Sunday, January 30, 2005

Tom Wolfe: The Doctrine That Never Died

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: The Doctrine That Never Died

Ah, yes, a missile. On the day in November 1961, when the Air Force achieved the first successful silo launching of an intercontinental ballistic missile, the SM-80, the Western Hemisphere part of the Monroe Doctrine ceased to mean anything at all - while the ideas behind it began to mean everything in the world.

At bottom, the notion of a sanctified Western Hemisphere depended upon its separation from the rest of the world by two vast oceans, making intrusions of any sort obvious. The ICBM's - soon the Soviet Union and other countries had theirs - shrank the world in a military sense. Then long-range jet aircraft, satellite telephones, television and the Internet all, in turn, did the job socially and commercially. By Mr. Bush's Inauguration Day, the Hemi in Hemisphere had long since vanished, leaving the Monroe Doctrine with - what? - nothing but a single sphere ... which is to say, the entire world.

For the mission - the messianic mission! - has never shrunk in the slightest ... which brings us back to the pretty preambles and the solemn rhetorical throat-clearing ... the parts always omitted from the textbooks as superfluous. "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one," President Bush said. He added, "From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth."

David Gelernter, the scientist and writer, argues that "Americanism" is a fundamentally religious notion shared by an incredibly varied population from every part of the globe and every conceivable background, all of whom feel that they have arrived, as Ronald Reagan put it, at a "shining city upon a hill." God knows how many of them just might agree with President Bush - and Theodore Roosevelt - that it is America's destiny and duty to bring that salvation to all mankind.


Thursday, January 27, 2005

Frank Rich: Forget Armor. All You Need Is Love

The New York Times > Arts > Frank Rich: Forget Armor. All You Need Is Love:

"JAN. 30 is here at last, and the light is at the end of the tunnel, again. By my estimate, Iraq's election day is the fifth time that American troops have been almost on their way home from an about-to-be pacified Iraq. The four other incipient V-I days were the liberation of Baghdad (April 9, 2003), President Bush's declaration that 'major combat operations have ended' (May 1, 2003), the arrest of Saddam Hussein (Dec. 14, 2003) and the handover of sovereignty to our puppet of choice, Ayad Allawi (June 28, 2004). And this isn't even counting the two 'decisive' battles for our nouveau Tet, Falluja. Iraq is Vietnam on speed - the false endings of that tragic decade re-enacted and compressed in jump cuts, a quagmire retooled for the MTV attention span. "

NYT: Washington Memo: Communicator in Chief Keeps the Focus on Iraq Positive

The New York Times > Washington > Washington Memo: Communicator in Chief Keeps the Focus on Iraq Positive:

Mr. Bush instead focused on his long-term goal of "ending tyranny in our world," and then cast the Iraqi election coming Sunday as part of a march of freedom around the globe. He said that if he had told the reporters in the room a few years before that the Iraqi people would be voting, "'you would look at me like some of you still look at me, with a kind of blank expression."

"You know, it is amazing, first of all, they're having a vote at all," Mr. Bush said in response to the first question, about whether he expected a big turnout in the Iraqi election. "A couple of years ago, people would have been puzzled by someone saying that the Iraqis will be given a chance to vote."

Puzzled is right. Because if you had said a few years ago that the Iraqis would be voting, we would say that could happen only one way. That could happen only if a country like us went in and conquered Iraq, and then we held elections because that is what you do when you bring freedom and democracy to people.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

What Would It Take?

So historians are going to judge Bush favorably for overthrowing Hussein and bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East. We'll see. He will be judged the worst president in the history of the United States because he is a war criminal. Historians have rated other presidents poorly because they have allowed corruption on their watch. No president in our history has ever committed out and out aggression, as this one has. No president has ever asked our brave soldiers to die in order to conquer and occupy another country. No president has ever killed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians on the flimsy argument that he knew what was good for them.

The famous saying from the Vietnam war was, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Now, after Fallujah, Najaf, Samarrah, and Baghdad itself, we have to say, "We had to destroy the country in order to save it." Nothing Bush says is trustworthy. Nothing he does now can restore our good reputation. Nothing but a change of leadership can do that, and we have rehired this broken down, dishonest, self-righteous and short-sighted man for another four years. My son wondered on the phone tonight whether Bush is well-intentioned but short-sighted, or just plain evil. I reminded him that my wife and his mother clearly thinks it's the latter. My son commented that it's probably somewhere in between.

I am past wondering about the man's motives, his make-up or his character. I just want him out of there. All you have to do is look at his actions, and the results of those actions, to see that he is a disaster. No person who understands our place of leadership in the world could approve of what he has done. No person who understands the proper grounds for a just war could think that this war is justified. And no person who understands the war we should be fighting against Al Qaeda can think that this war is worthwhile. The war in Iraq can only bring one bad consequence after another.

My wife was talking with my dad on the phone the other night. She asked, her voice rising a bit as it always does when addressing this subject, "What would it take for the Christian right to renounce Bush?" What could he do that he hasn't already done? He has invaded a country and wreaked untold damage as a result. Well, I thought I'd take this somewhat sarcastic question seriously. What would it take? I heard an evangelical leader on the radio today speak favorably of Bush, because Bush professes Jesus as his savior. What would Bush have to do to turn this leader's opinion around? What if he shot his mother in public? Would that do it? What if he began to imprison people like me for sedition? Would that do it? I had to conclude that the only unforgivable act, the only thing Bush could do to reverse the evangelicals' admiration for him, would be blasphemy. If Bush were to renounce Jesus as his savior, if he were to declare that Jesus was the Satan's emissary on earth, then the evangelicals might reconsider. Otherwise, they would overlook all of his acts, no matter how bad. They would find some reason to excuse his bad judgment, some grounds for approving of his policies. They already have.

If a Democrat like Kerry had gone to war in the Middle East on the same grounds cited by Bush, do you suppose the evangelical Christians would have approved of his action? Hardly. They might likely have called him the anti-Christ, and cited Revelation to prove that the war was another sign of the end times. Bush can do no wrong in their eyes. He speaks their language, and that's all that matters. Bush is sure that he is doing God's will, and they're sure that he is, too. But Bush's blindness, the atrocious consequences of his bad judgment, will make the country lose its preeminent position in the world. And Bush's supporters will blame Bush's enemies for the fall, not Bush himself. They'll blame traitors like me for not giving him the backing he needed during the country's hour of crisis. No matter how bad the results of Bush's actions, they won't see that he has done anything wrong. He can't do wrong, because he is God's instrument on earth.

In four years, other countries will pity the United States almost as much as they fear it. Well that's an exaggeration. It'll take longer than that. But it's going to be hard to watch China rise and the United States fall. I thought it would happen after I was dead, but it's going to happen while I'm around to see it. And March 19, 2003, is the date the process began. That's the date the war started, and that's the date that historians will look at when they analyze the actions of the worst president the United States ever had.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

The New York Times: At Senate Hearing, Rice Cites Progress in Training Iraq Forces

The New York Times > Washington > Foreign Relations: At Senate Hearing, Rice Cites Progress in Training Iraq Forces:

"The theme of Ms. Rice's opening statement was that history would favorably judge the Bush administration's struggle to expand freedom, particularly in the Muslim world, just as President Harry S. Truman is hailed by historians for laying the foundation of defeating Communism after World War II."

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Safire: Character Is Destiny

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Character Is Destiny

The British historian D. W. Brogan wrote 60 years ago that the unique achievement of Americans to form a continental nation - without sacrificing liberty or efficiency - led to the temper of the pioneer, the gambler and the booster: "the religion of economic and political optimism."

History has shown that U.S. optimism has not been misplaced. But what of reports of global griping at America's superpower arrogance - at our government's triumphalism? Has our character been warped by victories in three world wars?

Call me a chauvinist unilateralist, but I believe America's human and economic sacrifices for the advance of freedom abroad show our personal, political and national character to be stronger and better than ever. This moral advance will be more widely appreciated as an Islamic version of democracy takes root. (What's triumphalism without a triumph?)

It is that growing strength of national character - more than our individual genius or political leadership or military power - that ensures the future success of America and brightens the light of liberty's torch.

Saturday, January 08, 2005

Dow: Defining Victory Down

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Defining Victory Down

It's good to remember how our civil war started: with an election. The immediate cause of the war was Lincoln's election in 1860. South Carolina and the other states of the confederacy would not have seceded it Douglas or Buchanan had been elected. Scowcroft argues the same thing about Iraq: the election may be the last event before civil conflict gets much worse.

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

The New York Times > International > International Special > Powell, in Indonesia, Describes Scenes of Devastation

The New York Times > International > International Special > Powell, in Indonesia, Describes Scenes of Devastation

Not in this article, but in one published the day before, Powell said that he hopes our aid to Indonesia and other countries hit by the tsunamis would improve our image with the Muslim world. What would we have said if Goebbels had gone around on a good will tour after Czechoslovakia, saying that he hoped German aid would improve the Nazi's image in Eastern Europe? What would Churchill have said? I don't want to say that Powell is like Goebbels, or that Bush is like Hitler. I do want to say that the invasion of Iraq is a crime on the same scale as Hitler's move into the Sudetenland. Of course we'd like to improve our image. Every warlord and thug wants to have a good image with the people. But when will someone acknowledge that we are criminals here, that what we have done is a crime? Good people and good countries have reputations that stand on their own. Only people and countries who have done horrible things have to think about brushing up their images.