One hoped by now that this incisive reporting, along with many other qualified commentators’ work, would have raised the general consciousness to a point similar in nature to Americans’ views during latterday Vietnam. But it hasn’t. Yes, more people disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war, but the sentiment hasn’t coalesced into a potent demand for an exit strategy. And so, like a deluded gambler at the craps table, deep in debt to loan sharks, America keeps playing, hoping for a winning roll. And having insisted to all who could listen that it was dedicated to victory, it finds itself unwilling to cut its losses before the situation turns into irreversible calamity, if it hasn’t already. It’s quite sad, really, this dedication to "winning."
It echoes Nixon’s shallow chant for an honorable end to the war. No doubt, after it’s apparent to even the most dedicated true believing Neocon that Iraq has become a hopeless cause, at least for the foreseeable future, the rhetoric for victory will evolve into a call for an honorable settlement. With Vietnam, one could still pretend there was honor involved, but since the Administration’s charade has become transparent by now to friends and foes alike, the word honor will ring hollow. Who knows? It may lose its place in the dictionary.
One of the most fascinating lessons during this misadventure has been to witness the legion of supporters, including much of the press, and hawkish folks like Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan, who still cling to their hopeless ideal of transforming a country and then a region largely but, granted, not unanimously dedicated to anti-secular, anti-materialist, anti-modernity, anti-Western values into a thriving democracy. If only the dice could come up 7. C’mon baby, letem roll.
Sullivan and others say, if only it had been done right, e.g., using more troops, we wouldn’t be in this mess. So they claim incompetence. In fact, if there’s a single cause for why this tragedy failed it’s the misperception on the part of the intellectuals planning it that to halt terrorism, democracy had to be spread like a panacea. But it wasn’t possible to spread democracy in Iraq with 300,000 troops or $300 trillion in grants. And Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations thesis was right under their nose when, nonetheless, they insisted that Arabia would now be prepared for democratic rule. This is intellectual omission of the highest rank. One of the best oddsmakers in the business proved the venture was prohibitive, but the Neocons didn’t back down, and wouldn’t admit their plan had already failed on paper before it ever got to the battlefield. For they had, like the deluded gambler, already won in their minds.
Forget the intelligence being right or wrong about WMDs, or terrorists cells in or out of prewar Iraq. The main intelligence failure was in not understanding human nature, and more particularly in not understanding democracy and its limited appeal in a world that still needs further evolution before embracing the spirit of freedom necessary to incubate homegrown democratic concepts. Democracy isn’t like butter; it can’t be spread. It’s like yeast; it takes time to grow.
Cheney recently chastised Russia for human rights’ abuses so someone at the White House must realize democracy doesn’t suddenly grow like a Chia pet. If Russia, which was groomed by European values for centuries, is having great difficulty in running a true democracy why would Iraq be able to do it overnight?
Let’s say, for a moment, that Arabia had developed a true democracy in about 1600, and aimed to impose it on the feudal West. Would the West, seized by a sudden vision of greatness, have summarily retired its prevailing values and leapt into a new age of Freedom? Never. Why would the Iraqis, behaviorally conditioned by otherworldly values and totalitarian politics, make that leap at this time? Because they were being pressured to do so by a gang of white collar bullies in the White House - many of the same people who humiliated them in 1991, penalized them with life-threatening sanctions, and dominated their air space for over 10 years? Many of them would sooner rot in squalor than lay down in defeat and accept an alien set of values. That’s not exclusively a mindset of Iraqis or Muslims or Arabia; it’s the way humans have behaved since crawling out of a cave.
If the bullies in Washington, and those crap shooters still hoping for victory, would recognize the true nature of democracy, they’d see it was a grand experiment, open to all sorts of ventures, many of them bound for failure. To those who still believe in the prospects of victory, realize there’s victory in admitting the failure of your ideals. Do us all a favor - indeed do humanity a favor and the halls of history a favor - explain to us diplomatically how you meant well in your endeavors, and even insist that aiming to spread democracy is an honorable ideal, and then admit your loss so we can pick up the pieces and move ahead. And if you need a little inspiration mull over Emerson’s brilliant aphorism: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Curing the Dreadful Addiction to "Victory"
One hoped by now that this incisive reporting, along with many other qualified commentators’ work, would have raised the general consciousness to a point similar in nature to Americans’ views during latterday Vietnam. But it hasn’t. Yes, more people disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war, but the sentiment hasn’t coalesced into a potent demand for an exit strategy. And so, like a deluded gambler at the craps table, deep in debt to loan sharks, America keeps playing, hoping for a winning roll. And having insisted to all who could listen that it was dedicated to victory, it finds itself unwilling to cut its losses before the situation turns into irreversible calamity, if it hasn’t already. It’s quite sad, really, this dedication to "winning."
It echoes Nixon’s shallow chant for an honorable end to the war. No doubt, after it’s apparent to even the most dedicated true believing Neocon that Iraq has become a hopeless cause, at least for the foreseeable future, the rhetoric for victory will evolve into a call for an honorable settlement. With Vietnam, one could still pretend there was honor involved, but since the Administration’s charade has become transparent by now to friends and foes alike, the word honor will ring hollow. Who knows? It may lose its place in the dictionary.
One of the most fascinating lessons during this misadventure has been to witness the legion of supporters, including much of the press, and hawkish folks like Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan, who still cling to their hopeless ideal of transforming a country and then a region largely but, granted, not unanimously dedicated to anti-secular, anti-materialist, anti-modernity, anti-Western values into a thriving democracy. If only the dice could come up 7. C’mon baby, letem roll.
Sullivan and others say, if only it had been done right, e.g., using more troops, we wouldn’t be in this mess. So they claim incompetence. In fact, if there’s a single cause for why this tragedy failed it’s the misperception on the part of the intellectuals planning it that to halt terrorism, democracy had to be spread like a panacea. But it wasn’t possible to spread democracy in Iraq with 300,000 troops or $300 trillion in grants. And Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations thesis was right under their nose when, nonetheless, they insisted that Arabia would now be prepared for democratic rule. This is intellectual omission of the highest rank. One of the best oddsmakers in the business proved the venture was prohibitive, but the Neocons didn’t back down, and wouldn’t admit their plan had already failed on paper before it ever got to the battlefield. For they had, like the deluded gambler, already won in their minds.
Forget the intelligence being right or wrong about WMDs, or terrorists cells in or out of prewar Iraq. The main intelligence failure was in not understanding human nature, and more particularly in not understanding democracy and its limited appeal in a world that still needs further evolution before embracing the spirit of freedom necessary to incubate homegrown democratic concepts. Democracy isn’t like butter; it can’t be spread. It’s like yeast; it takes time to grow.
Cheney recently chastised Russia for human rights’ abuses so someone at the White House must realize democracy doesn’t suddenly grow like a Chia pet. If Russia, which was groomed by European values for centuries, is having great difficulty in running a true democracy why would Iraq be able to do it overnight?
Let’s say, for a moment, that Arabia had developed a true democracy in about 1600, and aimed to impose it on the feudal West. Would the West, seized by a sudden vision of greatness, have summarily retired its prevailing values and leapt into a new age of Freedom? Never. Why would the Iraqis, behaviorally conditioned by otherworldly values and totalitarian politics, make that leap at this time? Because they were being pressured to do so by a gang of white collar bullies in the White House - many of the same people who humiliated them in 1991, penalized them with life-threatening sanctions, and dominated their air space for over 10 years? Many of them would sooner rot in squalor than lay down in defeat and accept an alien set of values. That’s not exclusively a mindset of Iraqis or Muslims or Arabia; it’s the way humans have behaved since crawling out of a cave.
If the bullies in Washington, and those crap shooters still hoping for victory, would recognize the true nature of democracy, they’d see it was a grand experiment, open to all sorts of ventures, many of them bound for failure. To those who still believe in the prospects of victory, realize there’s victory in admitting the failure of your ideals. Do us all a favor - indeed do humanity a favor and the halls of history a favor - explain to us diplomatically how you meant well in your endeavors, and even insist that aiming to spread democracy is an honorable ideal, and then admit your loss so we can pick up the pieces and move ahead. And if you need a little inspiration mull over Emerson’s brilliant aphorism: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."