Interesting blog entry from A Yank in Oz:
Fri, 14 Feb 2003
Winning the battle.... As I've done every morning since 9/11, I turned on the television this AM to see if the terrorists had destroyed New York while I was sleeping. (The fact that I've had 519 consecutive mornings without a terrorist attack on New York has not made me dread the morning news any less.) This morning, on Australia's equivalent of "Good Morning America," I watched Hans Blix's Australian predecessor—former UNSCOM chief Richard Butler—decry the American rush to war in Iraq. Butler said (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here) that Iraq obviously has weapons of mass destruction, is clearly not cooperating with inspectors, and that no thinking person can believe otherwise... but that America's openly declared intention to invade Iraq, with or without UN endorsement, was a threat to the very framework of international law, and that Australians should be gravely concerned by the long-term consequences of that act.
Yesterday when I came home from work, I found this sign on the hair salon next door. I'm still trying to find the argument to convince me that war in Iraq is worse than the alternatives—I think we're already at war, so "no war" is pretty much off the table for me; the choice is either war in Iraq on our terms or war in Manhattan on their terms, and given those options I tend to prefer Iraq. The subtle distinctions between Saddam and Osama are shades of black in my moral palette: They're both wholly evil, and I can't find a compelling argument that says Western civilization would be improved by standing down our armies and leaving Saddam to his infernal devices.
I'm tempted to ask my neighbors to elaborate on their views, to see if maybe they can convince me otherwise (or vice versa), but I'm also acutely conscious of the need to uphold America's image while abroad, and I don't think I would improve that image by offering to debate my neighbors.
We're losing the f___ing propaganda war. Again.
My father is a very big man. Not big as in fat, or big as in Mr. Big, but big as in Paul Bunyan: He's 6'7", went to college on a track scholarship, held the local high school's shot-put record for almost two decades, and played center on the football team because he could snap the ball with one hand and block with the other. When he stands next to you, you experience the sensation of being nine years old again and having a grown-up towering overhead; when he reaches to shake hands, you experience an atavistic fear as you put your (suddenly pint-sized) hand into his giant paw.
And he is the calmest, gentlest, least violent soul I know. My mother says that she's seen him lose his temper once in their 35 years of marriage, and that was in a pick-up basketball game with an opponent who kept fouling him. I've never seen it myself. (Not for lack of effort during my teenage years, to be sure, but even when he was angry with us kids, he wasn't angry with us, if you know what I mean. He never lost his temper. Not once.)
You can see the analogy I'm making here, so I'll skip ahead: From overseas, George W. Bush's America looks less like a gentle giant and more like a large scary monster that smashes things. Even our closest allies are facing internal pressures to Do Something: Not about Iraq and Saddam, but about fire-breathing Amerizilla coming out of its cocoon. They perceive Saddam as an evil despot, but on the Threat Scale he's the neighborhood kid who plays with matches: You don't get involved until he threatens something of yours, and even then you just take his matches away. You don't take it upon yourself to punish the kid, and you certainly don't adopt the little brat.
America, meanwhile, is frighteningly big and muscular, could conquer the earth if it wanted, and has declared that you're either invading Iraq with us, or we'll add your name to the Axis of Evil and deal with you later. Small wonder that France, the prima donna of Western civilization, is not inspired to rally by our side; small wonder that German pacifism, which we've carefully sown for half a century, is bearing fruit all of a sudden. Small wonder that North Korea is acting like a giant puffer fish. Small wonder that Tony Blair and John Howard have to buck the will of their constituents to support us.
For all the good George W. Bush has done in the War on Terror (and I actually think he's done well in Afghanistan, certainly better than Gore or [shudder] Ralph Nader would have), he is killing us in the overseas propaganda war. Bill Clinton would have gotten support from France and Germany, because he would have quietly bought their support under the table: He would have guaranteed French oil interests, and hushed up German arms deals. Bush the Elder would have won support from France and Germany because he had every European leader on his Rolodex and did the hard work of personal diplomacy. Ronald Reagan would have won support from France and Germany because he had the charisma and the eloquence to make a direct appeal to their people.
Dubya has been doing the diplomatic equivalent of shoving France in the chest and saying "What's the matter, ya chicken? Bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk!" He is making it as difficult as possible for Jacques Chirac, or for Germany's Gerhard Schroder, to back down. He is trying to humiliate them—not out of emnity for France or Germany, but to embarrass Chirac and Schroder personally. Both men are from left-wing parties in their respective countries, and for Dubya's purposes it would be just dandy if they both happened to fall on their swords. If the UN and NATO take a hit in the process, so much the better: He can put the blame elsewhere, and the right wing's Tinfoil Hat Brigade fears the UN anyway. Jesse Helms would be proud.
But setting up Germany, France and the UN for a fall, however satisfying it may be for America's Jacksonians, hurts our long-term interests. We need France and Germany to back our play in Iraq—not because we need their military support, but because we need their goodwill for the post-war occupation. Iraq is going to turn out either like Japan or like Vietnam, and the Japan outcome requires a lot of multilateral support and cooperation. If post-war Iraq is perceived as an American show run for America's benefit, then our troops will be the only ones on the ground, and they're going to get truck-bombed a lot more often.
I don't want that.
Militarily, Iraq is a foregone conclusion: America will tear through Saddam's army like a tiger through wet kleenex. But Iraq is just a battlefield—and we're losing a broader propaganda war. The image we're projecting is not one of America standing up for freedom and facing down an Iraqi tyrant, but of America bullying the UN, making veiled threats to its would-be allies, ignoring international law unless it serves our purpose, and preparing to set up Iraq as an American puppet state. If we're going to achieve anything besides ridding the world of Saddam, we need to do a better job of making our case: We need to accept that our message is measured not only on its content, but on the tone and the manner of its delivery. We need to acknowledge that America's image abroad will greatly affect our ability to secure our nation against the threat of terrorism; we need to believe that America is held to a higher standard not by foreign malice or envy, but by the uniquely American claim on the world's moral conscience.
Most of all, we need to make our case for bringing democracy to Iraq—not as a bleeping side effect, but as the main goal of the exercise. We need to present our bold plan for peace and democracy in the Middle East, for giving a generation of Arab Muslims a vision of hope and opportunity, for ending the long, bitter nightmare of despair and failed states that extends from Libya to Pakistan and breeds terrorists in every dark alley. We need a Powell Plan for the Mideast to do what the Marshall Plan did for Europe, and we need it now. Until we make and deliver on that promise, our hopes for ever ending the war on terrorism are as barren as the desert soil.
At least, that's the way it looks from over here. We can defeat Iraq easily, and defeat them alone if need be—but winning the war on terrorism will require more than that, and as it stands we're losing the battle for even the grudging support of the average Australian. We can do better.
ravenna.com |
