Villainous Company

« Vote - Top 20 Funniest Movie Lines Of All Time | Main | OK, I Was Already Angry Enough »

August 21, 2006

Faith and Commitment

This is a difficult post, one I have misgivings about publishing. For the past week I've been trying to decide whether there is any real value to anything I've done for the past two and a half years. I am still not sure what the answer to that question is.

All I know is that I am more troubled than I have felt at any point I can remember. I sit down to write in the morning and more often than not I feel sick. And angry. Very angry. That is not a place I want to be. I have always striven to bring some degree of objectivity, of distance, to my writing despite the admittedly strong feelings and convictions I bear towards the subjects I write about.

I am not sure I can do that anymore. And if I can't do that, I don't see how I can continue to write.

I no longer recognize the America I thought I knew, that I have worked so hard to support in the way I thought best. The country I love, the one I taught my sons to revere, is described lyrically by (of all things) a foreigner:

The Americans are more old-fashioned than us, and what is equally admirable, they are not ashamed of being old-fashioned. They know Churchill was a great man, so they put his house on the map. There is a kind of Englishman to whom this sort of behaviour seems painfully unsophisticated.

We are inclined, in our snobbish way, to dismiss the Americans as a new and vulgar people, whose civilisation has hardly risen above the level of cowboys and Indians. Yet the United States of America is actually the oldest republic in the world, with a constitution that is one of the noblest works of man. When one strips away the distracting symbols of modernity - motor cars, skyscrapers, space rockets, microchips, junk food - one finds an essentially 18th-century country. While Europe has engaged in the headlong and frankly rather immature pursuit of novelty - how many constitutions have the nations of Europe been through in this time? - the Americans have held to the ideals enunciated more than 200 years ago by their founding fathers.

The sense of entering an older country, and one with a sterner sense of purpose than is found among the flippant and inconstant Europeans, can be enjoyed even before one gets off the plane. On the immigration forms that one has to fill in, one is asked: "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offence or crime involving moral turpitude?" Who now would dare to pose such a question in Europe? The very word "turpitude" brings a smile, almost a sneer, to our lips.

This part brought a smile to my lips. I'm not a fool. I realize it is, to some degree, a fanciful notion. We are not, really, that old-fashioned anymore. But there is a grain of truth to the description and we are, after all, speaking not of absolutes but of degrees - of the comparison between America and Europe. And America is different from the rest of the world. That is what made us, to generations of immigrants, to those huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the Golden Mountain. It is what made us the City on the Hill: a beacon of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity even with all our manifest failings.

At any rate, that passage reminded me of countless childhood hours spent reading the classics - of pouring over stories of ancient Greeks visiting the rustic Romans, whom they found unbearably quaint, almost stuffy in their regard for integrity and simple living. But Rome was then still a Republic and Roman matrons were still virtuous and relatively chaste. Not for them the licentious revels and corrupt politics of later years. Rome had not yet replaced integrity and stern conviction with that special brand of defeatism and attenuated cynicism that passes for sophistication in more 'advanced' cultures. But it was this section that tore at my heart:

The Americans are prepared to use force in pursuit of what they regard as noble aims. It is yet another respect in which they are rather old-fashioned. They are patriots who venerate their nation and their flag.

The idea has somehow gained currency in Britain that America is an essentially peaceful nation. Quite how this notion took root, I do not know. Perhaps we were unduly impressed by the protesters against the Vietnam war.

It is an idea that cannot survive a visit to the National Museum of American History in Washington, where one is informed that the "price of freedom" is over and over again paid in blood.

The Americans' tactics in Iraq, and their sanction for Israel's tactics in Lebanon, have given rise to astonishment and anger in Europe. It may well be that those tactics are counter-productive, and that the Americans and Israelis need to take a different approach to these ventures if they are ever to have any hope of winning hearts and minds.

But when the Americans speak of freedom, we should not imagine, in our cynical and worldly-wise way, that they are merely using that word as a cloak for realpolitik. They are not above realpolitik, but they also mean what they say.

These formidable people think freedom is so valuable that it is worth dying for.

What put that lump in my throat and what continues to worry at me day and night, is that a small part of America still believes in this ideal, still possesses this purity of vision. But it is dwindling daily, being replaced by a 'smarter', more effete nation that believes in nothing whole heartedly. That will commit to no promise, will see no course of action through to the bitter end. That finds, paradoxically, wisdom in expediency and intellectual honesty in being morally flexible when the going gets tough. That eschews idealism for the new God of the 21st Century Man: realism.

I have, on more than one occasion, been accused of being a Pollyanna. But I come by this honestly. Americans have justly prided themselves on being a naive people. We open our hearts and our pocketbooks, without reservation or suspicion. There are worse faults. If one were to pick a phrase to describe the American character, one would almost have to say that as a people we have a boundless faith, an almost limitless optimism. We believe in the power of the human spirit to overcome adversity, we believe in God, in that crazy 'melting pot' that is American culture, in that great experiment called democracy.

In fact, if I had to pick one of my favorite posts it would probably be this one, called (unsurprisingly) Democracy, The Glorious Dream. I have written better ones. I have written few that came more from my heart; from what makes me get up at 4 am every day and pound away at my keyboard like a madwoman.

About a year ago I was sitting at the dinner table with friends, Democrats, which is not uncommon since many of our closest friends are Democrats. We like to argue with them as a spur to the digestion. It was just before I wrote that piece and largely inspired it. The subject of American exceptionalism and the war came up. The conversation grew somewhat heated, and I tried to explain why I believe it is so vitally important the United States not do as so many of the Jeffersonian stripe would have us do: firmly push our heads into the sand as though we lived in some 18th Century isolationist utopia that no longer exists. In truth, I am not sure it ever did exist. It was just easier to blind ourselves to the evil that men do, back then. To isolate ourselves, to live in our own little worlds and say "this doesn't touch me".

Perhaps we could afford that kind of dangerous naivety in an age without jetliners and nuclear bombs, but it strikes me as almost unbearably funny that the few remaining champions of American exceptionalism are accused of "unrealism". To some, there is nothing more realistic, and nothing more "worth it", than backing our ideals with American sweat, blood, tears, and treasure.

Sitting at the table that night I tried to explain that nature abhors a vacuum. There is always a balance of power in the world, and if we do not stand up for what we believe in, the space we leave will be quickly filled by someone else. The question then becomes, who? Surely not Europe: Europe has been in the process of disarming itself for at least a generation. What good was internationalism at Srebenica?

If I shrink in horror when I hear statements like this from conservatives, what must the rest of the world be thinking? "Oh, bringing democracy to the Middle East is fine in principle, but in practice it has been FUBAR so now we must consider more realistic alternatives." Odd how those more realistic alternatives always seem to involve doing nothing or retreating to an 'over the horizon' position, from whence we can safely tut-tut and do nothing while everything goes to hell in a handbasket while we maintain comfortable but competent (and above all realistic) deniability.

In today's Washington Post, Iraq's ambassador to the US delivers a stern and much-needed rebuke:

As the debate on Iraq rages on, we hear more and more voices that call for throwing in the towel and leaving the mess to Iraqis to sort out. A new and unexpected proponent of this argument is Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who said in a recent column that it's time for "Plan B." Only a few months before, he was arguing that it would be time for the United States to pack up and go only "when we don't see Iraqis taking the risk to build a progressive Iraq." Now, under the weight of bad news from Baghdad, he seems ready to abandon those very same brave men and women fighting valiantly to establish peace and justice in Iraq. I am an admirer of Friedman, who is generally thoughtful, well informed and supportive, but in this case he and many like him have gone dangerously off-track.

What has made the past three years hugely more difficult and complicated is the fact that we all underestimated the determination of our opponents and some of our neighbors to undermine this new project. In the context of a global confrontation, this has pitched our fledgling democracy onto the front line of a monumental struggle. It is these outside forces, allied with Saddamists, other terrorists and regular criminals, that threaten to overwhelm us.

To argue that American withdrawal from Iraq would create a "huge problem for Iran" is disingenuous. Iran is fairly secure within its borders. Any problems in Iraq will be for Iraqis to suffer. If there is a collapse and a civil war in Iraq, it is Iran's proxies who will do the fighting, and when the dust settles these proxies will most likely end up with the oil-rich southern region of Iraq -- a significant strategic gain for Iran.

There would also be the psychological impact of the perceived defeat for America. That would encourage all the enemies of the United States -- and they are many -- to be bolder and readier to challenge its interests everywhere. A new super-radical, geographically contiguous bloc would be born: Iran, Syria and a radicalized, totalitarian, fragmented Iraq.

As for the argument that the very presence of the foreign forces is a source of tension and that their departure would remove a prime source of violence: It may appear plausible at first glance, but it is in fact without merit. We need to understand precisely who is ready to fight to drive foreign forces out; it is only the Saddamists and the religious extremists (al-Qaeda and the like). If U.S. forces are in fact withdrawn, these people will consider it a victory and go on fighting even harder to achieve control over the country.

Since when has America had to be reminded to support democracy? Since when have we had to be reminded not to desert the weak and the defenseless, not to renege on our promises? Why, oh why in all the tiresome Iraq=Vietnam comparisons, does no one trouble to remember the slaughter that followed the fall of Saigon? Or is what happens when a "realistic" Congress pulls the rug out from our allies just another lesson we are determined to sweep into the dustbin of history?

I am sorry, but I am disgusted beyond measure with my own party.

The most dangerous form of "unrealism", from where I'm sitting, is the inability to deal with frustration, to understand that policy is rarely implemented in a vacuum. It is the carping, niggling, wheedling criticism of pundits who've never had to work out the practical details of the ideas they expound every day, nor compromise their lofty principles in a democratic society where no one agrees on anything and everyone is a Monday morning quarterback. It's the unbelievable arrogance that allows bloviating bloggers to sit back and calmly debate whether America ought to install a "stong man" in Iraq, as though freedom were some particularly gaudy bauble we had bestowed on Those People but had decided they weren't really ready for.

Or perhaps we ought to ignore the Constitution the Iraqis just came out and risked their lives to vote for, and set aside lives of the over 2500 American men and women who've died so far to breathe life into it, and simply slice up their country like some obscene pizza pie; as though Turkey would stand for two seconds for an independent Kurdistan and Iraq's neighbors wouldn't immediately begin picking at the pieces of her corpse like vultures. Doubtless Iraqis and American war widows alike can comfort themselves with the knowledge that it was nothing personal. Their sacrifices have been duly noted, but it's all part of the New Realism that's all the rage amongst the Georgetown set.

George Will thinks John Kerry was right. He thinks the law enforcement approach was the way to go after all. In an almost unbelievable triumph of hope over experience he cites the success of the recent disruption of the London plot.

Has he been reading any American newspapers lately? Has he, perhaps, read about the latest ruling on the NSA wiretapping case, one so poorly reasoned that even opponents of government wiretapping are scratching their heads over it? Did he miss the outing of the SWIFT program, exactly the kind of program John Kerry was describing when he said combating terrorism was "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world." Perhaps it escaped Mr. Will's notice that such cooperation is endangered (to put it mildly) when the NY Times outs even programs it called for in the aftermath of 9/11. Or maybe the rather startling gap between the freewheeling press and bill of rights in America and those of, say, Pakistan or England are minor details he feels can be safely ignored.

The truth is, I've had it about up to here with words and the criticisms of those who are only satisfied with perfectly fought wars and governments who never make mistakes, though those two commodities don't seem to exist in any history book I've ever read. Words don't win wars. Two things win wars.

Faith. And commitment. No one really doubts we have the resources to win in Iraq. We are the world's largest superpower. Right now if you walk though the halls of the Pentagon (and this is a point seldom made when the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth starts on Capitol Hill), though members of all services are represented in the War on Terror (and they serve bravely and well), there are only two services who are wearing cammies: the Army and the Marines. That is because only two services are full-on at war. We are not yet strained to the breaking point. If we had to, we could do more.

And if you are one of those who are angry at government for not convincing you to sacrifice, for not spoon-feeding you commitment, for not soothing your doubts and fears, what is keeping you from sacrificing, from getting involved, from being informed, from motivating yourself? We live in an information age. So many people are doing good work: Semper Fi Fund, Project Valour IT, Purple Heart Foundation, Homes for our Troops. Any one of the would be glad to hear from you, or to have your help.

And Brian, I hate like hell to do this, because I will treasure your kind remark until the day I die, but I have to say this:

My love affair with the written word is just about at an end. Words are easy, and they have never won any war that I can remember, and George Will and his "farrago of caricature and non sequitur" can kiss this Marine wife's rosy pink ass.

Posted by Cassandra at August 21, 2006 08:10 AM

Comments

Posted by: Jeff Bell at August 21, 2006 04:52 PM

Posted by: Syberyenta at August 21, 2006 05:05 PM

Posted by: ck at August 21, 2006 05:05 PM

Posted by: Watcher at August 21, 2006 05:08 PM

Posted by: WildBlueYonder at August 21, 2006 05:28 PM

Posted by: Cassandra at August 21, 2006 05:32 PM

Posted by: Cassandra at August 21, 2006 05:33 PM

Posted by: Stashiu3 at August 21, 2006 05:53 PM

Posted by: Masked Menace© at August 21, 2006 06:15 PM

Posted by: Cassandra at August 21, 2006 06:25 PM

Posted by: levi from queens at August 21, 2006 06:32 PM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)