NO MORE DOUBLE STANDARDS

Here’s an email that strikes me as representative of most Americans:

“Andrew, you know I’ve never really liked this war and my disgust for George Bush and his planning for this war is immeasurable. However, I agree with your piece “Insane Spin.” I am still fuming about the beheading of Nick Berg, and people throughout the world need to understand the contrasting images of that situation and the Abu Ghraib prison fiasco. The world needs to understand that we will get to the bottom of this problem no matter where it leads. In contrast, al Qaeda and it’s murderers flaunt this type of cruelty because they believe it will make Americans run away. In fact, it pisses us off and this type of crap needs to shown to the American people so that we all know who we are dealing with.”

Let’s start an internet campaign to insist that the major media – including the New Yorker, the networks, the major newsweeklies, and every major paper – run a picture of Zarqawi holding up Nick Berg’s severed head. It’s time to release the Pearl video and stills too. Enough with the double standards. The media were absolutely right to show the abuse photos. But they are only part of the story. It’s about time the media gave us all of it, however harrowing it is.

AN INSANE SPIN

How are the media this stupid? AOL headlines: “Abuse Scandal’s Deadly Fallout” referring to the hideous beheading of Nick Berg. Or this idiocy: “American Beheaded for Abuse.” Do these people have no memories? This is al Qaeda. They beheaded Daniel Pearl long before the war in Iraq. They murdered thousands in New York City long before Saddam was removed from power. And they are as stupid as they are evil. Iraqis now have contrasting images. Do they want to be run by people who cut innocent people’s throats at will or by people who have removed a dictator and are investigating unethical abuse of prison inmates? Zarqawi has now done something for our morale as well as his. He has reminded us of the real enemy; and he has reminded the Iraqis. One simple question: will CNN now show these video stills? I know it must be torment for the family. But if we are in a propaganda war, as we are, we need to be as ruthless in publicizing the murders committed by our enemy as we are in exposing the abuses committed by our own.

EMAIL OF THE DAY

“I am a church-attending Roman Catholic and my political stand is that the Supreme Court should reverse Roe vs Wade and return abortion law to the pre-1973 condition. Does this mean my bishop should direct my parish priest to turn me away from communion?
Permit me to explain. From a political standpoint, reversing Roe vs Wade (or advocating that conservative justices be appointed to effect that change) is a pretty firm pro-life position. From a Catholic Church standpoint, anything short of a Human Life amendment to the Constitution goes contrary to Church teaching on abortion.
Pre-1973, most states had defacto abortion on demand with spousal consent. To my knowledge, the state laws regulating this matter permitted abortions to protect a mother’s health, and it was like rich kids getting doctors to find some flaw in their health to keep them out of Vietnam. The motivation for abortion law was more “preventing vice” than “protecting the rights of the unborn”, and doctors could readily offer abortions to married women with consenting spouses without drawing attention from the D.A..
The Catholic Church famously was against theraputic abortions, even when there was serious peril to the life of the mother. Even in the most restrictive abortion law conditions for the U.S., there was considerable separation of Church and State, and there were matters the State deemed legal that were left matters of conscience for individual Catholics to follow Church teaching without the compulsion of law.
The political system is never going to enact the level of restriction on abortion to satisfy Catholic teaching. Our political system enacts laws to maintain an orderly society, not to satisfy the dogma of a particular church. I happen to disagree with Mr. Kerry regarding what level of restriction on abortion is required to maintain an orderly society, but if Mr. Kerry is turned away from the sacraments, we both should be turned away.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

HEADS UP: Call me a masochist, but at 2 pm ET today, I’ll be on Bob Dornan’s radio show on the Talk Radio Network, discussing the new edition of my anthology, “Same-Sex Marriage, Pro and Con: A Reader.” The official launch of the book is next Monday – Marriage Day. More to come next week. Over the past year or so, many of you who work for talk radio stations have asked me to come on to debate the marriage question, and, because of other commitments, I’ve been unable to. But next week, I’m in full media-whore mode. If you want to book a radio interview, contact Fernando Montero at Vintage books. His email is fmontero@randomhouse.com.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY

“The hero was distinguished by his achievement; the celebrity by his image or trademark. The hero created himself; the celebrity is created by the media. The hero was a big man; the celebrity is a big name. Celebrity-worship and hero-worship should not be confused. Yet we confuse them every day, and by doing so we come dangerously close to depriving ourselves of all real models. We lose sight of the men and women who do not simply seem great because they are famous but are famous because they are great. We come closer and closer to degrading all fame into notoriety… The celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness… In our world of big names our true heroes tend to be anonymous. In this life of illusion and quasi-illusion, the person of solid virtues who can be admired for something more substantial than his well-knownness often proves to be the unsung hero: the teacher, the nurse, the mother, the honest cop, the hard worker at lonely, underpaid, unglamorous, unpublicized jobs.” – Daniel Boorstin, from ‘The Image.” It’s worth recalling, as we absorb the pictures of Abu Ghraib, that one soldier stood up to it: Spc. Joe Darby. Like Pat Tillman, quiet but inspiring.

KERRY-McCAIN?: After Abu Ghraib, it’s an obvious thought. It may be unlikely but it just became more likely – and desirable. I explain why in TNR.

YOUR TURN: A blog is an ongoing conversation, not a series of final statements. My attempt to grapple with what has been going on in Iraq in real time is just that: an attempt. And the beauty of a blog like this is that readers can and should be part of the debate. What follows is simply a series of the most thoughtful emails – on all sides – that I received in response to my posts of yesterday. The truth is somewhere in this conversation. I should reiterate that in no way am I arguing for relenting in the effort to liberate Iraq and bring democracy to that country. My point yesterday was that, in the wake of Abu Ghraib, we have a duty to work even harder to achieve that and to support the amazing work that so many American and coalition soldiers are doing. But we have to be accountable to ourselves and to our ideals. We cannot dismiss, as president Bush did yesterday, the gravity of the events by refusing to hold anyone in his administration accountable. Finding a way to win this war while keeping our leaders answerable for their failings is what a democracy does. That’s what makes our wars worth fighting and worth winning.

GOING WOBBLY

“Andrew, let me first say I love your blog and have read it every day since I first discovered it last fall. But over the past few days, reading your posts has been painful – a never ending litany of self-flagellation. Just a few weeks ago you fisked National Review for going wobbly, but their crisis of confidence was nothing compared to the one you’re exhibiting now. Abu Ghraib seems to be what pushed you over the edge. Some of things that went on there were, indeed, horrendous. But the crimes have been investigated, the guilty charged, and you can be certain this stuff will never happen again after all of this.

But I doubt Abu Ghraib is going to change many minds. To the opponents of the Iraq war, the invasion itself was one giant war crime. According to them, our soldiers, simply by standing on Iraqi soil, are engaged in an immoral, illegal, violation of the precious sovereignty of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. I have long since I learned to ignore their opinion. The Arabs? They hated us already – that’s why they slammed two jetliners into the World Trade Center. America should not grovel before a region that has spawned an ideology that,in my opinion, trumps Communism and even Nazism in sheer wretchedness, in its zeal to obliterate all that is good in life. Do you honestly think the Arabs would not still hate us today had Abu Ghraib not happened? Some state-sponsored conspiracy theory would have taken its place.The Europeans? I’ll start to care about what they think when they back up their bark with some bite and begin to seriously contribute – militarily speaking – to world security. As one blogger has pointed out (I cannot recall who it was), approximately 500 U.S. soldiers were hanged in World War II for committing crimes in Europe. Did that mean the war to smash Hitler’s empire was unjust? Of course not. In any large population, crimes are bound to happen.

Also, you rightly point out the difficulties in post-war Iraq. But has it occurred to anyone that perhaps such a situation was unavoidable? That when you’re dealing with the Middle East, any progress is to be appreciated? The CPA has had to make some tough calls, and every decision has inherent risk – sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn’t. The reform of the Middle East is bold, dangerous, and necessary. There will be losses, maybe even terrible losses as the War on Terror unfolds. But like Americans of previous generations, we are called to make the sacrifice. We must stick it out, and if things take a turn for the worse, double our efforts. In the face of anything that might happen, we must exhibit nothing less than a steely determination to see the mission through, and always remember to completely ignore what the Europeans and Arabs – people who want us to lose – have to say about it. If this nation cannot withstand 650 combat deaths in one year (at that rate, we’ll have to be in Iraq for approximately 90 years to reach the level of casualties in Vietnam), then we truly are a paper tiger.”

ADDICTED: “I’ve read your site for the last couple of years, emailed you and even received an email or two back from you. Oh, and donated this year ($20 for last year and $20 for this!) You amuse me, infuriate me, inspire me and rattle me. In a word, I’m addicted. And admitting to it is, so I’ve been told, the first step to recovery, right?

But in recent months, with the gay marriage issue at the forefront and the recent “issues” in Iraq, my thoughts have gone to you. Many people, most perhaps, might say about you as I do about politicians. “He’s a big boy who chose this profession, he’ll be just fine.” But I can’t help but feel for you, in the most supportive way, of course. Your honesty has been an inspiration to me in the past and continues to be in this very disturbing time.

Your public struggle with this administration reminds me, as it should others, what this country’s government is all about. That criticizing those you support and agreeing with those you don’t is so very important. The absence of this admirable trait is why we’re so divided red/blue right now. And it’s why I continue to demand of Kerry his respect and honesty. And until he does give me/us that, he will not win my support.”

BUCK UP: “I used to be an Iraq war agnostic. I was not sure the post war would work (among other things). Like anyone who follows military history (I did a bit as a grad student) I was very much afraid of an insurgency and what that would entail. It came; it is/was pathetic as such things go. Abu Ghraib was horrible, but it was bound to happen. It is how we as a nation react to such things that make us what we are. The post war is nothing close to the disaster you are making it out to be. We are making mistakes. We are not gods. De-Nazification of Germany did not work, what made us think de-Baathification would work in Iraq? If you think this is bleak, you should read about post-war Korea in the archives of the Chicago Tribune (what I used at U of Illinois). Iraq is a relative paradise. Oddly because of April and EVERYTHING that has happened in the last month or two I am an Iraq war agnostic no more. I see more signs of things working out than failing. But most importantly I believe Iraq is helping us win in Afghanistan. The money that would have been going to the Taliban is instead going to Iraq, and frankly killing bad guys in Iraq is easier than getting them in Afghanistan (surprisingly it was Pat Tillman’s death that made me focus on Afghanistan). Some people liken this to 1940, they are wrong. This is like May of 1941. Things are still bad, but we can see what the end might look like.

Good lord, Andrew, buck up. This is war. We spent the past 25 years (since Khomenei or even earlier if you count Sirhan Sirhan) trying to get along with the Muslim jihadists by non-military means, and it led to 9/11. If we don’t stop them here, if we withdraw, if we lose our nerve, do you think they will hesitate one minute to bring the war to our shores? No matter what a few prison guards did, we have no choice but to keep on in Iraq. Imagine the next terrorist attack. Suppose nuclear devices are set off simultaneously in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles. Suppose not 3000 dead but 300000 dead. What do you think the American people will demand of our President then? My greatest fear is that we will become genocidal. The cry will be to kill them all. As much as we are there to protect the US against the Arab Muslims, we are also there to protect the Arabs from the US. It is one thing for Bin Laden to issue a fatwah to kill all the Americans. He does not have the capability to do it. It is something else entirely for the US to decide to kill all the Arabs. We have the capability. We are closer than everyone thinks to this day. For their sake and ours, we must stay and prevail.”