education, and that social problems should be dealt with at the local level through the voluntary efforts of men and women of good will and character.

3. Patriotism. Love of country. Support for the Constitution. Limited self-government. The rule of law.

Other Opposition Forces

There is a third set of views, also opposed to the creation of a Gramscian world, but that are not Tocquevillians in Fonte's view because they do not accept all of the three components above. These views might accept two of those three components or emphasize one over the others.

For example, the libertarian author of The Future and its Enemies, Virginia Postrel, puts most weight on the first, distinguishing "dynamists" from "stasists."

Most Libertarians reject the second, adhering to philosopher Ayn Rand's view that morality originates from the necessities of sustaining human existence, or the exercise of reason in responding to a knowable, objective world, rather than from God.

Then there are the members of today's pro-South movement who mistrust the first and who believe that the third can only be realized through secession.

Fonte describes adherents to this third set of views as "libertarians, paleoconservatives, secular patriots, Catholic social democrats, and disaffected religious-right intellectuals."

"Only The Tocquevillians"

But as an opposition force, Fonte doubts that those listed above "will mount an effective resistance to the continuing Gramscian assault. Only the Tocquevillians appear to have the strength - in terms of intellectual firepower, infrastructure, funding, media attention and a comprehensive philosophy that taps into core American principles - to challenge the Gramscians with any chance of success."

Thus far this group, for whatever reason, has not even come close to stemming the Gramscian tide. Despite having its own foundations, and despite considerable intellectual firepower (Fonte names his favorite Tocquevillians: William Bennett, Michael Novak, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Marvin Olasky, Norman Podhorets and scholars such as Williams Galston, Wilfred McClay, Harvey Mansfield and Walter McDougall, as well as writers such as Irving Kristol and Charles Kesler) the Tocquevillians have yet to seize the moral high ground.

Reclaiming the Language

One thing is certain, and that is that, as a beginning, the Tocquevillians must reclaim the language of morality. We must reject the premise of every Gramscian philosophical argument and examine the language used to find the true meaning. We must take advantage every opportunity to expose the liberal Gramscian lie.

We must demand of our institutions, particularly the media and our schools, that they explain or defend the relativistic "truths" broadcast to our living rooms or fed to the minds of our children.

Tocquevillians must stop allowing themselves to be put in the losing position of defending their beliefs against arguments that assume the moral high road and instead reject the arguments themselves as being based on false assumptions. In this way we will gradually re-claim that "most insidious tool of all", the language, and begin the long journey back to America the way it was intended to be - a nation of free and responsible individuals, subjects to no one.