There was some excuse for the anarchy that broke out immediately upon the liberation of Iraq. We didn’t want to look like an imperial power or an occupier; and some of the pent-up frustration after decades of tyranny was probably foolish to try and restrain. But a month later, those excuses are wearing thin. I’m told that new troops are arriving daily. I know that it will take time to find a credible new government able to represent all the myriad factions in the country. But chaos is still chaos; and anarchy, as Hobbes understood, is an evil that undermines even the posibility of a civil space. This quote today from the Washington Post is worrying:
“We’re glad to hear what Mr. Bush is saying about the future, but the future is a long time. We want the present,” said Mustafa As Badar, an executive at an oil drilling company. “We want them to handle this like Americans.”
Exactly. Iraq needs order. We’ll get criticized for being too heavy-handed whatever we do. So why aren’t American troops in large numbers being deployed to keep the peace, restore order and exercise credible authority? If we do not show our commitment now to the country, what message are we sending a future Iraqi government about our commitment to a stable and long-lasting democracy?
BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: “I feel far more vulnerable and frightened than I ever have in my 50 years on the planet. It is the United States government I am afraid of. Meanwhile, here in our great democracy, Americans go along with the program or remain silent, too afraid of the Muslim bogeymen thousands of miles away to recognize the Christian ones in our midst. Fearful that we will be verbally attacked, or shunned, or lose our livelihoods if we dare question the meanness that characterizes our government and, increasingly, defines our national character. I do not feel safer now than I did six, or 12, or 24 months ago. In fact, I feel far more vulnerable and frightened than I ever have in my 50 years on the planet. It is the United States government I am af raid of. In less than two years the Bush administration has used the attacks of 9/11 to manipulate our fear of terrorism and desire for revenge into a blank check to blatantly pursue imperialist objectives internationally and to begin the rollback of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and most of the advances of the 20th century.” – Jill Nelson, MSNBC.
BUSH AND BLAIR:- Some insight from Peter Stothard, who has observed the two men working up close together. Money graf:
To watch Bill Clinton and Tony Blair together was to watch two men who would talk together, closely, intensely, for hours. Bill Clinton engaged instinctively with that liquid part of Tony Blair’s intelligence that is seeking new policy, new answers. But certainty was not part of that process. The fluid never froze. The Third Way never was. George Bush and Tony Blair speak in a different way, more like businessmen doing a deal, keeping a certain distance. Both reached the same conclusion after the attacks of September 11: that terrorism, terrorist weapons of mass destruction and terrorist states were linked. Once they had agreed that single point it was a fixed point.
Hence the bond. Hence the war. In retrospect, we were lucky to have both of them.
THERAPY AND LIBERALISM:- “There is a nasty strain of therapeutic liberalism which tries to impose its righteousness by dismissing opponents as ‘sick’ or in the hands of some compulsion. The e-mail you quote is a good example. Consider the lifestyle of Winston Churchill. He began the day in bed with a scotch and soda, then consumed a bottle of champagne for lunch followed by several double brandies. He drank beer in the afternoon, then repeated the lunch intake at dinner, before moving on to the port. He sipped Johnny Walker Red during the evening while he wrote his ‘prayers’ (‘pray explain…’). He was willing to take this policy to extremes. At a lunch with Ibn Saud, where alcohol and tobacco were barred for religious reasons, Churchill refused to comply, advising the King ‘my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after, and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them.’ I’ve never seen an accounting of Churchill’s alcohol intake, but if you add up what is admitted in various biographies, he had to be drinking the equivalent of a bottle of scotch or more a day. He also chain-smoked and gambled beyond his means. Like Bill Bennett, he defended his behaviour…’I’ve taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.’ Hitler would have agreed.” – all shades of reader opinion on Bill Bennett and gambling and virtue, on the Letters Page.
FISH AND PAIN: Can they feel it? New research suggests that fishing causes genuine, if short-lived, pain to the fish. Does this change the ethics of angling? I wouldn’t think so. Is pain even something we can talk about across species? I’d say it is. More grist for Matthew Scully. And more guilt for conflicted meat-eaters like yours truly.
EURO-ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH:- The “father” of the House of Commons, i.e. its longest-standing member, reiterates his view that a Jewish cabal has too much power in Washington:
The Labour MP Tam Dalyell yesterday scornfully brushed aside accusations of anti-semitism but stood by the allegation that has landed him in political trouble, that “there is far too much Jewish influence in the United States” and one over-influential Jew in Tony Blair’s entourage… “The cabal I referred to was American,” [he added] and named seven hawkish advisers to President George Bush – six of them Jewish – as urging a strike against Syria. “It’s the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs combined with neo-Christian fundamentalists. I think a lot of it is Likudnik, Mr Sharon’s agenda, and when it comes to an attack on Syria this is a very serious matter.”
What “attack on Syria?”
CHOMSKY ON FRODO: It’s a post-modern take on the Lord of the Rings. Enjoy.
REPUBLICAN HUBRIS WATCH: A reader emails:
“I was visiting relatives in Des Moines, Iowa, this past weekend. I noticed in several different neighborhoods the following yard sign: ‘I stand with President George W. Bush and our Troops.’ This is, as far as I can tell, an official GOP yard sign. I saw it in many different yards, and I saw it plastered to the front window of the GOP headquarters downtown. The coloring and lettering are identical to the official ‘President Bush’ bumperstickers I’ve seen. If that’s not hubris and an attempt to politicize the military, I don’t know what is. The implication is clear: those who support Bush support the troops, and those who don’t support Bush don’t support the troops. If that is the GOP message for 2004, hubris is truly ascendant.”
Is this an official sign? If it is, it does strike me as pushing the limits.
UPDATE ON THE SOCIAL RIGHT:- Since I wrote early yesterday afternoon that very few theocon
s or social conservatives had criticized Bennett, many of them have. I’m sorry I hadn’t read Jonah Goldberg’s piece when I wrote that, but reading it later, its criticism of Bennett is so slight it would be easy to have missed. But now Rod Dreher, Ramesh Ponnuru, James Dobson, those perpetually Concerned Women of America, among others, have all added their two mildly censorious cents. Good for their consistency. Dobson’s lugubrious absolution is a particularly fine specimen.- The other defenses, mixed with criticism, strike me as fair enough. I don’t think my own position, pace Ramesh, is that far off theirs’ either. I defend Bennett’s right to privacy; I don’t think he’s done anything seriously wrong; he’s not a hypocrite; but he’d be in a stronger position if he hadn’t set himself up as the millionaire arbiter and promoter of virtue. But on this last theme, Ramesh makes a good point: there’s something slippery about this idea of a general moralizer. It blurs all sorts of distinctions. Is it possible, for example, to be a social conservative in one respect and not another? Could you coherently, say, smoke pot and yet also think divorce is not something that should be too easy to get? Or believe that honesty is critical in public life and yet be a big-time gambler? I’d say yes. Unfortunately, Bennett’s public persona is about the most vulnerable there is in this respect. He set himself up as Mr Virtue and made a fortune out of it. I still think it’s a bum rap; but you can see how he made himself a pretty easy target for this kind of thing.
QUOTE FOR THE DAY:- “Who the hell are these people? Is it a public broadcasting corporation? Everyone knows how ghastly and biased their coverage was.” – Tory leader, Iain Duncan-Smith, on the BBC.
EGGING GALLOWAY:- Some people demonstrate their disregard for the traitor. Still amazing to me that this story was buried in the American press.
LEO-CONS:- Nice of the New York Times to have found a photograph of me when I looked about 17 to plug into their chart of alleged Leo-cons, a cabal centered around the teachings of Leo Strauss. This idea crops up every few years or so. The average Guardian writer thinks he has stumbled across something truly sinister when he finds out that a bunch of Washington types all studied political philosophy from “Straussians.” So what? Bill Kristol and I were lucky enough to learn vast amounts from Harvey Mansfield at Harvard. Does that mean we agree about everything? Of course not. Does it mean we adhere to the same political philosophy in its entirety? C’mon. Try another angle.
REVERSING CIRCUMCISION:- An angle I hadn’t thought of. And a point that’s worth repeating:
Reiss says that if you want to experience the difference in sensation on the glans (or head) of the penis when you have the protection of the foreskin, you can conduct a test. Lightly rub a finger down the palm of your hand, and then rub it in the same fashion on the upper side of the hand. The difference in sensation is the difference circumcised and uncircumcised men feel on the head of their penis, he says.
Don’t you think that’s a difference people should actually be able to consent to?
The Dish 