Bushian Theidiocies

My undergrad students have been writing about the Iraq war. Many are reflex conservatives, dyed-in-the-wool Bushites. I show them how all the justifications the Bush administration has offered for the war --i.e., defense against WMD, subversion of a terrorist threat, humanitarian concern for the peoples of Iraq, etc. -- are as leaky as sieves. Some, at a loss for any other way to defend Bush, suggest that he is probably in possession of some secret knowledge that, were it to be divulged, would make everything he does make perfect sense. But of course it can't be divulged, since to do so would be to compromise national security... or something. So we simply have to give our president the benefit of the doubt. Father knows best.

Whence this ingenious defense of their hero? From religion. It's called "theodicy." How to account for the fact that an omnipotent and loving Deity allows evil to exist? The answer: our perception of evil is a misperception -- a distortion of vision resulting from our lack of knowledge. Were we to take a God's-eye view of the universe, could we take in the divine plan in all its complexity, then we would see that the plan is good, perfectly good, and in the end evil is an illusion. Mere mortals, however, can never attain God's knowledge, gain the perspective He possesses, so we must simply have faith in God, in His infinite goodness and in the infinite goodness of His Creation.

What's hilarious, of course, is the equation of George W. Bush with God; the idea that this beady-eyed, rat-brained schemer is on level with the Almighty (epistemologically speaking) and that we should consequently pay him comparable respect, manifest for him a comparable reverence, hold him in comparable awe.

And those sorry-arsed reprobates who refuse the equation? Let them be humbled like Job.

An Army of Fun!

"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot . . . .It's fun to shoot some people. . . .I like brawling."

The words of Lt. General James Mattis, who commanded Marine expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In response to questions about these remarks, General Michael Hagee defended Mattis, calling him "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders."

"While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war," he said in a written statement. "Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor."

I wonder, what if some of those being put on trial for torture at Abu Ghraib manifested a similar candor? As thus: "Actually it's quite fun to torture them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to torture some people. I like humiliating and causing them pain. Tee-hee!"

Would we praise such candor? And why not? After all, those soldiers were doing the job they were ordered to do: softening up prisoners preparatory to interrogation so that those interrogation sessions might be more productive, yield valuable intelligence that might help us win the War on Terror. Wouldn't their candid admission that they enjoyed their work equally reflect "the unfortunate and harsh realities of war"?

Not all the brass leapt to Mattis' defense. "I was a little surprised," said retired Vice Adm. Edward H. Martin. "I don't think any of us who have ever fought in wars liked to kill anybody."

If we can be disturbed by Mattis'"candor," we can be disgusted by Martin's lack thereof. Of course there will be those fighting in war who like to kill people. Isn't combat training, in large part, an attempt to desensitize people to killing, make soldiers more efficient killing machines? And isn't this why so many combatants, when they return to civil society, have such great difficulty adjusting? How does one reverse the conditioning that created tactical sociopathology? How to turn off the "kill switch," so to speak, once you've turned it on?

Rather than prosecuting the "bad apples" who are torturing prisoners or executing wounded enemy soldiers, perhaps we should be going after the "bad apples" who made this war in the first place, who put good and civilized people into a situation that must necessarily brutalize them -- indeed, turn some of them into monsters. As one mother of a disgraced soldier remarked, "I gave them a good boy, they sent me back a murderer."

Deja Vu Again

Hope is a knave that befools us evermore
Which until I lost no happiness was mine
I strike from hell to grave on heaven's door:
"Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

--Nicholas Chamfort

"At polling centers hit by explosions, survivors refused to go home, steadfastly waiting to cast their votes as policemen swept away bits of flesh."

--New York Times article of 2/2/05


Ah, the post-election euphoria! Something about it seems . . . familiar. Perhaps it's like the euphoria most Americans felt at the sight of Saddam's statue being torn down by our soldiers in Baghdad. Or like the euphoria many felt at Bush's victory speech aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Or the euphoria some (fewer) felt in the wake of Paul Bremer handing over "sovereignty" to the Iraqi interim government.

Can one develop a tolerance for euphoria, the way one can for cocaine?

So many pundits growing teary-eyed while describing the voter turnout in Iraq! "People actually showed up to vote! Lots and lots of people! Hurrah!"

Well, maybe not the Sunnis, not so much. Hardly at all, in fact.

"But the Kurds turned out in huge numbers, right?"

True enough. And Peter Galbraith reported in the New York Times that these same Kurds, upon exiting the polls, were polled again and voted ten to one that, if they had their druthers, they'd druther form a country of their own, independent of Iraq. Can you say "civil war"?

"Well, how about the Shiites? Huge numbers there, right? Masses of happy people voting [as conservative editorialist David Brooks would have it] against Saddam, against the old tyranny."

And maybe voting against Uncle Sam as well, a little bit? Against his continuing, and heavily-armed, presence in their midst? Voting for him to get the hell out of Dodge?

"But there was so little violence -- I mean, compared to what was predicted."

Fifty Iraqis lost their lives on election day. Fifty people slaughtered. Imagine if that had happened in the United States: fifty people whacked for daring to vote. The election would be considered a disaster, a nightmare.

But of course we are not talking about the United States, we are talking about Iraq, where one has to adjust one's expectations a bit. Lower the bar, as it were, civilization-wise.

Where's my anti-euphoria medication?