Back in the 1980s, California Senator Alan Cranston was always
threatening to run for President, but the rap on him was that he
lacked charisma. It got to the point where every segment of media
coverage recycled this cliche. Finally, Cranston blurted in
exasperation: "Charisma is overrated." When George W. Bush was
vying for the Presidency, the ubiquitous charge was that he lacked
gravitas. After watching the Iraq Study Group pontificate upon the
issues of the day, I echo Cranston: "Gravitas is overrated."
But let us not, as the esquires say, engage in personalities --
if only because we have amply punctured their pomposity in previous
columns. And while we're not at it, let us not engage the substance
of their recommendations, these having been scourged here and
elsewhere for shortsightedness, wrong-headedness, tone-deafness and
spinelessness, not to mention empty-handedness.
Let us rather examine the gestalt, the scheme of things, the
larger picture, the sociology and psychology and anthropology, the
ontology and the epistemology. Something big is happening here,
something in the moral realm, and we dare not stand silent. We must
fight the War on Error with what valiance we can muster.
Here is a place to start: who is the most resented classmate in
grade school? First place in that category is a tie between two
types. One is the person whose advantages, in strength or money or
looks, are not earned, but who uses his edge to lord it over
others. The second is the goody-two-shoes who worked hard for
scholastic attainment but now acts like an officious know-it-all or
a sanctimonious holier-than-thou.
A person who graciously avoids falling into the first trap often
becomes complacent about the second. The Bible spells this out
magnificently in the space of a few short sentences. The Book of
Exodus (2:11-14) tells (my translation): "Moses grew up and went
out to his brethren to see their toil. There he saw an Egyptian
attacking a Hebrew...so he killed the Egyptian, burying him in the
sand. When he went out the next day, there were two Jews fighting,
so he told the aggressor, 'Why would you hit your friend?' He said:
'Who made you a governor and judge over us? Are you saying you'll
kill me like you killed the Egyptian?' Then Moses was
apprehensive..."
Go on, tell me that doesn't blow your mind. This is a stunningly
precise depiction of our condition in Iraq.
Moses was rich and powerful, adopted grandson of Pharaoh, living
in the royal palace. He could have complacently kept his seat in
the ruling elite, but he chose to help the underdog escape tyranny.
Once he proved he was not a snobbish bully, he assumed he had the
political capital to issue moral directives to the infighting
victim class. Wrong! He not only met resentment, he even got to
hear a hint of ingratitude for yesterday's rescue. Despite being
downtrodden, despite lacking alternate saviors, they were still
touchy about being subjected to moralizing. They were wrong and he
was right, but the story shines a light on the vagaries of human
nature.
We are at this exact spot in Iraq. The United States was the
world's only superpower and its wealthiest nation. It could easily
have chosen the paths of imperialism or isolation. Instead it
liberated Iraq from the clutches of a despot. There was no attempt
to annex land or oil rights. The U.S. taxpayer paid the tab based
on an abstract conception that a more secure global equation might
emerge. We saw clearly, as did Moses, that a brutalized people can
only recover if they abjure violence among themselves as a tactic
for advancement.
Yet when we deliver that message, one geared to their
self-interest, we are denounced as hectors. Who made us a governor
or judge over them? They have the right to bash each other bloody
if they choose. They have unresolved tribal clashes and family
feuds; nothing like a little anarchic interlude to wreak havoc and
see who is left standing when the dust settles. American liberals,
decadent Europeans, all the usual disaffected suspects who abhor
the least hint of a moral imperative, join the chorus with glee.
And there we are, with Moses as excellent company, lorn in our
puzzlement: weren't we the good guys?
Would that the Study Group brought some nostrum to the rostrum,
but their approach is more panic than panacea. The problem is as
intractable as human nature itself, subject to mankind's foible of
placing pride before enlightened self-interest. The only way to
handle the brickbats is to beat them back where possible and ignore
them where necessary. All the king's horses and all the king's men
cannot put Iraq together if it does not want to be; but we will
stay our course and hopefully they will right their course. In the
meantime, as Rodgers and Hart wrote, we sit uneasy in our easy
chair.
topics:
Iraq, NATO, Oil
