Just a quick thought or two on the Blackwater controversy. If I heard the story correctly, the US government is using a private security force in Iraq called Blackwater to help out with various tasks like getting our bureaucrats safely from one place to another. You might think at first that a private security force is like any other guard service that protects old factories and warehouses. E.g., college students and old guys armed with portable timeclocks, as to make sure they walk around and don’t just stay in the shack and sleep. But no, this Blackwater group is made up of tough guys with pretty much the same weapons, training and tactics as our Army. And they haven’t been afraid to pull the triggers on their M-1’s when something doesn’t look right. The Iraqi government claims that they’ve mowed down too many innocent civilians.

(For any of you fans of the late, great Jericho TV show, you remember Ravenwood – yep, based on Blackwater.)

So why is our government using Blackwater to do what it’s own Army could and should do? Obviously because our own Army is overstretched. Without going back to drafting 18 year olds, our Army doesn’t have enough people to maintain the “surge” in Iraq and cover all of our other commitments, in addition to mundane things like training and such.

I’m a fan of Roman Empire comparisons, and this brings one up. In the final century of the western empire, the Legions could not raise enough volunteers from the Roman citizenry. They were too spoiled back in Italy, and the provincials weren’t in any great mood to fight anymore either. So, the Romans started hiring mercenary armies, made up of the barbarians who might otherwise attack them. OK, so this isn’t exactly Blackwater, which I believe is still made up mostly of red-blooded American citizens. But who knows what is next. Blackwater seems to me like one more step in the decline of the American Empire. And despite my liberal tendencies, I don’t say that with any great glee.

But wait – you might say that this arrangement smacks of Thomas More rather than Fitzgibbons. Recall that in More’s Utopia, the Utopians hired mercenaries to do their dirtywork overseas. They were barbarians called the Vanellians, who loved to fight. This made them dangerous to the world, so they might as well be employed in a way that thins their ranks. More seemed to think this was a rather good arrangement. But Utopias never seem to work in reality, and I have my doubts whether the Blackwater thing with our modern American Utopia is any good, either.

One does have to wonder sometimes whether the whole al Qaeda campaign against the West is in fact a holy war inspired by early Islamic tradition. War and conquest was a part of Mohammed’s life; war and conquest inspires a significant portion of the Koran; and war and conquest is integral to the early history of Islam. For a few centuries during the European Middle Ages, Islamic culture flourished. During those years, peace, tolerance and moderation were achievable by the followers of the Prophet; the need to proselytize with the tip of the sword seemed to have passed. However things haven’t gone so well for most of the Islamic nations in modern times. Despite all the oil money that the Persian Gulf states reel in, countries like Egypt and Pakistan and Indonesia and Somalia and Tunisia and Bangladesh remain quite poor. And even in Saudi Arabia and the other oil states, most people remain poor with little prospect of improvement.

Not that there aren’t a whole lot of other poor places in the world with little prospect for improvement, e.g. central Africa and much of South America. But there’s something about Islam and its culture that seems to inspire unrest and active resentment of poverty, especially when viewed in light of the growing wealth of the West. Thus, many of the Islamic nations now breed a dangerous strain of international terrorism, one that has already changed daily life here in America … and not for the better. Despite our emphasis on homeland security, it’s certainly possible that things are going to get worse.

[Please note, I’m not trying to condemn Islam, a religion which is to be admired for inspiring a fervent faith in God amidst its participants; and I realize that most modern followers of the Prophet have accepted the more civilized and tolerant traditions that have developed within Islam over the centuries.]

I recently heard a lecture about Giambattista Vico, an Italian thinker and writer from the early 18th Century. Vico thought a lot about history and government, and looked for cycles in the lives of nations and cultures. He claimed to have found a three-stage process of history. The first stage represents a culture’s days of energy and formation, fueled by strong beliefs in the mandate of a divine power. The second stage is the time of patriarchs, a time of strong centralized government, e.g. monarchies. The third stage responds to growing wealth, growing knowledge, and the revolt of the common man, whereby democratic republics are formed. Unfortunately, this stage degenerates into an overly comfortable and cynical “me generation”, leading eventually to disorder and breakdown from social decay or by attack from without … often both.

I hate to say it, but al Qaeda and its imitators appear to be riding the crest of Vico’s stage 1, whereby the United States and Europe show signs of stage 3 decay. I myself don’t like the ancient notions of an angry and extremely judgmental God that seem to fuel the terrorist mindset. Again, I don’t believe these notions are consistent with the moderate interpretations of Islam that hold in most places today. Nonetheless, you have to admit that this “angry God” mindset is very powerful – and dangerous. America and Europe possibly face the same dilemma that Byzantium faced some 800 years ago, an aging but still mighty civilization, pitted against a young spiritual movement from the cruel deserts and impoverished shores of the near east.

Well, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly; we aren’t quite in the same boat as the Eastern Roman Empire was around 1200 or so. We aren’t facing organized armies fielded by increasingly powerful Arab and Turkish nations. But history often mixes themes from the past, i.e. some from menu A and some from menu B. America may be a rich and aging empire facing a quasi-Islamic warrior spirit, as with the Byzantines, and yet our threat actually come from a multitude of loosely organized tribes, as with the Western Roman Empire. In other words, al Qaeda and its imitators appear to represent the worst of both worlds: a mix of the most potent factors behind the Western Empire’s fall and the Eastern Empire’s contraction. And then throw in the modern possibility of atomic, biological and chemical weapons . . .

Can we hold it together? What is the magic glue? The next lecture, which was on Montesquieu, provided a possible answer. For a democracy to survive in the face of danger, Montesquieu said there must be public virtue. And just what is that? Well, I’m not exactly sure … but I strongly suspect that our hyper-capitalist, fast-money-and-out economy, and our win-at-any-expense style of politics, aren’t very good examples of whatever public virtue really might be. And then there is our army of lawyers, showing corporations and rich people how to get away with as much as possible. (Of course, once in a while things go astray for a WorldCom or a Martha Stewart, but that’s just the unlucky 1% who get caught). Then throw in corporate media and the political spin doctors, with their slick sound bites and 30 second opinion-makers. And furthermore, I can tell you from experience that “me first-ism” has filtered its way down to the smallest and most seemingly worthy non-profit agencies.

This nation really needs a vigorous discussion of what virtue means to it, something much bigger and more open-minded than the conservative talk-radio rant you sometimes hear regarding “virtue”. And fast.