Time for patriotism, war, is now

The "healing" has begun. Since Tues., Sept. 11, the tone at Yale has shifted from disbelief to outrage—outrage over the atrocities our government will surely commit.

At vigils, on panels, and in righteous editorials, we invariably speak of the aftermath as a "dialogue" between civilizations, a chance to "learn a lesson" about American foreign policy, a time to rethink the "cultural rights" we have infringed upon. Our rhetoric is steeped in guilt—white guilt, Western guilt, superpower guilt. An oppressed minority has just, to use a phrase printed here last week, "questioned American policy," and now we want to kill them for it ["U.S. must not continue the cycle of vengeance," YH, 9/14/01]. Shame on us.

A war has been declared on our country and our way of life. This is not a familiar concept for us, and Yale is bending over backwards to theorize some way for it to be irrelevant or untrue.

We have grown up in easy times, and we have long had the luxury of harboring a vague defiance in the face of armed conflict. After Vietnam, war fell out of the vocabulary of the American liberal education.

Now we find ourselves in a war, and whether we like it or not, it is a war against the West, against freedom, and against modernity. For all our fine cultural relativist pedigree, will we be able to stand for these causes? If not, they will topple—for they are under siege by an enemy sworn to die in opposition.

The mood at Yale is not encouraging. We sniff at the outpouring of patriotism seen outside the University. When we see flags flying, we talk sadly of "jingoism" and "overblown war rhetoric." This widespread sentiment is explicit in Senwung Luk's article, "U.S. must not continue cycle of vengeance" [YH, 9/14/01].

Luk's argument runs as follows: a "more insidious evil" than the attacks themselves is "the notion that since the perpetrators are wrong and they have done something against us, then we must be unequivocally in the right." This seems to imply that American greed and insensitivity forced the terrorists to do what they did. Now, to avoid further destruction, we should do nothing—or perhaps reform our foreign policy to respect their needs. This sort of argument is the context—admitted or not—of the "conversation" at Yale. It is analagous to a terrorist's argument. The rhetoric is so disingenuous, so self-deceiving, that we may be forgiven for untangling some of its more perverse strains.

First of all, there is the question of war. "Why war?" we complain. Because a group of people has, with state backing, committed an act of war against us.

Next there is the question of defense, or as most of Yale would have it, "retaliation." As Luk explains, "Just because a grotesque act was committed against this country, does not mean any response is justified; it does not grant this country special license to use the sword." This is wrong. This "special license" does not need to be "granted"; it is the right of self-defense, an inalienable possession of individuals and states. A definitive assertion of this principle can be found in the United Nations Charter.

Lastly there is the question of civilization. Yale rejects the assessment that this terror is an attack on our way of life. This rejection is not "sensitivity" or "liberalism" on our part. It is denial. The perpetrators have given up on Islamic civilization and declared war on the West instead. This is the thrust of everything they say and do, and we are fools if we ignore it.

War is nothing to be delighted in. But when people wage one against you, you must meet them in combat. Amidst so much "self-examination" at Yale, it is easy to forget that this is our generation's war. It befalls us to conjure up the love of country, the readiness to separate right from wrong, and the resolution in the face of danger that will be necessary for victory. These are qualities we have never had in abundance. Let us ask ourselves whether this sort of strength resides in us. We have spent our adolescence deconstructing America. Now let us defend it. 

Schuyler Schouten is a junior in Trumbull.

Back to Opinion...