Posted on 01/05/2004 8:01:28 AM PST by presidio9
At the end of the year we have much to be grateful for, and a fair amount to wonder about. For instance, the tenacity of some British critics of our whole undertaking in the Mideast, nicely identified in an essay by Mark Steyn in the Daily Telegraph. (Mr. Steyn writes widely, including for National Review.)
Looking back on British pessimism, he cites Simon Jenkins of the Times, whose column on March 28 was headed, "Baghdad Will Prove Impossible to Conquer." ("The coalition forces confront a city apparently determined on resistance. They should remember Napoleon in Moscow, Hitler in Stalingrad, the Russians at Grozny.")
Well, such is the nature of miscalculations. But miscalculations are generated not only by mangled strategic reckoning, but also by animus. Mr. Steyn refers unkindly to the "autopilot frothing of leftie vaudeville turns like Harold Pinter and George Galloway." Pinter on politics is simply Pinter astray with a perforated spleen, but what about such British eminences as (Sir) Max Hastings, the former editor of the Daily Telegraph?
"It is hard not to hate George Bush," Hastings wrote the other day. "His ignorance and conceit, his professed special relationship with God, invite revulsion. A few weeks ago, I heard a British diplomat observe sagely: 'We must not demonize Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.'" But "Why not?" Sir Max wants to know. Why not demonize demons?
"The U.S. defense secretary and his assistant have implemented coalition policy in Iraq in a fashion that makes Soviet behavior in Afghanistan in the l970s appear dextrous."
What is it about Wolfowitz that does such things to people? Steyn looks into the question: "Wolfowitz is a demonic figure to the anti-war types for little reason other than that his name begins with a big scary animal and ends Jewishly."
That's an irresistible turn on the question, but returning to an even bigger wolf, we have the cowboyphobia of Max Hastings. There is a hostile reaction to Bush-style, a revulsion for the way in which President Bush approaches matters.
Bush is the modern enemy of convolution. If there is an ambiguity alive in his system, it has resisted lifetime energies at extirpating it. It's true that we have reason to be suspicious of anyone who does not understand differences in approach, but it is also true that there comes a moment when the leader needs to be resolute, not equivocal. Churchill spoke of fighting "on the beaches...We shall never surrender."
Hastings et al. need to remind themselves that George W. Bush is a product of democratic processes, and that if his resolution were simply the fruit of genetic intellectual bigotry, he'd have been found out. American politicians, who need to make their way through public debates and journalistic interrogations, can't simply get away with apodictical speech. When Hastings wonders about Bush's "special relationship with God," he is caviling, really, at style rather than substance. Any leader who acknowledges God necessarily assumes for himself a subordinate position in human affairs. There is nothing in the catechism of Bush's relations to God that hasn't an equivalent in Abraham Lincoln's, except that Lincoln's language infused what he said with a kind of biblical nobility that put off such carpings as Sir Max's.
Consider an aspect of Bush's directness, which was his obiter dictum that Saddam should face execution. Well, Hastings opposes capital punishment. But in order to make that case, he wants to tie up Bush in OK Corral syntax. "Bush is a longstanding enthusiast for capital punishment, who believes there is nothing like a good hanging to purge the soul." So Hastings demands satisfaction from his end of the world. Why should Bush compromise Tony Blair, who opposes capital punishment, as most European moralists do? "If one believes judicial killing is wrong," Hastings asks, "then how is it possible to make exceptions?"
The answer to that predicament is — by making exceptions. Israel managed this in the case of Eichmann and lived to tell the tale. Ann Clwyd, a fire-eating Labor left-winger who nevertheless backed the war to give voice to protest against Saddam's butchery, opposes capital punishment but has spent time in Iraq and with hundreds of Iraqis, and is persuaded that Saddam's intermittent amnesties have generated a suspicion of sustained detention. If you are looking for an empirical reason to hang Saddam, it is to dissipate any public fear that one day he might be out on the streets with a jolly amnesty, free to begin it all over again.
The anti-Americanism of individual critics of U.S. policies is never unexpected, though it is disappointing that Hastings has arrived at his present position after serving ten years as editor of the Daily Telegraph. But the sharpness of his speech doesn't predict shaky U.S.-British foundations. The temptation of the sharp killer-phrase tends to get the better of many writers on both sides of the Atlantic, and there is no capital punishment in prospect for abusers, thank God.
Mr.Buckley seems to be improving since he left the tube.
"If one believes judicial killing is wrong," Hastings asks, "then how is it possible to make exceptions?"
The answer to that predicament is — by making exceptions."
Indeed, by making exceptions.
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 43 | Thailand | 50.00 |
1 |
50.00 |
7 |
7.14 |
|
|
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
""Wolfowitz is a demonic figure to the anti-war types for little reason other than that his name begins with a big scary animal and ends Jewishly."
This is a classic!
It is true, Conservative Jews scare Nuvo-Nazis to death.
Dang, I had to look that one up ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.