.
Why do Americans who talk about freedom and democracy
rely on coercion?
The political left is all for coercion against the
rich. Freedom and democracy mean taking the rich`s money
and giving it to those who have a “right” to it.
For
conservatives, freedom and democracy issue forth
from the barrels of our guns. National Review `s
cover (May 3) proclaims: “To the Death, Crushing
the insurgency, saving Iraq.” The magazine`s
“conservative” editors are too serious to see the irony,
but polls show that Americans are appalled at the
growing carnage.
An April 28 CBS/New York Times poll found “just
32%, the lowest number ever, say Iraq was a threat that
required immediate military action a year ago.” [Poll: Growing Doubts On Iraq, CBS News, April
28] A majority of Americans now say the invasion was a
mistake.
I remember when conservatives complained about people
like Hitler and Stalin, who were good at crushing
people. Now conservatives have the spirit themselves.
In a series of articles in the May 3 issue,
National Review `s writers show off their
new face. Leading off with his plan for gaining
legitimacy in Iraq, John O`Sullivan writes:
“Our first tasks now must be to crush the rebellions,
punish the al-Sadr types, and disband the militias.
Ceasefires must be conducted in ways that dispel any
impression of weakness. If threats are made–like the
threat to kill or capture al-Sadr–they must be carried
out. In general the U.S. must not only win but also be
seen to win.”
All this bloodshed, however, is insufficient to solve
“the underlying problem,” which is, O`Sullivan writes,
“that Iraq is too divided to be a fully sovereign
democracy.” Solving that problem will require
“several decades”as a
US colony, and “during this long period the most
important politician in Iraq will be the US ambassador.”
How many Iraqis would be left after decades of being
killed and crushed.? Not to worry. In the next article,
David Pryce-Jones writes: “For
as long as anyone can remember, Iraq has been in the
hands of some thug whose will is the only law.”
Having rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, the secret of success
is to retain his methods. In the hands of our thugs,
Iraqis are better off, Pryce-Jones writes, because we
have good intentions for crushing them.
To achieve our good intentions, however, we have
“no choice except to work through the custom inherent in
absolute rule. “ What is this custom? Pryce-Jones`
answer: “Superior and exemplary force alone can prove
that the political and military leadership of the
coalition has confidence in its goals, and the strength
to carry them through.”
“Liberals in the West,” complains Pryce-Jones,
object to the proper way of handling our new colonial
subjects, because liberals are “ignorant about the
harsh imperatives of absolutism.” To help liberals
understand that the harsh imperatives of absolutism lead
to freedom and democracy, Pryce-Jones quotes the great
admirer of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville,
who was told by French officers in the front line in
Algeria in 1841: “Only force and terror, my dear
sirs, work with those [Muslim] fellows.”
As for al-Sadr, writes Pryce-Jones, the US should
take its cue from Stalin: “No man, no problem.”
We must do no less than Saddam Hussein, who “would
have arrested Moqtada al-Sadr and shot him, as he shot
the ayatollah`s father and other members of the family.”
For goodness sake, Pryce-Jones exclaims, we mustn`t sit
around and let “those seeking power” [not us of
course] “believe that victory is theirs for the taking”
just because we don`t exercise the harsh imperatives of
absolutism. Don`t Americans understand that the ends
justify the means?
Next, Michael Rubin assures the faint-hearted that
Iraqis want the US to be forceful like Saddam Hussein
and stop acting like wimps. The Iraqi people don`t want
American troops to leave, he claims. Iraqis are upset
with us “because American calls for more UN
involvement or for outright withdrawal do little but
project weakness.” Iraqis, Rubin tells us, “watch
with disbelief” as we project weakness instead of
acting like men and exercising the harsh imperatives of
absolutism.
Richard Lowry writes that the US need not worry,
because we have
“the Marines who will fight in Fallujah and elsewhere in
Iraq.” Unlike weak-kneed politicians, Marines
aren`t afflicted with doubts, because Marines accept
“an absolute and unquestioning submission to authority”
and can be relied on to do as they are told.
Lowry sees the Borg as the conservative
future. He romanticizes the training process, which
teaches an 18-year old kid to speak of himself in the
third person and turns him into an automaton whose
identity becomes the unit.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan disagrees with
National Review `s plan. He says, “Violent
military action by an occupying power against
inhabitants of an occupied country will only make
matters worse.” Obviously, Annan doesn`t understand
the harsh imperatives of absolutism, which is why the UN
must be kept out of the picture.
The Bush administration maintains that the only
Iraqis who oppose our occupation are “thugs and
criminals.” According to a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup
Poll, that is most of Iraq: 71% of Iraqis see the US as
an occupier (81% if Kurds are excluded), not as a
liberator, and the majority want us to leave.
Who do you believe, gentle reader, National Review`s
writers or the polls?
COPYRIGHT CREATORS
SYNDICATE, INC.
Paul
Craig Roberts was Associate Editor of the WSJ editorial
page, 1978-80, and columnist for “Political Economy.”
During 1981-82 he was Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury for Economic Policy. He is the author of
Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider`s Account of
Policymaking in Washington.
