Because history is like a giant puzzle made of thousands of
parts which fit together to represent a narrative that tells the story of the
human race, there is something we must never do when telling that story. We
must never truncate a patch of the puzzle and talk about its parts as if they
were the only constituents making up the entire narrative.
And yet, this is what some historians do when they step out
of the classroom to engage in the art of spin-doctoring history in a way that
would serve the ends of an ideological group they sympathize with, or one that
pays them handsome bribes called honorariums. Of course, such historians can
also have a point of view in which they believe deeply. In such cases, the historians
would use the talent they have, and the knowledge they have acquired to make
their point look perfect … even if it means they need to mutilate history by
truncating it.
This is the feeling you are left with after you read the
article that came under the title: “Aggressive Adversaries Are Redrawing the
World map,” written by Victor Davis Hanson and published on June 18, 2015 in
National Review Online. He is making the analogy between what is happening
today and what happened three quarters of a century ago, to then conclude that
the current “aggressive” nations must be deterred without delay, or dire
consequences will result.
The problem is that he accuses the Islamic State, as well as
Russia and China of remaking the global map in the same way
that Germany , Italy and Japan (the Axis nations) remade the
map of the world in their time, before starting the Second World War. But the
fact is that cutting up nations into small parts, and creating new ones from
those parts, is something that the two prominent colonial powers of the time
did. It was Sykes of Britain and Picot of France who negotiated the Sykes-Picot
Agreement three decades earlier, and put it into effect.
With that, the two European “democracies” remade the Middle
East and North Africa in a way that suited
both their interests ... so much so that they eliminated the need to be hostile
to each other. This done, they were left with enough energy, and with the
necessary forces to oppose the other rising powers of Europe .
These were mainly Germany and
Italy that insisted on
having their share of the natural resources which Britain
and France
were plundering from the colonies.
Instead of talking about the giant puzzle that comprises all
those elements, Victor Hanson truncated the narrative and started with the
events that led to the Second World War. Doing so, he mutilated history and
failed to make an accurate analogy between the past and what is happening
today. He also failed to make a more convincing guess as to what might happen
next.
In his view “the contemporary world is starting to resemble
the 1930s.” He goes on to say what the Islamic State plans to do, what Russian
president Vladimir Putin thinks he can do, and what the Chinese will be able to
do. Hanson then asks: “Is this 1939 or 2015?” To answer that question, he says
that “the Western European democracies were terrified and mired in economic
crises.” As to the United
States , it was struggling with the Great
depression and squabbling about other internal matters.
Likewise, what is happening now is that: “President Obama
assumes Americans are tired of the Middle East
and want to be left alone,” says Victor Hanson. He then advances the following
cautious note: “In 1945 the Western democracies blamed themselves for having
appeased fascist empires.” And from this, he draws two lessons: “Small
sacrifices now can avoid catastrophic ones later on, and dictatorial regimes on
a roll never voluntarily quit playing geostrategic poker.”
He then speculates that the Middle East will be bookended by
the Islamic State on one side and the new Persian Empire
on the other. China
will control most of the Pacific and will adjudicate trade. As to the client
states of the new Russian empire, they will border central Europe
and be under pressure to leave EU, NATO, or both.
He sees in this futuristic scenario two possible endings.
However, neither of the two can be considered informative because the Hanson
description of what the Islamic State can do, confirms it has snatched the
“exceptional” title from America ,
given that people are flocking to it from every corner of the globe – including
the U.S.
– to fight and die for its ideals.
As to Vladimir Putin of Russia , he'll do what Hanson
speculates he'll be able to do because he is loved by his people who don't view
him as a dictator.
And China
will shine economically because it was able to adapt the fundamentals of true
capitalist, rendering them compatible with the realities of the modern world in
terms of the advancements that have been achieved in science, technology and
human development.
That's what America
used to be. That's what America
ceased to be. That's what the others are becoming.