Shorter Wordsworth:
I heard a thousand blended notes,
While in a grove I sate reclined,
In that sweet mood when pleasant thoughts
Bring sad thoughts to the mind.
To her fair works did Nature link
The human soul that through me ran;
And much it grieved my heart to think
What man has made of man.
The budding twigs spread out their fan,
To catch the breezy air;
And I must think, do all I can,
That there was pleasure there.
If this belief from heaven be sent,
If such be Nature's holy plan,
Have I not reason to lament
What man has made of man?
Elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia. Liberation in Lebanon. Democracy for Egypt. Birth pangs of freedom throughout the realm. Democracy on the march. Freedom advancing. Peace on Earth, goodwill to man. The Arab Spring.
Warlords, heroin, torture and rape. Assassination, death, the coming civil wars. Enabling the caliphate. Political parties and women oppressed. Sharia on the march. Islamists advancing. The hornet's nest. Hell on Earth. The Arab Spring.
I'm not sure which leaves a more sour taste in my mouth: The mocking "told ya so" triumphalists touting the Bush Doctrine as an overwhelming success, or the rapidly spinning Cassandras discrediting anything positive with doom and despair. The triumphalists have popped the corks well before halftime in a tight game with the outcome undecided. The Cassandras, unhappy with the way the game is being called, want to take their ball and go home.
Neoconservatism, especially its warmongering foreign policy arm and psuedo-fascist fan base, is the topic of keenest interest to me. I doubt any other issue will have a greater effect on the world in which my five year old daughter will spend adulthood. When that time comes, Dick Cheney thinks I'll be calling him a genius. I have my doubts, and even some hopes. I'm by nature an optimist with no use for Cassandras.
As a Christian, I find warmongering repulsive and contrary to the work of the cross. No warmongering Christians willing to pry their bibles from pursed buttcheeks, open them and read, dispensationally, verse by verse, in context and literally, can convince me otherwise (a few have tried and failed; a lesser few have even reconsidered). Within sound Christian doctrine, considering, as the bible dictates "the whole counsel of God's word," is there an argument for a just war? Sure. Does the current war qualify? God, no.
Christians eager to mold their otherworldly spirituality to worldly political movements undertake an enormous task that compromises their faith. It also has a long historical record of failure. It opposes the acceptance of prophecy, and gives us these power-thirsty, hypocritical Dominionists. Whether you believe or not, you must agree they hurt the cause of Christ, internally by compromise, and externally by driving so many away. That they've latched on to a war, partly opposed to another religion, makes matters worse and the war more difficult to prosecute. The widespread perception within Islam of a modern day Christian crusade guarantees further persecution of Christians and the advancement of Islamic governance. I "get this" because I'm also by nature a realist (understanding some secular readers will find the combination of Christian and realist absurd).
Ever since Ron Suskind's article created the "reality-based" meme, it's struck me odd that neoconservatives gladly labeled themselves something other than realists. Who openly admits to being at odds with reality? It's nuts. It's as if they conceded a huge point that I was furious about with a "so what." If you missed it, for review, Suskind revealed the following from a conversation with a White House aide:
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
From there the studious opposition happily accepted the mantle "reality-based." It still boggles the mind, but what can we do? Here we are in the Arab spring, left to study what they've done. Many of these reality-creating-through-reality-denying, empire-promoting, neocons are proudly asking, "Who's the realist now?" I think the only answer is... er... "still the realists, you foolish triumphalist."
Christopher "not quite a neocon yet" Hitchens, once said of neocons, "They're capable of dishonesty... They worship power... They're also brilliant." I agree with that as long as "brilliant" is kept in a "mad scientist" framework and acknowledges the haphazard bloodshed. In fairness, the manic triumphalism hasn't come from mainstream neocon pundits (that I've read). They have, for the most part, approached the Arab spring with realistic caution. It's their proles, blinded to the dishonesty, drunk with power and blood, and not so brilliant, who've claimed victory in the war debate based on events heralding Spring.
I've been cautious to pass judgement on these events, even cautious to wade into the discussion, because so much needs to come out, or not, in the wash.
Of course, deploying our military, overthrowing a tyrant, destroying his military, occupying a foreign land, killing tens of thousands of innocents, spending hundreds of billions, propping up a new government, and threatening the rest of the world with more of the same, is going to bring about changes. Any realist understood that.
I just have a hard time seeing 10,000 plus maimed young Americans and saying, "Look, Arafat died and the Palestinians elected a new leader willing to combat terror. Be proud, you helped with that." I have a difficult time looking at the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters of over 1500 dead Americans and saying, "Look, Hariri was assassinated, and with the help of the French we've driven Syria out of Lebanon, and they're demanding democracy. Your dead loved ones helped with that." Or take note Iraqis, the death of over 100,000 of your innocent loved ones, hasn't just bought your freedom, it has inspired quasi-liberty in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Realists will forever consider the costs and the means to the ends, the so far unknown ends in this debate.
Kevin Drum has rounded up two reality-based Political Animals, one from the left and one from the right, to discuss the Arab spring all week here.
That discussion is being based on the following loaded question: How much credit should Bush, or the invasion of Iraq, get for the positive developments in the region the last few months?
Below are seven opinions providing a baseline for the discussion.
It should be worth following, and I confess, I'm halfway rooting for "Dan Drezner from the right" to talk a little sense into all the Cassandras that comment at Kevin's place. If the conversation is tilted left, sorry, it has to be. The only way to have the conversation apart from neocons is to tilt moderately to the left and "judiciously study discernible reality," or join the Libertarian and Paleoconservative pacifists who cannot get past their doom and despair.
-- Zap
Comments