Collateral

It is a rare movie these days that can move beyond the medium's obvious entertainment appeal and prompt one to think long and hard on the deeper issues of life. Last year's Collateral, starring Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx, is such a film.

Foxx plays Max, a Los Angeles cab driver who dreams of something better, but his ambition is not matched by his determination. And so he fills his days ferrying busy professionals around the city, charming them with his homespun wisdom and shortcuts. When he first steps into Max's cab late one night at the airport, Vincent (Cruise) appears to be just another businessman who needs a ride to just another meeting.

But Vincent's business is death. This is revealed in dramatic fashion, as Vincent's first "business meeting" ends in a body falling several stories and crashing onto Max's cab. Max pleads with Vincent to take the cab, but Vincent's pointed gun can be persuasive: He has several more stops to make, and he needs a driver. Thus begins an strange, surreal odyssey into the urban night, a place populated by crime lords, federal agents, and curious detectives.

Vincent is a fascinating character--a man who is at once engaging and frightening. His occasional pleasantness masks a deep inner sadism that, when it appears, makes the contrast even more striking, and tragic. Like Max, the audience is only left to wonder: What motivates Vincent? What could possibly drive a man into such hopeless nihilism?

While watching Collateral, I was reminded of the writings of the 19th-century American Romantic philosopher, David Thoreau. During the times of tumultuous change brought on by the Industrial Revolution, when urban centers expanded and the poor flooded into the dirty streets in search of work, Thoreau lamented the corrosive effect that city life had on the soul. How ironic it is, he noted, that when people are working and living in the closest possible quarters, it is then that they are most isolated from society. Such men walk about in "quiet desperation," he famously wrote, living lives devoid of any meaningful existence.

These dark themes linger below the surface of the film, never far, and yet rarely voiced. While the cinematography and sprawling urban backgroups give Collateral an ultramodern, almost sci-fi feel, there is a sense that for all his trappings of civilization and urban sophistication, man is not far removed from his violent, tribal past--that is, if there is any remove at all. Humanity's tenuous grip on civilization is artfully alluded to during a scene in which Vincent and Max stop at a red light. After Vincent mocks Max for his concern for the thugs Vincent has been hired to kill, a coyote darts across the street, serving as a silent reminder than beneath the veneer of civilization lies a darker side of human nature, one that is barely controlled, but always present.

The finale is both suspenseful and poignant, as a character we barely knew dies alone on a deserted metro train, wondering in his final breath how long it will take for the city's jaded commuters to notice his dead body. And that, in the end, is what Collateral is all about: A cry for meaning, a plea to be noticed, in a world that seems too busy to stop and care.

But we know that there is One who cares, and who can give us meaning.

A History of Warfare by John Keegan

In this densely written and closely argued book, renowned military historian John Keegan poses questions that have dogged philosophers for centuries: What is war? Why are wars fought? What lies at the heart of mankind's seemingly insatiable penchant for bloodshed?

The book's title is somewhat misleading. While Keegan does provide in-depth analysis of the changing face of warfare over the millenia, his examples are more selective than exhaustive. It would be more accurate to call this work a study of warfare, and how culture and human nature feed off each other to make it so terrible.

Keegan begins with a lengthy introduction in which he takes issue with the conventional wisdom that war is "a continuation of politics by other means." This rather limited definition of human conflict was first offered by the 19th-century Prussian military strategist and author, Carl von Clausewitz, in his hugely influential book, On War. Clausewitz was a product of his times; a veteran of Waterloo, he viewed war through the prism of European Enlightenment philosophy, which holds that social ills--including war--are the result of political defects, and, consequently, can be remedied by political action.

Keegan's view of war is more bleak. Noting that war predates politics and government--the sources of conflict in Clausewitz's analysis--Keegan instead points to culture as the most important determinant of war. For evidence, he delves into some of the world's most primitive cultures, where combat is highly ritualized, deliberately restrained, and fought for decidedly non-political reasons. In a more modern example, Keegan shows how the advent of nuclear weapons has irrevocably discredited the Clausewitzian mandate of a decisive, all-or-nothing battle. If the overriding purpose of all governments is to perpetuate themselves through the intertwined means of politics and war, how then can the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction be explained? In this case, success depends on the inverse of Clausewitz's "decisive battle" theory; only by avoiding the battle altogether can political governments hope to survive. This strategy of avoidance through strength is more in line with the theories of the ancient Chinese military philosopher, Sun Tzu.

Keegan's account of how the vast expanses of the Eurasian steppe--the land of origin for the Huns, Turks, and Mongols--have shaped European, Middle Eastern, and Oriental military history and theory is both highly original and endlessly fascinating. Keegan traces the ferocity of combat to these horse peoples, whose long-range weapons revolutionized warfare by making the act of killing an easier, less personal affair. This dehumanizing regression in war left the great civilizations on the steppe's periphery gravely shaken, and in turn forced them to further militarize their own societies in order to avoid extermination. In some areas (Russia, for example) the deep-seated cultural fear instilled by the hordes of Mongolian cavalry centuries ago lingers to this day.

In the end, Keegan concludes that war persists--and will always persist--due to a combination of human nature, cultural forces, and the sheer influence that thousands of years of habitual warmaking has had on mankind. This is not to say that war cannot be avoided, or its effects unlimited. But the need for professional armed forces, ready to enforce peace, and, when necessary, to deal out death and destruction on a horrific scale, will tragically always be with us. The sooner we accept this disturbing truth, the safer we will be.

A Deadly Combination

What some of us first feared has now been confirmed: At least three of the four terrorists who struck London were not foreign-born, but were homegrown.

This is important for two reasons. First, the predictable canard that terrorists hate us because of Western "imperialism" can be put to rest. These terrorists were not poverty-stricken, or living in occupied territory, or victims of American bombs. They were long-time residents of England, surrounded by the very people they planned to kill indiscriminately. It was not American foreign policy that drove them to kill; it was their own ideology of hate.

Second, the revelation that it was homegrown British Muslims who carried out these attacks is a scathing indictment of the self-loathing, multiculturalist blather that has allowed virulent, radical Islam to fester in the midst of Western societies, especially in Europe. When cultural assimilation is viewed as inherently racist, it removes any reason for immigrants to integrate into Western culture. Minorities become increasingly isolated and alienated. Throw the religion of peace into such a cauldron, and you have a breeding ground for terrorism, right in your own back yard. In London, the combination of feckless multiculturalism, open borders, and radical Islam proved to be deadly.

Elsewhere in Europe, one terrorist is coming clean as to his motivations. Was it allegations of Koran-flushing at Gitmo? US support for Israel? The invasion of Iraq? Abu Ghraib? The Crusades? US support for the Shah? His impoverished conditions? Was it any of a million excuses apologists for terrorism always give after each atrocity?

No, the terrorist claims it was his religion, of all things, that drove him to kill. Imagine that.

As long as the West continues in the delusion that the terrorists have tangible, legitimate grievances that can be appeased by anything other than total capitulation, it will handicap itself in a war against an enemy that has no such self-imposed inhibitions.

Uncomfortable Truths

There are times when the fog of politics and war clears in an instant, only to reveal a reality far more disconcerting than the obscured one. Last Thursday was such a time.

In London, as many as 40 people were killed when terrorists (almost certainly Islamic) detonated several bombs nearly simultaneously in the subway, and on a bus. Hundreds more were wounded. This butchering was just the latest in a string of attacks that has stretched around the world: Madrid, Beslan, Bali, New York, Washington. Our enemies kill for killing's sake; they are driven by a murderous ideology of hate, intimidation, and fanaticism. They have no qualms about killing civilians; indeed, it is their goal to kill the maximum number possible. They do have political aims, as all terrorist groups do, but that does nothing to change the fact that they are sadistic, cruel, and fundamentally evil. It is an honor to be hated by such monsters.

These attacks were undoubtedly designed to drive the British out of Iraq and Afghanistan, much like last year's Madrid attacks were successful in forcing Spanish capitulation in Iraq. As if any more confirmation were needed, the Madrid and London attacks reveal the foundation of al-Qaeda's strategy: Launch terrorist attacks, kill as many as possible, and then wait on leftists and other sympathizers to force the government to capitulate to terrorist demands. In the case of Spain, this strategy worked perfectly. Al-Qaeda's goal was to remove the pro-American prime minister in Madrid from power and replace him with an appeaser who would retreat from Iraq. The terrorists launched their attacks, and the leftists did the rest. The common (but not coordinated) goal of forcing Spanish capitulation was achieved. The Spanish people were tested, and promptly they threw up their hands in surrender. Judging from early indications, I don't think the British will be so easily moved. The people who stood alone against Hitler for a year are made of sterner stuff.

Well, some of them are, anyway. Even as the bodies of the victims of the London attacks were being pulled from the charred wreckage, pro-Saddam MP George Galloway, a hero to American liberals, faithfully took up the terrorists' cause:

We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.

Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.

If this statement sounds familiar, it is because it mirrors the tapes periodically released by al-Qaeda, demanding the same thing.

It would be one thing if Galloway was just a harmless British nut who had no American following. But even a cursory look at American liberal websites belies that hope (try here, here, and here).

For an even more revealing look into what the Democratic Party has become, click here. The language is coarse, as leftists often are, and the hatred sickening, but as you read through the comments, ask yourself, do you want these kinds of people protecting you against terrorism? How much can you trust a party that compares American soldiers to Nazis, but is always the first to defend the rights of detained terrorists? What does it say when a party uses harsher language to describe their domestic poltical opponents than they use to describe our foreign enemies? What does it say when Osama bin Laden quotes from the liberals' favorite movie, Fahrenheit 9/11? What does it say when the director of that movie is given the seat of honor at the Democratic National Convention?

It says a lot. Western civilization is engulfed with a war against radical Islam, but there are large segments of Western society that want no part of it. Let the leftists equivocate and apologize for terrorism (it is, after all, their right), but let's not forget that our enemies feed off such displays of Western decadence and weakness. As Winston Churchill once said:

Do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

Bidding Europe Adieu

About a month ago I wrote that if France rejected the EU constitution, it would throw the continent into political turmoil and uncertainty. Well, lo and behold, it looks like I was right. The aftermath of the constitution's resounding defeat at the hands of French and Dutch voters has all but killed the project, and not a moment too soon.

The EU constitution was so large and cumbersome that it virtually guaranteed its own demise. Any document that long is bound to contain something to offend everyone, which explains why the French feared it would impose "Anglo-Saxon liberalism" (i.e., free market reforms) on them, while the British regard the constitution as the embodiment of socialistic French statism. The Dutch, who are deeply fearful of their growing Muslim population, overwhelmingly rejected the constitution, largely due to concerns that it would remove what little immigration barriers remain in place. The British have suspended their referendum, although polls show that they still want to get in on the fun of destroying the dreams of the Europhiles.

And so the constitution is all but dead. Three cheers for that. But Europe still faces monumental challenges: stagnated economic growth, aging populations, soaring unemployment, unsustainable entitlement spending, cultural drift, and out-of-control immigration. If any of this sounds familiar, it should; it is the Democratic blueprint for the future of America.

Oh, sure, they don't put it that way. Rather, they talk of the need for a European-style "social safety net" that all "enlightened countries" already have, as if committing civilizational suicide is the very definition of "enlightened." But as the New York Times' David Brooks notes, much of what currently ails Europe is a direct result of decades of the same policies that Democrats want to implement here at home:

Forgive me for making a blunt and obvious point, but events in Western Europe are slowly discrediting large swaths of American liberalism.

Most of the policy ideas advocated by American liberals have already been enacted in Europe: generous welfare measures, ample labor protections, highly progressive tax rates, single-payer health care systems, zoning restrictions to limit big retailers, and cradle-to-grave middle-class subsidies supporting everything from child care to pension security. And yet far from thriving, continental Europe has endured a lost decade of relative decline.

Right now, Europeans seem to look to the future with more fear than hope. As Anatole Kaletsky noted in The Times of London, in continental Europe "unemployment has been stuck between 8 and 11 percent since 1991 and growth has reached 3 percent only once in those 14 years."

The Western European standard of living is about a third lower than the American standard of living, and it's sliding. European output per capita is less than that of 46 of the 50 American states and about on par with Arkansas. There is little prospect of robust growth returning any time soon.

Once it was plausible to argue that the European quality of life made up for the economic underperformance, but those arguments look more and more strained, in part because demographic trends make even the current conditions unsustainable. Europe's population is aging and shrinking. By 2040, the European median age will be around 50. Nearly a third of the population will be over 65. Public spending on retirees will have to grow by a third, sending Europe into a vicious spiral of higher taxes and less growth.

Over the last few decades, American liberals have lauded the German model or the Swedish model or the European model. But these models are not flexible enough for the modern world. They encourage people to cling fiercely to entitlements their nation cannot afford. And far from breeding a confident, progressive outlook, they breed a reactionary fear of the future that comes in left- and right-wing varieties - a defensiveness, a tendency to lash out ferociously at anybody who proposes fundamental reform or at any group, like immigrants, that alters the fabric of life.

This is the chief problem with the welfare state, which has nothing to do with the success or efficiency of any individual program. The liberal project of the postwar era has bred a stultifying conservatism, a fear of dynamic flexibility, a greater concern for guarding what exists than for creating what doesn't.

That's a truth that applies just as much on this side of the pond.

I would add only one other contributing factor to Europe's drastic and seemingly unstoppable decline: extreme secular humanism (not surprisingly, another trademark of modern leftist thinking). Europe is now a post-Christian society, beholden to an anti-belief system that defines itself not by what it is for, but by what it is against. As a basis for social order, secular humanism is unsustainable, because it is fundamentally empty. This nebulous ideology cannot provide any meaning beyond this current world, and I expect that disillusioned Europeans will increasingly turn away from secular humanism, and turn toward Islam instead. This trend will take decades to fully develop, but by mid-century, Europe as it has been historically known will be no more.

The DNC's New Chairman

The irascible Howard Dean is at it again. Recently, he told a Houston crowd that House Republican leader Tom Delay should "go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers." Never mind that Delay has not been convicted of anything, much less charged. But Dean is also infamous for another quote, in which he urged Americans not to "prejudge" Osama bin Laden's guilt, and that he should first be tried in a court of law. So it's okay to prejudge Republicans, but not terrorists. Last Sunday, Tim Russert nailed Dean on this, among other things.

But sadly, Dean is only all too representative of his party, which increasingly views the Republican Party as a greater threat to America than are bin Laden and his minions. While Dean's remarks may warm the hearts of the rabid Democratic faithful, I doubt it will win any converts to the Democratic side. As long as the Democrats use harsher language to describe their domestic political opponents than they use to describe our nation's foreign enemies, they will struggle to gain the electorate's trust on national security.

What is the Council of 305?

The Council of 305 is different things to different people, but for me it is an idea. It is the idea that like minded men and women who feel strongly in their convictions should band together for the common good of mankind.

To be truthfully honest The Council of 305 is a class room in Chattanooga, Tennessee half filled with nerds listening to a wise man question ideas for the purpose of finding only the truth. The great thing about it is that usually nerds are the ones who eventually run the world.

The Council of 305 blog was created to have a forum where we like minded nerds could debate ideas or thoughts from issues ranging from the filibuster to how the Pistons did last night.