As we continue to watch the spread of ISIS, and the attempts made to halt that spread, I think it worthwhile to examine a memory that has been attached to these armed actions. This memory is that of the Crusades, and it hangs in the back of the mind whenever we consider military action against or within a Muslim nation. The comparison has been brought to the foreground on a number of occasions with regards to ISIS, but for two wildly divergent reasons. Those who stand against any Western involvement in the Middle East use the word Crusade as a curse. To them, the Crusades are the archetype of every unjust, imperialist war waged by Europe and the United States. On the other hand, there is a group of Catholic traditionalists who consider the Crusades as the greatest moment, (certainly the greatest defeat) in all the history of Christendom. It is true that this second group is very small, a subset of a subset. But it is a class of people that I come in regular contact with, and I cannot help addressing their argument along side the first class of persons.

In order to grasp a proper understanding of our current situation in relation to the Crusades, it is first necessary to explain what the Crusades were, and especially what they were not. They were not a coalition of western nations who invaded the Holy Land to forcible convert the area back to Christianity. But that is exactly what everyone thinks they were, because that is what we have been taught. To think in this way, is to transfer our own worldview onto the past, not only our views of religion and ethics, but our most fundamental views on the nature of Europe.

At the turn of the Second Millennium, Europe was not a collection of independently sovereign states as they are today. The memory of Rome was not easily dispelled, and it would take another four hundred years after the Crusades before the first real cracks began to split the nations of Christendom. The so-called Dark Ages saw the former Roman provinces replace imperialism with the Faith, and replace the Emperor with the Pope. But they did not loose their unity. Internally, the autonomous nation began to form. Kings fought against kings over those territorial and dynastic squabbles that have been the timeless story of mankind. But in each capitol city there stood a cathedral beside the castle, and the equal power of the Church in Europe kept the peoples a single people. This means that when the Pope called for a Crusade, he did not attempt of form a coalition of Western nations. Rather, his decision was the single action of a unified whole. It was what we would today call a unilateral action.

Next, we must ask what was the motive of the Crusades. It is generally held that the Crusades were an attempt to reclaim the Holy Land for Christianity. This notion is deceptively accurate; it leads the unsuspecting into folly by stating an exact fact. The trouble hinges on the word reclaim. Such a word implies the reversal of a final and definite theft. When a rich man reclaims his stolen jewels, he reclaims jewels that had been in the unquestioned possession of the thief. The Crusades were not like Napoleon trying to regain a throne he had certainly lost. They were like Joan of Arc breaking the siege of Orleans. The Muslim war machine was rolling over the Eastern Roman Empire, Byzantium was on the verge of destruction, Jerusalem had been captured, and a cry was raised in the East. The first Crusade was an answer to that cry. It was hoped that a relief force from Europe would be enough halt the spread of Islam, and turn the tide for the Christian forces in the region.

The Crusade was an entirely political decision, there was no real element of religion involved at all. I know that this probably sounds like the most absurd thing you have heard all week, but the truth of it lies in my earlier description of Christendom. The Catholic Faith was not just a form of political capital in Europe, it was the only political capital they had. Every action of every ruler had to be justifiable under the scrutiny of the Church. The war needed to be framed as a battle of religions in order to be sold to the people. Fear of the heathen Mohammedans, helped raised money and volunteers for the relief force. It is a strategy you might recognize. The masses thought their political war was a religious one, exactly the way we thought our political wars were democratic ones.

Strangely enough, as a political war, the Crusades were entirely justifiable. It is only as religious wars that they are damnable. Consider the Crusades without such implication heavy words as Christendom, Muslim, or Byzantium. Civilization A is being attacked by Civilization B. B has nearly overrun all of A. So A asks its ally, Civilization C for assistance. C agrees to help its ally, both out of friendship, and to keep an eastern buffer between them and B. B is already attacking C in one of its southern districts, and C is desperate to avoid the opening of a second front. Who could say, besides a complete pacifist, that C is not justified in helping A fight a war of self defense? It is only when we remember that the allies are allied by their shared faith, that we remember to hate the Crusades.

Returning again to the present day, let us see if we are right to compare our action against ISIS to the Crusades. The main difference between our situation and that ancient one, is that the Western forces today are a coalition of nations and not one unified whole. This distinction is a great indicator of whether we should consider this war as a kin with the real Crusades or the imagined Crusades. If our ISIS conflict is analogous with the imagined Crusades, then we would see a war in the name of the American democracy against an authoritarian boogeyman. Our fight is certainly being framed in this light, just as the real Crusades were framed as the imagined Crusades in real time. However, if our air strikes against ISIS are analogous with the real Crusades, then they would be a political act. The coalition would be coming to the aid of an ally, in order to relieve the push of an offensive force.

The truth is revealed by the western refusal to put boots on the ground. Those who see ISIS as an ideological threat demand ground forces. A proper invasion would certainly defeat the antagonistic philosophy, and score a victory for Democratic Liberalism. But the West is not interested in winning a democratic war, they see their role as entirely political. Iraq is an ally, and as such, deserves our help in relieving their forces. Inserting ground forces would be an overreaction considering the political objective. This is obviously a just, defensive, and political war.

In parting, let us remember again those two groups who like to invoke the Crusades in talk about our war with ISIS. Both groups are right to invoke the Crusades, but neither has a clear understanding of either war. I will grant a small consolation to those who hate both wars, because they at least hate what was damnable about both wars. The traditionalist have extolled the evil in both wars, and so even their ignorance in tainted. But maybe you do not see why I call the love of an ideological war evil. Maybe you think a Catholic Crusade a very desirable thing right now. I have no more space to deal with these concerns in this essay, they will have to wait until next weeks article. Until then, let me leave you with this: Ours is a belief in the Cross. Christ saved us through his crucifixion, and it is only through the crucifixion of the Church that we can spread the Faith throughout the world.