Balthasar Gracian once wrote, "It is quite usual to commit four blunders in order to remedy one, or to excuse one piece of impertinence by still another." Americans now watch images of unfolding unrest, scandal and miscalculation in Iraq. Has America committed four blunders in order to remedy one? Or is a spoiled media culture justifying its impertinence by the normalization of impertinence?
After the United States began its invasion we heard the word "quagmire" annunciated like an incantation. The three major networks were like the three weird sisters in Shakespeare's play, Macbeth: "When the hurley-burley's done, When the battle's lost and won.... Fair is foul, and foul is fair; Hover through the fog and filthy air." At the first sign of light casualties the media sisters mumbled the word "quagmire." The blitzkrieg itself was a quagmire. The occupation was a quagmire. And now there is a "rebellion" in Fallujah. At long last the quagmire is real inasmuch as anything in the mind is real. Did the magic incantation reflect events, or do we credit the special summoning powers of the weird sisters?
Think of what the incantations are meant to blot out (i.e., the irresistible might of the United States). America and Britain crushed the tyrant's army. The battle was quickly won. Iraqis who oppose American power have no chance of inflicting a military defeat on coalition forces. It is impossible that a few ragtag fighters should succeed where Saddam's Republican Guard failed. And yet: "Here I have a pilot's thumb, Wrecked as homeward did he come." The weird media sisters stir the bubbling cauldron until the rightness of the great action is clothed in the wrongness of its reasons. The stumbling truthfulness of the president is portrayed as cunning dishonesty. Their magic merges with the magic of an imprisoned Babylonian sorcerer. The weapons of mass destruction have vanished! Everyone knows they once existed. Were they removed to Syria or Lebanon? What about their use against Jordan? All we hear from the weird sisters, however, is the same incantation repeated, again and again: "Fair is foul, and foul is fair; Hover through the filthy air." When Saddam's regime collapsed and the president declared triumph aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, the weird sisters huddled around their cauldron: "Though his bark cannot be lost, yet it shall be tempest-tost." And so it was and is, and shall be - unto the end of George W. Bush.
"Where hast thou been, sister?"
"Killing swine."
The danger throughout this process is not that America will lose any battles or suffer casualties as in Vietnam, Korea or World War II (where tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans died). The danger is (and always was) in the realm of self-doubt and dwindling willpower. If a nation is defeated in its mind, it is defeated whether or not its armies are victorious in the field. The magic of the media sisters, the magic of the Tet Offensive of 1968, is to demoralize a victorious alliance, cripple a command-in-chief's confidence, undermine his popular support and overthrow his government. To this end the weird sisters stir the bubbling pot: "Fillet of fenny snake, In the Cauldron boil and bake; Eye of newt, and toe of frog, Wool of bat, and tongue of dog, Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting, Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing, For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."
The present scandal involving Iraqi prisoners is boiling and bubbling. The reported abuse of prisoners by the American military is, indeed, unprecedented. But not in the way most people naively imagine. In World War II the United States military tortured German prisoners, and great atrocities were committed in the name of the good cause. This was all accepted as necessary, however regrettable. "War and torture are bedmates," wrote George Riley Scott in his History of Torture. "When once war breaks out, torture may be recognized as an inevitable concomitant. Even if the governments concerned ostensibly denounce and prohibit torture, it occurs nevertheless." In reality, the scale of the abuse in Iraq is unprecedented for its impish insignificance. In politics and war: bad actions are the rule, good actions are the exception. And since we cannot do away with politics and war, we must have what we have - and stand amazed that we are humane by comparison with others, preferring the photograph of a naked prisoner with a bag over his head to the ripping and tearing of toenails. The weird sisters of the media, however, are determined to spread dismay and self-disgust on the American side. Scandal adds to the bubbling brew: "Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf: Witches' mummy; maw, and gulf, To the media's many marts; Show insurgents' private parts!"
James Burnham once asked, "How should states proceed, if they are to prosper, in the treatment of enemies, internal or external, once the enemies have been defeated?" History shows us that the "middle way" always turns out badly. You do not trifle with enemies. You do not parade them naked before cameras, with brown paper sacks on their heads. The reason for refraining from such behavior is not because it's cruel. The reason for refraining is common sense, and the wise man need not explain it to the fool. Burnham noted that an enemy "should be either completely crushed or completely conciliated, that a mixture of the two simply guarantees both the continuation of a cause for resentment and revenge and the possibility for later translating these into action."
Building democracy in the Middle East requires a qualitatively greater American commitment than is politically acceptable under the media regime of the weird sisters. If Western values are to prevail, if the enemies of the West are to be crushed or held at bay, then political realism must dispense with this notion that America is engaged in some kind of global popularity contest, that we are exporting warm fuzzies to the enemy as a strategy for winning him over. America must exert authority and willpower. The softness of the "torture" and its humorous aspect is more disturbing than straightforward mutilation.
Does anyone remember that teacher in school, the one that everyone respected? It was the same teacher who explained, with a calm demeanor, "I am not here to be your friend. I don't care if you like me. I am here to teach, and you will respect my rules." Did that teacher ever command respect by humiliating students? Or was that the teacher who always addressed students properly, with respect, even when they were being disciplined?
The time-honored method of commanding students, mobs or nations has not changed since the advent of political correctness. Niccolo Machiavelli once asked whether it is better for a ruler to be loved or feared. "The answer," said Machiavelli, "is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both." The reason for this is not far to find. According to Machiavelli, men "are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers...."
The Iraqis are unsure of their gratitude. The Americans may soon prove fickle. The media deceivers feed their cauldron: "Silvered in the moon's eclipse; Nose of Turk, and Tartar's lips; Add thereto some moon rock slivers, stick George Bush until he shivers; May they all prefer defection, Stopping dubya's reelection; Double, double toil and trouble, Fire burn and Cauldron bubble!"
