The
Bully Syndrome
Exclusive commentary by Greg Lewis / WashingtonDispatch.com
March 25, 2003
It is still amazing — and not a little bit repugnant
— to think of the diplomatic shenanigans our President has felt
it necessary to go through in order to get the United States to the place
where it feels justified in the eyes of the "international community"
in launching a so-called "pre-emptive" strike against Iraq.
(Even the language favored in the public discourse — in this case
"pre-emptive," which has about it the taint associated with
a sneak attack — skews the debate toward the liberal/critical point-of-view.)
In an important sense it boils down to this: U.S. diplomats have been
working overtime to try and convince the world that the United States
is not a bully.
Diplomatic intricacies aside, the costs involved in negotiating
the world's good will border on the astronomical. Until its parliament
balked by default, Turkey was poised to extort some US$ 26 billion for
the use of its territory as a launching point for American ground troops.
Chirac's losing favor with his soon-to-be-deposed despot buddy, Saddam
Hussein, figured to be a bit trickier, but what's US$ 30 billion in oil
contracts among weasels? (One recalls the old joke whose punchline is:
We've already established what you are, we're just haggling over the price.)
President Bush — at the potential risk of the lives of American
troops and the image of the United States in the world — has engaged
in this charade for more than six months, while supporters of a quick
resolution to the situation, including some of the President's own advisors,
have champed at the bit. Bush has, for reasons I can only ascribe to the
unshakeable principles of a moral man, truly exhausted all non-military
options in trying to resolve this impasse.
Lost in the immediacy of the recently initiated military
action is the fact that these days the Left, always haggling over price
and always in the dark about who the real bullies are, is having increasing
difficulty figuring out which murderous dictators to support and which
to revile. Not only that, when they find one to support — in this
case Saddam Hussein — they can't quite figure out how to do it.
Peter Jennings, in a breathtakingly illogical and contradictory piece
of journalistic commentary, asserted late last week that the Iraqi people
have good reason to hate America because "the United States [has]
enabled Saddam Hussein to stay in power."
It doesn't much matter who America sides with or who it
wages war against, it's always going to be the wrong guy as far as the
Peter Jenningses of the world are concerned. In the 1950s, '60s, and '70s
it was easy: Communism was the enemy of the United States and therefore
the friend of the Left. From Che Guevara to Ho Chi Minh, from Chairman
Mao to Pol Pot, the more despicable and murderous the autocrat the better
as far as the Left was concerned. Today the Left is even willing to overlook
the fact that you might be of suspect race or ethnicity as long as you're
an anti-American activist. That, of course, leaves Miguel Estrada and
Clarence Thomas out in the cold, despite their racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Perhaps President Bush is paying obeisance to a world
order that even he realizes is out of date, a world order built on the
assumption that, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
heads of state are all, somehow, at bottom, men of good will, you know,
and that good sense will prevail, and those intractable Baathists will
come 'round, you know, chaps, the way reasoning men must . . .
Our President has spent the past half year trying to negotiate
away the United States' undeserved image as a bully. We've got an economy
which is an order of magnitude larger than that of any other country in
the world; we've got the only serious military force on the planet; and
we've got the courage of our convictions (at least since George W. Bush
has been in office) that defending a system of government which supports,
nay encourages, the rights of citizens of all colors, ethnicities, and
religious beliefs to be free to pursue their dreams, to better themselves,
and to create opportunities for their children is worthwhile, not to say
desirable. We are willing to back up, with all the moral and military
might we can muster, the understanding that once oppressed people around
the world get a sense of what this type of freedom means, they will understand
what we're talking about and will want what we have for themselves.
Oh, and if you decide to get together with your top advisors,
we can arrange to have a half dozen Cruise missiles coming through the
back window of your bunker just about the time you're clearing your throat
and getting ready to call the meeting to order. To which I say, Bully
for the United States!
|