The Crusades 'failed' only in the sense that their strategic goal -- capturing territory -- could not be sustained absent migration from Western Europe (e.g. China in Tibet). The Crusades did not, unfortunately, seek to reform Islam.

And what's this "high civilization never to be matched below the Pyrenees again." Given that the Reconquista appears to be permanent, Carroll must resort to aesthetic criteria? Conoce Cervantes, Senor Carroll? O Velasquez o Goya? (Worry not, oj, Picasso ain't going on this list)

Of course Carroll does not seem to realize that the Crusades were, in an important sense, defensive. Islam had been expanding by the sword for hundreds of years, subjugating Christians and others. I'd bet the atrocities of the Crusaders were no worse than those of the Muslims.

Papaya:

And so, as a strategic matter, forging Christendom into a coherent whole that identified with each other, despite differences, the Crusades succeeded, though the tactical attempt to seize the Holy Lands failed (temporarily).

Not to quibble, oj, but I suspect that the fall of Constantinople was a far more unifying event.

A few thoughts:
1) As noted above, how exactly does Mr. Carroll think the Holy Land, Northern Africa, and Spain became Islamic?

2) Although it's not currently a Crusade, it would become one overnight if a Beslan-type attack happened here...so maybe he should be more worried about making sure that never happens rather than Bush's vocabulary?

3) Remember when the WOT was called "Operation Infinite Justice" for a few days but then changed after objections that "Justice only comes from Allah"? What a crock that was. First sign that we weren't totally serious, though.

Fred:

The Fall certainly triggered the intellectual revolution as the texts that had been kept within the city walls were carried West. The ideas therein helped revolutionize Christendom and make it dominant.

We have Jerusalem.

How did the first Director of the DIA, turn out
such a malajusted brat. His most recent fiction,
rationalizes the Berlin Wall, because it was due
punishment for Germany, and prevented WW 111

I doubt it.

It ought to be a Crusade and obviously Bush does not buy that.

On a slightly different, and arguably trivial, note, I suppose knowledge of how war was fought in the Middle Ages is rare, but I get tired of morons who cluck about heads on pikes or slaughters of unfortunate Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem.

Them were the rules in those days. Beseiged cities were offered the chance to surrender 'at discretion' or 'on terms,' but if they chose to resist and were finally overcome, the population knew it was to be murdered or sold into slavery.

This was, actually, an attempt to reduce bloodshed by encouraging cities to open their gates on terms.

It worked, too, many times.

Remember when the WOT was called "Operation Infinite Justice" for a few days but then changed after objections that "Justice only comes from Allah"?

I recall that the objection was that "infinite justice" could only come from Allah. But I understand your point.

Harry:

My personal favorite is when folks who are correectly skeptical of every claim in history take as gospel the absurd notion that the "blood in the streets of Jerusalem was ankle deep." How many folks do you figure you'd have to exsanguinate for that in how short a time?

I really dislike grandiose terms like 'Infinite Justice.'

It would be fine with me if the Taliban continued to rule in Afghanistan, putting women in burkhas, blowing up the occasional Buddha, and shooting people without beards, and all the other nonsense, except they decided to become a homebase for people who wanted to fly planes into American office buildings and kill lots of Americans. It would have been fine with me to leave Saddam in Iraq had he not decided to try and monopolize Persian Gulf oil in 1991 by attacking Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and if he weren't paying the families of terrorists in Israel, $25000 for every suicide bomber.

It is hubristic in the extreme to believe that we can change the world into our own image, or that we even should. Different cultures have different means of self-governance and that ought to be respected.

Americans are quite unwilling to 'bear any burden and pay any price.' They get upset enough when the deficit gets a little higher and an all volunteer military gets sent to far-off lands and suffers casualties at a lower rate than the citizens of Detroit. If we start prancing about the world looking to install freedom everywhere, we are doomed to failure and national suicide.

We are left then with picking and choosing where to send the troops. Do we send them to Congo, Burundi and Rwanda where the death tolls are in the millions? Do we send them to Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire where government has collapsed and tribal warfare is the rule? Do we send them to Sudan, Niger, Mali, Chad, Mauretania where slavery is commonplace? Do we topple the grotesque SLORC of Burma? Do we jump ugly with the PRC over Tibet? Since we cannot send the troops everywhere without bankrupting the nation and running out of 18-34 year old men, we have to make choices.

The answer remains simple. We send our troops places where we need to send them when American national interests are furthered if we do send them there, and if the cost to us in lives and treasure is less than the benefit we gain from sending the troops.

We do not send them on ephemeral quests to install democracies among the illiterate and the savage.

History clearly shows that democracy is not the way to go from LDC status to First World status quickly. Singapore, Chile, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea all had one party states when they had their economic booms that put them on the world stage. Which nation has done better since 1991, the PRC or Russia? India is the 'world's largest democracy,' but for most of its history has had abysmal rates of growth.

This is not unprecedented. In the 18th century, nations like Prussia under Friedrich der Grosse and Austria under Joseph II experienced rapid growth. Except back then they didn't call it dictatorship, it was known as 'Enlightened Despotism.'

Bart:

We can do all those things pretty cheap and quite easily, though we're unlikely to.

We cannot involve ourselves in Central Africa easily or cheaply. The diseases alone will kill us.

The oil will bring us.

The old Belgian Congo is a mineral wonderland, but I don't see any American troops heading there in large numbers.

Seen Patrice Lumumba?

There is a multisided civil war going on there right now with a level of violence that makes Iraq look like a tea party. I don't see American troops there.

There are no American troops in Palestine but we're dictating terms. Troops are overrated.

What's 'Palestine?' Do you perhaps mean Judea, Samaria and Gaza?

America dictates terms there because one side (the Israelis) are civilized, perhaps too civilized, Westernized First Worlders, and the other side( the so-called 'Palestinians') is run by a corrupt thug far more interested in lining his own pockets than in getting a decent settlement for his 'people.'

In a war like Congo among large groups of armed people (tens of millions of people) organized into tribes, covering a vast area of difficult terrain (hundreds of thousands of square miles)
such bribery won't work.

Mr. Caroll is concerned that because of Pres. Bush's use of a word our enemies will hate us even more. The people who fly airliners into buildings, decapitate people, and shoot children in the back.

I am really unconcerned about our enemies feelings. I just want them dead.

I am not a lot of things but I am a believer.
I do not claim to be a historian on Middle Eastern issues. I am not privy to top secret intelligence on Iraq or Sadaam Hussein. I do not blame any American, including our President, for wanting to lash out after the attacks on our country on 9/11. I am not opposed to war if it furthers our interests and protects our country. I don’t think we can fix all the worlds problems.
I am of the opinion that once a fight is on you are compelled to win at any cost. I believe that it is imperative that we achieve a decisive victory prior to leaving Iraq in order to protect our country from future aggression. I believe that anything less will encourage our enemies.
I believe that President Bush entered our country into war to reward his traditional supporters and to further his political agenda. I do not believe that President Bush had our counties best interests in mind when he made this decision. I do not believe that he made this decision alone but I do believe that he knew what he was doing. I believe that the war in Iraq will drive up oil prices including existing inventories and pressure our country to disregard environmental standards to become self sufficient. I believe the American public will pay the cost of this in even higher gas prices. I believe that oil companies will see record profits during this period.
I believe the President Bush is a traitor. I believe that he is lining his pockets with the lives and futures of young Americans.
I believe my vote for President Bush in the last election was the greatest mistake in my life.