If we formulate the hypothesis that to reach a good
conclusion necessitates that we begin with the correct information, it follows
that if we start with information which is no more valid than fantasy, the
probably will be high that it will lead to a bad conclusion. If we accept this
premise, we begin to see why America
that could do no wrong in the Twentieth Century till a decade and a half after
the end of World War II suddenly began to perform like a serial blunderer on
the world stage.
Two articles, one representing false background information,
and the other the consequences of relying on such information in constructing a
course of action, will help us verify that hypothesis. The first article was
written by Victor Davis Hanson and published in National Review Online on
November 14, 2013 under the title: “Jumping Off the Global Tiger's Back” and
the subtitle: The Obama administration has little interest in world
leadership.” The second article was written by Clifford D. May and published
the same day in the same publication under the title: “France Derails Iranian
'Sucker's Deal'” and the subtitle: “At the eleventh hour, Paris refused to sign concessions to the
'children of the revolution'”.
Victor Davis Hanson calls himself a historian and so, in the
same way that you expect a witness to tell the truth, and tell all of it in a
courtroom, you assume that the historian whose work you are reading is telling
enough of the truth as to leave no serious gaps in the narrative of history he
is recounting. But if you know anything about the history of civilization and
you have been reading Victor Hanson, you would realize that to him, creation
began with ancient Greece
where civilization started, and from where it spread to the rest of Europe . Victor Hanson may not be a mutilator of history
in a classical sense but he qualifies as a severe truncator of history.
To Victor Hanson, ancient China ,
India , Persia , Mesopotamia, Assyria and Egypt never
existed. And after the fall of Rome , Europe went its merry way for a few dark centuries then
suddenly experienced a revival all by itself without influence from the Arab
civilization that the rest of the world recognizes as having sparked the
European Renaissance. Well, that same Victor Hanson is applying that same
mentality in his latest article where he leaves huge gaps in the narrative of America 's
history since World War II.
You get a sense early on – while reading his latest article
– that he is about to take the same approach when you see him jump from: “The
United States has ridden the tiger since the end of World War II...” to the
notion that: “our current president, Barack Obama, has decided to climb down
the tiger...” to the notion that: “After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989,
America aimed...”
And so he goes on to tell about the good things that America did for
the world, the friends it protected and the enemies it fought against. All the
while, you remain puzzled as to why he took that approach in telling history.
But then, you trip on this passage: “The Obama administration has tired of the
order that American power has created” and this is when you begin to see the
utility of the approach. It is that he was sweeping under the rug all the
reasons that have been accumulating over the decades – reasons that would
explain why America
declined. Hanson took the approach that he did so that he may lay all the blame
for America 's
loss of influence in the world on the current president. And that's exactly
what he does in the rest of the article.
When you start with a narrative of history that is truncated
to this extent, you start with information that is no more valid than fantasy.
When you rely on that to make decisions, it is inevitable that the decisions
will turn out to be bad. And this is the sort of recommendation you see come
out the Clifford May article. He begins by citing a heavily spinned version of
what happened during the negotiations that took place between Iran and the Security Council's permanent five
plus Germany .
Because Victor Hanson and Clifford May chose to skip the
historical background that led to the animosity which exists between Iran and
America – and by extension other members of the permanent five – it was
possible for May to spin what happened during the recent talks in such a way as
to reach this conclusion: “In other words, the Iranian side had not compromised
… Americans have deluded themselves about the Iranian revolution from the
start.” And this gave him a free hand to rewrite the heretofore acknowledged
history in such a way as to support his current point of view – which he will
maintain till something changes, and he finds it necessary to re-rewrite
history once more. He is an accomplished mutilator of history.