Yes, Europe is spiritually sick. "When people accept futility and the absurd as normal," wrote Frenchman Jacques Barzun, "the culture is decadent. The term is not a slur; it is a technical label." That said, sick is not yet evil. France's action may be amoral, or venal, or even supportive of evil people. But it is not an evil country with death camps like North Korea, or organized rape and torture like Iraq. To suggest that France and Iraq occupy the same moral plane is to indulge in grave errors of proportion and perspective.

We have seen real evil, recently, and we cheapen the term by using it inappropriately. To do so makes enemies of those who should be our friends. Worse, it confuses our thinking about the relationships of means and ends.

Unlike Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, the European nations are genuine democracies. That we choose to disagree or worry for their state of spirit may vex, but it does not sunder them from their place in the destiny of free peoples - a place we have won with blood and toil. Why then would we concede our positions within their debates, positions we have every right and duty to fight for?

The impulses to cut off, to turn away, or to lash out blindly are signs of katalepsis, possession; that derangement of the senses and reason when terror or anger usurp control of the mind. It is understandable in these times - and wrong. Instead, we must stand, and fight, and maintain our composure. Not just for our own sake, but for the sake of those who may join us on the line.

In a 4th Generation War, the front is everywhere. We must prevail - together.

With what weapons, then, shall we fight in Europe? With moral condemnation when deserved. With a strong case to European publics, coupled with decisive military action internationally. With real economic and diplomatic consequences for nations who take "Axis of Weasel" stands. These measures are all appropriate. If executed well, they will shift internal debates and decisions in our favour - even as they defeat external threats we all confront.

Now for the flip side. If an unlimited front means that one's enemies are everywhere, this can be equally true of one's friends. France may be a founding member of the "Axis of Weasels," but she also gives us the irreplaceable Jean-Francois Revel and others. There are groups throughout the continent, substantial groups, who will support us. These people are not our enemies, nor are they evil. Together, we can punish their internal enemies in ways that support our mutual goals. Together, we can win.

First, however, we must find ways of working together and talking to one another. The blogosphere can play a significant role in that effort, IF we're willing to step up to the challenge.

To my fellow warbloggers and commentators...

The dark days of recent memory have not faded. There is much yet to do, and much that is unknown lies ahead. By picking up a pen and joining the public debate, you have made a choice. A choice to act, not accept. A choice to lead, not follow. Where will you choose to lead, and how?

"This, I realized now watching Dienekes rally and tend to his men, was the role of the officer: to prevent those under his command, at all stages of battle - before, during, and after - from becoming "possessed". To fire their valor when flagged and rein in their fury when it threatened to take them out of hand. That was Dienekes' job. That was why he wore the transverse-crested helmet of an officer.

His was not, I could see now, the herosim of an Achilles. He was not a superman who waded invulnerably into the slaughter, single-handedly slaying his foe by myriads. He was just a man doing a job. A job whose primary attribute was self-restraint and self-composure, not for his own sake, but for those he led by his example. A job whose objective could be boiled down to the single understatement, as he did at the Hot Gates on the morning he died, of "performing the commonplace under uncommonplace conditions."

(Steven Pressfield, "Gates of Fire")

Think hard. The answer matters.

UPDATES: Calpundit has a few thoughts on this subject. So does Victor Davis Hanson, who has some suggestions re: what "real economic and diplomatic consequences" might mean.