Carnage and Culture – Why The West Wins

I am in the middle of reading a fascinating book that has been out for some time. The title is Carnage and Culture authored by Victor Hanson. I started reading it due to a recommendation of a good friend, and I am about half way thru. In light of the current war in Iraq, I find it a particularly relevant book.

It is a historical recounting of some of the major battles between East and West throughout the course of history. The premise of the book is that Western culture has underpinnings that make it more conducive to winning major battles with Eastern cultures. The book reviews the battles at Salamis, Gaugamela, Cannae, Tenochtitlan, Midway, and the Tet Offensive. I am currently reading the chapter on Tenochtitlan.

What I find most interesting about this book is that it ties Western culture with its principles of freedom of organization, property ownership, and capitalism to success on the battlefield. Soldiers of Western culture are fighting not just for plunder, but for a way of life that they hold dear. From the classic cultures of Greece and Rome to Spain and the conquistadors through to modern day America, Western culture has been able to hold at bay and even destroy Eastern culture and countries with superior technology and methodology. Western advances in technology and strategy have carried the day in the classic battles between East and West.

You can see this pattern in modern day battles as well. The Japanese had the classic warrior mentality with the Samurai culture and the kamikaze attacks at Pearl Harbor. The West responded eventually with the atomic bomb, making the battle so expensive from a human cost perspective that the East was forced to capitulate. This parallels Alexander’s march through Persia and down into India, killing everyone in site along the way so as to leave no doubt who the victor would be and removing the ability for the East to fight back.

Contrast that with the Aztec’s battles with Cortez at Tenochtitlan. The Aztecs had the conquistadors pinned down and completely surrounded. Victory was within their grasp. However, Cortez’s troops were able to escape and were allowed to regroup. Why? The Aztecs were more concerned with the human sacrifice and parading the severed heads of those they had killed rather than pursuing Cortez until he and his troops were completely eliminated.

What does it all mean in light of the war in Iraq? The answer is to be determined. No one would argue that the West has superior firepower. What can be debated is whether or not the U.S and its allies are fighting for things we hold dear or that the mission is unclear and the determination of success vague. The West has never done well in this atmosphere ( see Vietnam ). IF ( and this is a big if ) you believe that Iraq is a key pivot point in the battle against radical Islam and the stated desire to destroy Western culture, then perhaps sending our troops to Iraq makes sense. It is my opinion however that our time and effort should have been spent hunting down the perpetrators of the 9/11 declaration of war, rather than invading Iraq yet again.

What is clear from history is that if radical Islam and the East choose to attack the West again with another 9/11 type of attack ( and I think the next one will be on a much grander scale ), the West will respond with lethal and overwhelming force. We are fighting for a culture and a way of life that is not understood by the East, and has yet to be replicated in Eastern culture.