g r o t t o 1 1

Peeve Farm
Breeding peeves for show, not just to keep as pets
  Blog \Blôg\, n. [Jrg, fr. Jrg. "Web-log".
     See {Blogger, BlogSpot, LiveJournal}.]
     A stream-of-consciousness Web journal, containing
     links, commentary, and pointless drivel.


On My Blog Menu:

InstaPundit
USS Clueless
James Lileks
Little Green Footballs
As the Apple Turns
Entropicana
Cold Fury
Capitalist Lion
Red Letter Day
Eric S. Raymond
Tal G in Jerusalem
Secular Islam
Aziz Poonawalla
Corsair the Rational Pirate
.clue

« ? Blogging Brians # »





Book Plug:

Buy it and I get
money. I think.
BSD Mall




 10/6/2003 -  10/8/2003
 9/29/2003 -  10/5/2003
 9/22/2003 -  9/28/2003
 9/15/2003 -  9/21/2003
  9/8/2003 -  9/14/2003
  9/1/2003 -   9/7/2003
 8/25/2003 -  8/31/2003
 8/18/2003 -  8/24/2003
 8/11/2003 -  8/17/2003
  8/4/2003 -  8/10/2003
 7/28/2003 -   8/3/2003
 7/21/2003 -  7/27/2003
 7/14/2003 -  7/20/2003
  7/7/2003 -  7/13/2003
 6/30/2003 -   7/6/2003
 6/23/2003 -  6/29/2003
 6/16/2003 -  6/22/2003
  6/9/2003 -  6/15/2003
  6/2/2003 -   6/8/2003
 5/26/2003 -   6/1/2003
 5/19/2003 -  5/25/2003
 5/12/2003 -  5/18/2003
  5/5/2003 -  5/11/2003
 4/28/2003 -   5/4/2003
 4/21/2003 -  4/27/2003
 4/14/2003 -  4/20/2003
  4/7/2003 -  4/13/2003
 3/31/2003 -   4/6/2003
 3/24/2003 -  3/30/2003
 3/17/2003 -  3/23/2003
 3/10/2003 -  3/16/2003
  3/3/2003 -   3/9/2003
 2/24/2003 -   3/2/2003
 2/17/2003 -  2/23/2003
 2/10/2003 -  2/16/2003
  2/3/2003 -   2/9/2003
 1/27/2003 -   2/2/2003
 1/20/2003 -  1/26/2003
 1/13/2003 -  1/19/2003
  1/6/2003 -  1/12/2003
12/30/2002 -   1/5/2003
12/23/2002 - 12/29/2002
12/16/2002 - 12/22/2002
 12/9/2002 - 12/15/2002
 12/2/2002 -  12/8/2002
11/25/2002 -  12/1/2002
11/18/2002 - 11/24/2002
11/11/2002 - 11/17/2002
 11/4/2002 - 11/10/2002
10/28/2002 -  11/3/2002
10/21/2002 - 10/27/2002
10/14/2002 - 10/20/2002
 10/7/2002 - 10/13/2002
 9/30/2002 -  10/6/2002
 9/23/2002 -  9/29/2002
 9/16/2002 -  9/22/2002
  9/9/2002 -  9/15/2002
  9/2/2002 -   9/8/2002
 8/26/2002 -   9/1/2002
 8/19/2002 -  8/25/2002
 8/12/2002 -  8/18/2002
  8/5/2002 -  8/11/2002
 7/29/2002 -   8/4/2002
 7/22/2002 -  7/28/2002
 7/15/2002 -  7/21/2002
  7/8/2002 -  7/14/2002
  7/1/2002 -   7/7/2002
 6/24/2002 -  6/30/2002
 6/17/2002 -  6/23/2002
 6/10/2002 -  6/16/2002
  6/3/2002 -   6/9/2002
 5/27/2002 -   6/2/2002
 5/20/2002 -  5/26/2002
 5/13/2002 -  5/19/2002
  5/6/2002 -  5/12/2002
 4/29/2002 -   5/5/2002
 4/22/2002 -  4/28/2002
 4/15/2002 -  4/21/2002
  4/8/2002 -  4/14/2002
  4/1/2002 -   4/7/2002
 3/25/2002 -  3/31/2002
 3/18/2002 -  3/24/2002
 3/11/2002 -  3/17/2002
  3/4/2002 -  3/10/2002
 2/25/2002 -   3/3/2002
 2/18/2002 -  2/24/2002
 2/11/2002 -  2/17/2002
  2/4/2002 -  2/10/2002
 1/28/2002 -   2/3/2002
 1/21/2002 -  1/27/2002
 1/14/2002 -  1/20/2002
  1/7/2002 -  1/13/2002
12/31/2001 -   1/6/2002
12/24/2001 - 12/30/2001
12/17/2001 - 12/23/2001
Monday, February 3, 2003
15:24 - The Heart of the Matter

(top) link
Talk of the Nation today on NPR covered the current debate on the whole Iraq "thing"-- the European recalcitrance on a military action, America's general support of it (or at least the acceptance of a genuine debate and a division of opinions), and the reasons for the huge ideological split that apparently has remained relatively dormant for a number of years, only now to erupt into trans-Atlantic rhetorical posturing that sounds like a bunch of people angling to be the next Patrick Henrys or Neville Chamberlains, each one hoping his writings can boil everything down into an epiphany that will rally a sphere of minds regardless of which side it's on.

When I tuned in, there was a caller who sounded American, calling from Norway. He said that the general European position is simply that they can't possibly imagine how war could make the situation in the Middle East any better; as far as they're concerned, right or wrong, if we forcibly remove Saddam from power, he'll inevitably be replaced by someone just as bad, and there'll be extra resentment and animosity layered on top of it. The possibility that we would occupy the country and guide its further development into a friendly modern nation seemed beyond the realm of contemplation; of course that won't work, seemed the sentiment. (Whether this betrays some kind of feeling that "Well, they're all just destined to be third-world forever, and no amount of Western influence will be able to convince those people to change" is a question that remains to be clearly answered.) The guy seemed to think that it would be a much better solution to lift the sanctions on Iraq, and trade with them-- put money into the country through civilized means, which would reduce animosity and raise the nation's wealth and all that, without anybody having to fire a shot in anger. (I guess Saddam's history of invading his neighbors and developing WMDs even when the UN tells him not to is all just an irrelevant side issue-- it's all about poor innocent Iraq being unnecessarily punished for some bygone provincial affront.)

While the moderator was talking to this guy, he brought up an e-mail that someone had sent in. It contained the following adage:

Americans try to solve problems; Europeans try to live with problems.

I don't think many Americans would disagree with this sentiment; they'd happily stand under a banner with this statement printed on it in foot-high letters. But oddly enough, neither would the Europeans object to it, if the Norwegian caller's positive reaction to it is any indication. He thought it was perfectly valid, something Europeans could point to proudly. Each side can use the same statement as an illustration of the shortcomings of the other and a vindication of its own position.

Isn't that veird?

It certainly would explain a lot-- from Europe's WWII appeasement to today's desire to placate Saddam rather than overthrow him, while berating the Americans' "cowboy" politics; and from all the wars in America's history to today's desire to wipe out Islamic fundamentalist terrorism rather than figure out how to hide from it.

Americans who follow the Jacksonian model, as Steven Den Beste has repeatedly said, are "magnanimous in victory"-- rebuilding the countries we flatten, making them stronger than they were before, but only after thoroughly squashing them and putting them in their place. The Norwegian caller, though, wanted to be magnanimous in tactics-- before victory is even assured, to make a big show of being "nice guys", so that nobody could possibly hate us, so they'd feel bad about continuing to attack us or something. If they're building nuclear bombs, it must be because they sense a threat from us-- and so if we take on the omega role and lie on our backs and whimper, then the adversary will see no reason to become the alpha wolf and take advantage of the situation.

I personally don't see how that follows. Nature follows a pecking order for a reason, and if an alpha wolf steps down voluntarily instead of imposing his will, then someone else will step into the alpha role-- violently, more often than not-- rather than create the world's first vegetarian pack of comrade wolves.

A woman called shortly afterwards, identifying herself as a "politically naïve" stay-at-home mom, nervously stating the case that the US has become that which we were trying to get away from in our Revolution: a colonial power, trying to impose our will and our ideals on the rest of the world. "There is no right way," she said. "The world is full of different people with different ways, and they're all right." (Especially the ones that beat women for not wearing head scarves, right. I understand.) Her thesis was that (get ready, because there needs to be fanfare-- after she said it, the studio went silent and contemplative, like nobody had ever phrased it quite like this before): The US is a bully. "It has to be said," she gasped, triumphing over her neck-implants that inject patriotism-serum into her bloodstream. You'd think half the country's freeway traffic skidded off into the medians because all the listeners had let go of the steering wheel to clap.

Fortunately, the moderator and the guys in the studio had a response, right at the close of the hour. The guy who responded had this crucial thing to say: Just because an action is taken by a country that happens to be the world's most powerful body does not necessarily mean that that action is evil. That's right. Yeah, maybe the US is a bully. Maybe we do tell the rest of the world that they'd better fall into step with us or be treated as the enemy and crushed. But we would be pursuing the same goals and in the same way if we were the fifth or sixth largest power in the world as we're doing now that we're the largest, I believe; at any time, we could choose to start erecting statues and flying flags all over the world and asserting our imperial influence in every corner of the globe. But we're not doing that, and therein lies the difference between us as a global power leader, and certain other nations in history that aspired to that power. We don't goose-step and build concentration camps. We don't have political prisons. We haven't even built that oil pipeline through Afghanistan that so many people are convinced the war there was all about. We have doomsday bombs that can level megalopoli, but do we use them to enforce our global hegemony? No, we don't-- as a matter of fact, we spend billions of dollars developing weapons that can seek out a single person and fly through his window and kill him in his sleep, leaving even his bodyguards unhurt. No, we're not perfect-- we do make mistakes, but they're honest mistakes, things that occur in spite of our ideals, not as a result of them. If our only crime and our only evil is that we are big and powerful, well, quite frankly, I have a hard time seeing how the world could do any better.

Might does not make right; it's true. However, might does not make wrong, either. The world would do well to remember that.


Back to Top


© Brian Tiemann