The 2nd Hundred Years' War (1914-Present)

There’s a lot of talk about whether or not we are in the middle of World War III. That’s what Newt Gingrich calls the worldwide “War on Terror”, as do others. Going one step further, Norman Podhoretz mimics James Woolsey's lead by referring to it as World War IV, and agrees with the Project for the New American Century that the Cold War was effectively the real number III. This would be taking a broader view of things alright, but I still think they both come up short on the big picture, and remain stuck in a present day, non-historical perspective.

Step back a little bit. Fast forward yourself to the end of your days, to your 100th birthday, to a later period in this century. And then cast your eye beyond that to the next, to an era of permanent tranquility. Now stop and look back. The wars of the 20th century appear smaller, don't they. From the Guns of August to 9/11, from militant Germany to militant Islam, the conflicts of that era become conjoined as essentially one continuous struggle for freedom against the forces of totalitarianism and murderous insanity.

Since the collapse of Europe and the Old World Order in 1914, Wilsonian America and the New World have been trying to permanently establish a new universal order based on modern principles of freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law. That endpoint in time was captured by Francis Fukuyama in 1989 as the “End of History”, which prematurely proclaimed victory for American led liberalism around the world. Obviously the current combating of Islamic terrorism emanating from backward conclaves and failed, oppressive states means we are not there yet, and may in fact still be a long way off.

Which returns me to the grand thesis. We are currently engaged in an epic conflict that later historians may plausibly call the Second Hundred Years’ War, much as historians now view the 116 year clash between England and France in the 14th century as the first Hundred Year's War (1337-1453). That fight too was marked by several lengthy wars, brief battles and long moments of reprieve, but in the broad outlines of that struggle there reflected discernible commonalities, which had a major evolutionary and societal impact.

It too was a seismic shift in world order in fact, from feudalism to nationalism, from knight to mercenary, from peasant to soldier, from vassal to standing armies. The conflict that began as a war between English and French kings became a war between the English and French people. Its conclusion meant that peasants formerly enslaved to their masters could now fight for king and country, and be rewarded for their courage, an effect that had a revolutionary impact on the organization of medieval societies. The decline of chivalry marked the beginning of liberty, but also had a debilitating influence on the romantic - though no less real - notions of reverence, honour and loyalty.

The social consequences of the Second Hundred Years’ War is proving equally transformative. The evolution from powerful monarchies to representative democracy, from religious devotion to fanatical secularism, made their first impression on our elites before filtering down into the masses. The discrete gentleman aristocrat has been replaced by the glib attention seeking celebrity as society's new role model. The loyal patriot gets increasingly displaced by the non-aligned cosmopolitan multiculturalist. The effect of urbanization and globalization progressively weakens devotion to country; the secularization of society places no natural constraints on the excesses of the undesirable. Artificial, top-down state constructs of "tolerance" and "political correctness" now take the place of older faith-based and God-fearing edicts. And on and on it goes. The continuing social revolution has been immense over the past 90 years, most of it unimpressive.

The decline of virtue and decency is amply illustrated by the changing nature of the enemy on the battlefield. At the Battle of Crecy in 1346, the English actually apologized to the French for their unchivalrous behaviour, after peasant bowmen cut down a third of France's knights in a single engagement. English peasants were ordered to conduct mercy killings for the suffering (to receive the long dagger from a peasant was a highly dishonourable way for a helpless knight to meet his end, for which English commanders felt great shame). During the Great War we still fought against civilized forces, and in some cases even socialized with the enemy. With each new war, however, the enemy has become more barbaric, showing a capacity for even greater evil. Today’s televised beheadings show the modern ruthless animal for what he is: a terrorizing, hate-spewing, suicidal, satanic monster, who will stop at nothing to coerce whole populations through intimidation and fear. Death to Israel! Death to America! is every bit a death cult to be ferociously reckoned with. Our esprit de corps may be no match for the fervor of the psychotic, who believes he will be rewarded in the afterlife, but we have many tactical and technological advantages gained over a century of warfare that make up for it. Indeed those increasing advantages may partly explain the increasing brutality of the enemy.

It is unclear to me how the Second Hundred Years’ War will end. It is unclear how such an enemy can be beaten, knowing that it cannot be deterred. What is clear though is that warfare has never been so asymmetrical as it is now, and that the greater our mastery over the enemy, the less our sacrifice needed to combat him. This fact alone, along with our growing fearlessness, may eventually discourage the enemy from even trying. War may yet prove obsolete.

It was right for those caught up in the beginning of this hundred year conflict to believe that they were fighting in a "War to End all Wars". They were merely wrong to think that the temporary Armistice of November 11, 1918, was the end of that war. The shot heard around the world is still very much upon us.

Cross posted to The Monarchist