The Soldiers of Other People

Recently, I read Robert Hoyland’s In God’s Path, a book about the early Arabic invasions during the 7^th and 8^th centuries AD. The book asks one central question – how did Arabia, a relatively poor and unimportant region up until that point, manage to conquer all of the Sasanian Empire and most of the Byzantine Empire, building an empire that stretched from Spain to India in just a little over 100 years? Hoyland lists multiple factors, among them being poor organization on the part of its rivals, but one struck me in particular – Arabs had already been living along the borders of both empires (the Levant and Mesopotamia) for decades prior to the conquests. Byzantium and the Sasanian Empire (along with their early incarnations of Rome and Parthia) were both bitter rivals that fought numerous wars against another, wars that solved almost nothing. As one way of seeing this, the borders between the two nations at the start of the Arab invasions were almost the same as they were when Christ was born over 600 years earlier.

Because of the history of long and brutal wars against one another, both nations began to recruit Arabs as mercenaries as they were famous in late antiquity for their bravery in battle and skill with horses. It worked well until the Arabs began to invade, the most important of which were the Islamic soldiers of the successors of Muhammad. It was at this point that the Arab mercenaries turned on both Byzantium and the Sasanians, siding with their fellow Arabs, giving the invading armies a great advantage. At this stage, according to Hoyland, the Arab invasion was not so much an invasion as it was an Arab insurrection. By using other people to defend their own land, even with as much sense as it made at the time and considering the history of wars between the two empires, both Byzantium and the Sasanians sealed their doom. Instead of being Greek speaking and Christian, as it had been for centuries, much of the Byzantine Empire instead became Arab speaking and Muslim. It essentially put up a wall around Christendom, restricting it to Europe and preventing the Gospel from being spread the world over until the Age of Exploration almost 1,000 years later. And while the Persian-based Sasanian Empire was able to maintain its language, it was not able to maintain its religion. The Zoroastrian religion of several Persian dynasties today only exist as a hated minority always under threat from the Islamic majority.

Another, ongoing example of the disaster of letting other people defend your country can be seen in the United Kingdom and France right now. Though World War I is often thought of as a “global war,” the reality is that the war outside of Europe did not last very long and for good reason. While the UK and France were massive colonial empires, Germany was barely a player outside of Europe and Austria-Hungary wasn’t a player at all. This meant that the colonies Germany did have were quickly taken. But, there was a problem. While the war outside of Europe was quickly finished, the war in Europe had turned into a bloody slog. It was at this point that the UK and France decided to start using colonial troops in Europe. When I mention “colonial” troops, I do not mean ethnic British and French troops that just so happened to be stationed in India or Africa.

This was the beginning of former colonial people coming into Europe. Again, out of desperation, Britain used the same tactics in World War II and later, when Britain began to debate immigration after World War II, the use of these soldiers was leveraged as a reason why immigrants should be poured into the UK, it was seen as a form of repayment. Due to Britain and France, eventually this mentality would spread throughout Europe; even nations that had never maintained a colonial empire and others that were actually under foreign domination during the 19^th century (like Ireland) began adopting this practice. While there are multiple reasons why this has spread so rapidly, it cannot be ignored that the initial reason was the use of other people to defend one’s nation and the idea of “repayment” that came as a result.

I can understand that desperate times call for desperate measures. Even Francisco Franco, a man I deeply admire, used Muslim troops to retake Spain from the communists, which is why Francoist Spain tended to not be anti-Islamic, a curious thing at first glance considering how much of Spain’s national identity comes from the Reconquista. Franco would not forget that Muslims helped him save his beloved Spain from communism. And, I do think this was likely unavoidable considering the Spanish Republic was evil incarnate – we’re talking about a battle involving some Muslim troops, under Christian leadership, in a still mostly Christian army against godless communists raping nuns and castrating priests. None of that history should take away from how dangerous is it to allow other people to defend your country.

This is why the declared de-Dixiefiction of the U.S. military is so important. Since the Founding, and much to our misfortune, we have served in disproportional numbers in the U.S. military. However, now with the new military, this will no longer be the case. They have all but put up a sign in front of military recruiting offices and declared “White Christian Dixian Men Need Not Apply.” On balance, I think this is a good thing. We have gone, bravely I might add, from pointless war to pointless war; so, if that ends, then it is good for our people. At the same time, there is a dark cloud over all this, at least in the short term, as it does place us in the same position that the Byzantines, Sasanians, British and French found themselves in – we are increasingly dependent upon others for our security.

This does mean the Right must forgo any thought that “the military will support us.” They will not. This might have been true of the Christian and Dixian military of 2001. The modern and largely decrepit and dysfunctional military of 2021 will not support us. This does further increase the need for Dixians to build parallel institutions. But in this, remember, why this was done. It was done out of fear and hatred of us – Southerners. At the very least, it made sense that, after centuries of fighting and a border that barely nudged, the Byzantines and Sasanians would resort to the use of mercenaries. The same goes for Britain and France during the World Wars, or the Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War. For all the problems it later caused, national survival was actually at stake – especially, in the case of Spain.

But no such threat existed here, this was done to break Dixie by taking the institution we dominated historically. There are consequences of contracting your security to other people. In the past, it may have been understandable at the time, this time it is being done with an ideology in mind. Never forget that we are ruled by those who hate us. They are now actively making sure that Dixians are no longer defending themselves. Rather from coming from the outside, via a decision from elites that were only guilty of being shortsighted, this is being done from the inside out of spite. In the long term, fewer Dixians in the U.S. military is a good thing – it means we will no longer die for those who hate us. But in the short term, until we build our own institutions, it means we are now being defended (or potentially persecuted) by others.