It’s been used so often that it’s become trite, but George Santayana’s observation remains true: Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.

The words and behavior of world leaders in the days following 9-11-01 give little assurance that they  remember history in any significant way.

Forgetting
A president addresses Congress about a coming war:

We are now about to accept gauge of battle with this natural foe to liberty and shall, if necessary, spend the whole force of the nation to check and nullify its pretensions and its power. We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretense about them to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples… : for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve."

That is Woodrow Wilson, speaking to Congress on April 2, 1917, seeking a declaration of war. His words having chilling resonances with the words of American and world leaders since September 11.

Ignorant of the past and blind to the future, Europe and the world stood on the edge of an abyss in 1914. A series of incremental decisions, most made with the best of intentions, occurred in various countries in response to various events. The abyss opened. A continent plunged in, and by that time no one could do anything to stop the carnage.

Now, America, suffering from a barbaric attack, asks the world to join in a series of decisions, made with the best of intentions, to respond.

Respond we must. But where is the evidence that anyone in power anywhere in the world is aware of the abyss looming at our feet? We're not yet at the abyss, but it's close, just a few incremental decisions away.

If such words seem alarmist and excessive, I urge you to read Barbara Tuchman’s lucid, chilling description in The Guns of August of how Europe moved inadvertently and with the best of intentions, step by small step, from an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity in the first decade of the 20^th century into the nightmare of World War I.

Heimat
The Nazis didn’t destroy the German language, but they did poison it. Some words were so severely damaged that, though the words still exist, they can be used in only the most limited and trivial contexts. They did this by making these words co-equal with the German state and with the will of the dictatorial rulers of that state. Since the state was omniscient, the words became not only patriotic but sacred:

And now in America we have a cabinet post, the Office of Homeland Security. Created, of course, with the best of intentions. A new government department whose job it is to track down any who offer a threat to the security of the "homeland."

Why not? What could be more reasonable in a time of such crisis?

Well, how about me? Am I now, even by writing about possible danger from within the government itself, am I thus to be judged a threat to "homeland security"? Who defines such threats? Who decides where to draw the line? Who draws the line? Who comes and interrogates those who cross the line? Who arrests them? Who judges them? Who imprisons them?

What is there about the very word "homeland" used by the government in this way that is chilling? Does it somehow suggest a belief that American soil is more valuable, more previous, more sacred even that other soil in the world? Does it somehow suggest a re-birth of "Fortress America" to be defended at all and any costs no matter that price the rest of the world may pay?