You don’t have to be a fan of Western military intervention – I’m not – to find the current withdrawal from Afghanistan more than a little troubling.
For much of the post-war period, Western military intervention was carried out under the guise of the Cold War and the perceived “war” against Soviet communism. But with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the entire framework for NATO and interventions by the “Free World” was thrown into disarray. Now entered the new elites.
From then on, bloody wars, of which there have been many, were carried out under the even more confused guise of being “caring” – as “humanitarian”: One such caring war led to the destruction of Iraq that paved the way for an assortment of Islamic extremist organisations to flourish.
Today, as well as the chaos in Afghanistan itself, a key concern is that Biden’s withdrawal reflects what one commentator argued was the failure of his “leadership of the civilised world”.
But there is a logic to this failure because the new elites who run our institutions are more inclined to talk about the “civilised world” with air-quotes, a hint of embarrassment, or with open disdain.
Rather than champion the idea of civilisation the modern elites express shame and disgust at themselves and their institutions. They search high and low to demonstrate how racist we all are, denounce our “white privilege” and invent new terms, like “Islamophobia”, a term that not only targets bigots but anyone who dares to challenge backward aspects of Islam. “Backward! Who are you to say “backward”? Next, you’ll be defending “civilisation!”
To get a sense of the moral decay of America, take a look at the 1619 Project, an idea developed in 2019 by The New York Times, one of the most important newspapers in the “free” world.
This project attempted to reframe the entire basis for understanding American history and indeed America itself by demonstrating that the essence of America, its institutions and culture, is not based on the Declaration of Independence and the idea that “all men are created equal”. Rather, America, to its core, is a country, built upon and developed, almost entirely, through its relationship with slavery. Hence 1619, the year the first slave ships arrived in Virginia.
Despite leading historians ridiculing the historical illiteracy and ideologically driven agenda of this project, it went on to win a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.
The sense of Western relativism and self-loathing was demonstrated well six years ago by then President Barack Obama who intervened over the furore about Islamic State and their acts of barbarism. “Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place,” he noted, “remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”
That the most powerful figure in the liberal West felt the need and desire to put the beheadings by IS in “context” with the medieval acts of Christian crusaders was a clear, and quite unbelievable sign that Western liberalism had completely lost its moral compass.
The reason that this matters so much is that liberalism and the broader ideas associated with the equality of man, freedom, democracy, independence and justice are founding principles upon which the defence of civilised values are based. Moreover, they have been key principles used by genuine liberals and radicals for over two centuries to hold the powers-that-be to account.
Over time, these principles have been the basis for arguing for not only the freedom and equality of “man” but also of women and of all men, regardless of the colour of their skin. They have also been at the heart of anti-war movements and the defence of the right of nations to self-determination.
If we lose these principles of freedom, we lose our moral compass and we lose our capacity to both defend or challenge our leaders when they act in the world. This is a recipe for chaos.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel