Taking a Step Back
One of Lincoln's better lines was something like this: "My friends are people who will defend me when I'm wrong. Anybody will defend me when I'm right."
A rich and subtle joke, but also a reminder of the importance of loyalty, and keeping in mind who will be on the right side in the end.
Now Rumsfeld reminds us that if there is a war between the U.S. and Saddam Hussein, sane people should all side with the U.S.: "He then turned the question back on the audience. 'There were prominent people from representative countries in this room that opined that they really didn't think it made a hell of a lot of difference who won,' Rumsfeld said, nearly shouting. 'Shocking. Absolutely shocking.'"
Well, if such statements made any sense at all, it would only be because some people, normally pro-American, doubted that the U.S. would take the same concern to assure stability, let alone liberalism or democracy, in Iraq that they do at home. It was at least possible that they would make war, de-stabilize the situation, and then leave. Such things have been known to happen. If it did happen, it would not necessarily be clear that things were better for Iraqi civilians, or the region, or indeed the U.S.
There is, I believe, a legitimate debate about whether the continued presence of U.S. troops makes things better or worse. Does it support the Iraqi (or Interim) Governing Council, and is the IGC still the best hope of establishing a new legitimate constitution and government? Or does it primarily provoke, inspire, and assist the insurgents?
Still, I for one believe the U.S. is making a considerable effort to establish a constitution, liberalism and even democracy. (These three are not the same--another confusion encouraged by the Bush administration). Obviously Saddam would not have done that, any more than Castro is doing so. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that is even likely to go to such trouble. As the only mega-power, it is presumably the only one that would decide to try. There is obviously something noble about all this. We might all worry that the giant is building a castle somewhere in the sky. We might worry about the debris that might fall on us. But he is a giant, in various ways, and he is building a castle, even if it is in the sky.
Why is there a temptation to feel schadenfreude, to enjoy the discomfort and suffering of Americans in Iraq? (Not, I hasten to add, uniformed personnel themselves). By now there is surely an element of "Lucretian" pleasure. Countries that are not directly involved have good reason to be relieved that they are not involved. This is different from actively wishing bad things to the U.S., but one can understand Rumsfeld identifying the two.
|
