The Peter Principles: Hypocrisy in wartime
By Peter Roff
United Press International
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
Published 3/24/2003 9:20 PM
View printer-friendly version
WASHINGTON, March 24 (UPI) -- The second Gulf War was just hours old before French President Jacques Chirac began his demands. The United Nations, he insisted, should be put in charge of the effort to rebuild Iraq after the war ends, supplanting the British and Americans.
This is, after all, the same United Nations that, with France in the lead, did all it could to cripple the march to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein before it could begin.
Who does this really surprise?
Chirac would not let a drop of French blood be spilled in this war to liberate the Iraqi people. The Americans and the British and the other members of the "coalition of the willing" approach Baghdad as liberators, not conquerors. Chirac, on the other hand, has simply cut to the head of the line demanding France's share of the spoils of war once it ends.
So much for the sophisticated European way of doing things.
For whatever reason, French pride or commercial concerns or something else, the Elysee Palace did all it could short of joining with Iraq under arms to frustrate allied efforts to permanently remove the threat posed by Saddam's regime and its potential to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction.
The French hypocrisy in this matter stinks like so much moldy old Roquefort. The French resistance -- ah, for the time when that phrase meant something very different -- likely arises out of their vision for the "new Europe" as it does their extensive and long-established commercial ties to Baghdad.
Under the evolving plan, Europe would be run from Brussels but would be positioned along the Paris-Berlin axis (as opposed to the Vichy-Berlin axis). The new Europe exists alongside the United States, not as an ally but as a competing economic and, eventually, military power.
In this Europe, which would no longer be dependent on the United States to ultimately safeguard its security and sovereignty, Great Britain, Spain, Poland, Italy, and other proud and significant nations would all have to take a back seat to the Franco-German agenda.
Someone once said, "What's good for General Motors is good for America." That may or may not be the case. It is clear that what is good for France may not be good for Europe and, more to the point, what is good for Europe may not be what is good for France.
To most of the world, the French hypocrisy is obvious, making it easy to ridicule and much less threatening. There are other hypocrisies, however, that are much more subtle and therefore much more pernicious.
In the United States, what passes for hypocrisy is the notion that government leaders and other public persona who did not serve in the U.S. Armed Forces in combat in wartime lack the moral authority to order troops into battle of to suggest the wisdom of such a move.
These leaders and opinion makers, known colloquially as "Chickenhawks" -- meaning those who were afraid to serve but have no reservations about insisting that others do so -- are a favorite target of the anti-war left. The authority or legitimacy to support armed conflict is continually and openly questioned.
The point is worthy of some exploration, if only to dismiss it as being without merit. It is an ideologically driven attempt to score political points. Most of those who authority is being questioned are Republicans and conservative; those doing the questioning are mostly liberals and Democrats. This is the first hypocrisy.
The complaint might have more merit were it not for the willingness of those making it to overlook the spotty record of the last Democrat to be president on such matters. Recall that he who engaged in tortured logic, deception and sophistry to avoid service in Vietnam was nevertheless rather aggressive in his use of U.S. military power during his eight years in the White House.
That president's failure to honor his obligations is largely overlooked because it is in the political interests of his supporters to dismiss it, just as it may be in the political interests of his opponents to keep it alive.
In part though, the tactic succeeds because the elite culture that molds opinion in most of the media and the academy still react with screaming disapproval to that unpopular but necessary war.
It is this same enduring post-Vietnam hangover that has led some to the second hypocrisy, uttered anytime anti-war politicians open their mouths to proclaim "support for the troops" despite their opposition to the conflict in which those same troops are engaged.
What, exactly, does that mean?
Does it mean that soldiers will get a "Welcome Home" parade when the war is over rather than being spat upon, as they were when they returned from Vietnam?
Or does it mean that very junior White House aides of the future will return a smile and a greeting rather than admonish a senior U.S. military officer that we don't talk to your kind, as is reported to have occurred in the early days of the Clinton administration?
Does it mean that, in counterpoint to the position that has governed since the Nuremberg war crimes trials, that soldiers will not be held accountable for their actions because they are, after all, just following orders?
Or does it mean that the politicians will mute their criticism of a war they believe is unnecessary or unjust so that the folks back home will not get the right idea and vote them out of office because they are, in fact, contemptuous of the U.S. military?
This is the ultimate hypocrisy; with so many faces it is difficult to see the whole thing in one viewing. In essence, politicians who oppose the war for principled yet political purposes are modifying their views and their rhetoric because of political considerations. And they are modifying those principles yet again in an effort to escape political damage.
It brings to mind those politicians in the 1980s who would say with equal firmness that they were personally opposed to abortion but would not vote to make it illegal because their personal views should not dictate their public positions. A politician who cannot vote the courage of their personal convictions because of political pressure should not be permitted the honor of high office in the United States.
This is not a fresh approach to a political crisis; it is, however, a very French approach.
upi.com |
