Quasi
an outlet for writers

May 1, 2003
Volume 2, Issue 3


Lessons Learned

Just like that, the war came and went, after all the talk and bickering. And thank God it's over.

Our military did an amazing job, and hopefully we will be able to export some form of democracy to the ravaged nation of Iraq and not have to stay very long. This will probably be a far tougher task than taking over the country was.

But with the war over, it is back to regular life--now the politicians can get back to fighting for their own agendas, Hollywood can start working on movies about the war they protested but will now make money on, and most Americans can turn off the news and tune in to reality TV's newest offering, a show hosted by a Monica Lewinsky featuring a gaggle of masked men competing for the affections of one woman.

It's the Bachelorette meets the Mask. And most Americans will descend back into banality and eat it up.
I will find it harder than before, however, to walk to the basement with them, and not just because I don't have a television, or a basement. For me, the war in Iraq was a transformative experience. It took my interest in international affairs and foreign policy to new levels. It was a short window of time where the intensity of my curiosity allowed me to learn a lot more than I knew before about what is going on in the rest of the world. Which always means realizing how little you know.

The war and the huge debate over it also helped crystallize certain things that I had not been clear on before. For the first time, for instance, I saw certain elements of leftist liberalism for what they were. I saw through the doctrine taught me in the university that all cultures are equal and of the same value. Certainly all peoples are equal, no matter what race, sex or religion, and certainly all cultures have great value, but certainly there is no country like America, in spite of all its imperfections.

There are not many other countries where people will get out of their cars as a funeral procession goes by to salute the casket of a Marine killed in Iraq, and in the process show their respect and gratefulness for the country he died for. That is just one of the things I saw in the last month that paid tribute to our land of freedom.

I might have listened before to the argument that it is arrogant to dictate to other countries what they should do. But now, I know there are serious conditions to that argument. Arrogance is of secondary concern when a country is threatening your safety and the safety of other countries. Checking arrogance is not a top priority when you are trying to save millions of people from tyranny, torture and the terror of a police state.

Now, in the wake of victory, is the time to watch for arrogance, and to make it a priority to avoid it.

But many anti-war protesters ignored the joy of freed Iraqis and focused on American arrogance during the war. I learned that many in this movement were not so much anti-war as they were anti-President Bush, and that no matter what is going on, they are going to protest it. They can always find something wrong, because, in fact, many of them are communists and socialists and are actually against everything this country stands for.

Protesting the war was just a way for them to try to woo less informed disciples--the impressionable, the idealistic, the alienated and especially the young--to their causes.

And yet, they are free to state their opinion. As it was often pointed out, the soldiers were in Iraq partly to defend the protesters' rights to do what they were doing. Some said that there was "pressure" to support the president and the war said that those who spoke out, like the Dixie Chicks and Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, were punished for speaking their mind.

That's to say that free speech is a one-way street. The government didn't touch those who spoke out, but democracy means that when you say what you think, others can say what they think back.

Michael Kelly, the wonderful Washington Post editorialist and editor-at-large of Atlantic Monthly, wrote these profound words in the Post on Feb. 26, less than five weeks before he died while embedded with the Army's Third Infantry Division in Iraq on April 3.

Tyranny truly is a horror: an immense, endlessly bloody, endlessly painful,
endlessly varied, endless crime against not humanity in the abstract but a
lot of humans in the flesh. It is, as Orwell wrote, a jackboot forever
stomping on a human face.

I understand why some dislike the idea, and fear the ramifications of,
America as a liberator. But I do not understand why they do not see that
anything is better than life with your face under the boot. And that any
rescue of a people under the boot (be they Afghan, Kuwaiti or Iraqi) is
something to be desired. Even if the rescue is less than perfectly realized.
Even if the rescuer is a great, overmuscled, bossy, selfish oaf. Or would
you, for yourself, choose the boot?

One other development from the last few months was my increased appreciation for Andrew Sullivan. His blog, andrewsullivan.com, was a must read every day, with profound, thoughtful commentary and invaluable links to lots of information. I don't agree with Sullivan on everything, particularly the issue of homosexuality, but even on that topic he is the rare person who approaches his arguments with reason, critical thinking and sensibility, regardless of where his views fall.

This issue contains an personal reflection on freedom from Justin Toops, a helpful essay from Andrew Sullivan that warns of overconfidence in those who supported the war and gives some perspective on how many conservative liberals view the Republican party, and a short piece at the end about all our "off-camera" moments in life.

As always, send me your thoughts, and if you run across anything helpful, informative or interesting, send it my way and I'll consider it for inclusion in the next issue. Thanks to those of you who sent me stuff for this issue, even if it didn't go in.

-- Jon

(jonwardeleven@comcast.net)


---------

This month's Sign that the Apocalypse is Upon Us

The debut of Fox's "reality show" Mr. Personality on Monday, April 21 was watched by 12.2 million people and decisively won the 18-49 demographic. The Associated Press described the premise of the show:

"Mr. Personality" features a single woman wooed by 20 masked men, with Monica Lewinsky by her side for support. Lewinsky first gained national attention as a White House intern who had a sexual relationship with President Clinton."

--------

THE DAY BAGHDAD FELL
by Justin Toops

I don't think many people truly understood the war before April 9th. I know I didn't.

The time was about 11:30. During our short break in television production class, a few of us huddled around the switcher board TV sets and watched CSPAN.

There, glowing out from the aged brown screen, was the twenty foot gray statue of Saddam being yanked to the ground. His heavy, iron legs broke apart at the shins. Saddam landed face down on his own marble pedestal. But that wasn't the most amazing sight.

My classmates and I then watched as hundreds of Iraqis sprung on the fallen statue. They pounded away at it with hammers, with rocks, with their shoes, and even with their fists. Some yelled curses; others chose to simply spit in Saddam's iron face.

When finally the head was torn from the body, I laughed. One Iraqi man was riding on the head, bronco-style, while several others dragged the head through the city streets.

Hundreds of people, dancing, singing, and jumping in the streets. Kissing US troops. Crying from joy.

One of my classmates remarked, "I've never seen so many people be so happy before."

But our break from class ended. The sets were turned off, and we readied to begin the next production project. I know that at least in my mind, and in my heart, I had a better understanding of what I had just witnessed.

Freedom is beautiful.

In the US, we love our free speech. We value our right to speak, and we can even gather in hundreds to protest when we feel like it. If we hate the president, well, we can head out into the streets and shout it till our lungs turn blue.

But for the first time in my life, I've seen freedom given to those who never experienced it before. I've seen the power and the emotion that erupts from this gift. I understand now, for I have seen justice brought to a people who have been without it for decades.

Again, freedom is beautiful.

The war was not over. Saddam was been overthrown, but his scattered army still hid in patches all over the country. Who knew how long the war could go on. My prayers were with our troops, that they would come home to their husbands and wives.

But at least, until the war finally finished, I knew that I could believe in the good we were doing there.

-----

Hubris Ascendant
The Republican Temptation
by Andrew Sullivan

These have been heady days for American conservatives and neoconservatives. Vindication doesn't come very often in politics, but the end of the Iraq war was surely one of those occasions. Rarely has the far left seemed so out of it, so discredited, so marginal. And rarely has the sensible liberal left seemed so mealy-mouthed and incoherent. At times, in the past couple of weeks, the opposition found itself almost hoping for Shiite revolt to discredit the president, or praying for an economic downturn to change the political momentum.

But it turns out the Democrats and the left may not have to do too much. There are ominous signs that the Republicans could unravel their recent achievements all on their own. Hubris is in the air. And with hubris come mistakes. Republican leaders and thinkers, high on the narcotic of victory, have begun saying things that seem reckless, inflammatory and downright damaging to the president.

A case in point: our old friend, Newt Gingrich, former revolutionary Speaker of the House and an expert in hubris in his own lifetime. He took the stage last week to launch a ferocious tirade against an old nemesis, Colin Powell, and the State Department. Gingrich has a point. The State Department has indeed long been a repository of old and discredited Arabist thinking in the Middle East. It undermined the run-up toward war in Iraq and is busy machinating for its own purposes in post-war Iraqi politics. Critiques of it have been written; discussions initiated; dinner parties animated by what is an ancient Washington topic. But Gingrich, as is his wont, went much further - and in public.

Gingrich accused the State Department of a "diplomatic failure" in the run-up to the Iraq war, as if the treachery of France and Russia could have been smoothed over by better diplomacy. He further accused Powell's department of a "deliberate and systematic effort to undermine the President's policies." Furious that the White House has engaged muscular diplomacy against Syria, rather than military force, Gingrich further ripped into Powell's planned visit to meet Bashir Assad in Damascus. "The concept of the American Secretary of State going to Damascus to meet with a terrorist supporting, secret police wielding dictator is ludicrous," Gingrich thundered. He did all this at the American Enterprise Institute, the home of many of the smartest conservative intellectuals in Washington. This wasn't a whisper campaign; it had the subtlety of a fog-horn.

In broader American politics, there is no contest between Gingrich, one of the most despised national politicians in recent times, and Powell, a broadly respected national icon. But in Washington politics, the factions they represent are much more equally matched. Nevertheless, if this was an attempt to influence the president, it's hard to think of a dumber or cruder strategy. George W. Bush is extremely close to Powell; the president understands the importance of a diplomatic voice at the cabinet table; and the neoconservative view that somehow Powell represents the diametric opposite of Bush's worldview is crude and naive. Gingrich's public attack on Powell was rightly interpreted by the White House as a public attack on the president. Suddenly, the Democratic candidates who want to undermine Bush's leadership in foreign affairs now have a leading Republican to back them up. This wasn't even a sly, Brent Scowcroft-type, off-the-record quote. It was a broadside, and a sign that Republican splits over foreign policy could deepen.

That's especially true with respect to Israel and the Middle East in general. You're beginning to see two rival conceptions of Bush's future foreign policy emerge in Washington. The first is an unapologetic quick-exit from Iraq, military pressure on Syria, brinkmanship with North Korea, and full backing for Sharon. The second is a real commitment to military and political engagement in Iraq, a lengthy process of democratization, multilateral talks with Pyongyang, combined with a kick-start to the Arab-Israeli "road-map." The likelihood, of course, is a mix of the two, depending on events. But already, conservatives and Republicans are fighting over what's ahead. The neoconservatives are likely to object to even the slightest pressure on Israel, while centrists and paleoconservatives will be egging Powell on. Similarly, traditional Burkean conservatives will be skeptical of the attempt to bring democracy to Iraq, while Millite neocons will want a new Marshall Plan. I exaggerate a little. But the strains within Bush's coalition, largely muted by widespread agreement on war against Saddam, will revive.

Domestically, there's an even bigger Republican split. George W. Bush spent part of last week in Ohio, touting his huge $700 billion plus tax cut plan. The trouble is that key Republican Senators, including one from, er, Ohio, have cut that plan almost in half. That happened at the height of the war. Can you imagine how less restrained these Senators will feel in peacetime? Deficit hawks among conservatives are now facing off against the supply-siders' fantasy that slashing taxes while you boost spending somehow has no damaging fiscal effect. The friction is palpable, and Bush is caught between the two factions.

And then last week, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum opened his big mouth to the Associated Press. He equated gay sex with child abuse and bestiality. He claimed that those Catholic priests who had abused minors were actually guilty of a "basic homosexual relationship." Furthermore, he said he supported sodomy laws that in several states still make it illegal to have consensual, private gay sex. If gays had a "right to privacy," he argued, why doesn't that also apply to incest or bigamy? While most people thought that the debate on gay rights was now about marriage or discrimination laws, Santorum invoked the ancient spectre of the police having the power to arrest people in their own bedrooms for consensual sex. And indeed, a recent Texas case in which that had just happened, is now before the Supreme Court. It made no sense to open up this debate when the Court may soon make it moot, but when you're riding high and a Catholic who found John F Kennedy's balance of church and state too secular, the temptation to mouthe off is irresistible. Besides, it will help Santorum's fundraising. For a certain section of the Republican base, keeping homosexuals in their place is a key reason for being in politics at all. But for a whole swathe of others in the West, Northeast and Midwest, this kind of government intrusion into private homes is anathema to conservative principles.

In an instant, Santorum revealed the huge gap in Republican circles between social liberals and libertarians who fear government power and generally support a live-and-let-live philosophy, and the religious right that believes the government should be able to police morality, even in people's own homes. Santorum's gaffe was made more important by his being the third-ranking Republican in the Senate. It evoked memories of Trent Lott's wistful tribute to racial segregation. Centrist Republican senators chided Santorum. "Discrimination and bigotry have no place in our society, and I believe Senator Santorum's unfortunate remarks undermine Republican principles of inclusion and opportunity," opined Maine Senator Olympia Snowe (who also voted against the huge tax cut). Ouch. The rest of the party kept silent, while the conservative chattering classes played an awkward partisan defense of Santorum.

Don't get me wrong. This isn't a full-scale conservative crack-up. But it isn't a good sign. For three years, Bush has managed the unwieldy and fractious Republican coalition with deftness, vagueness, and skill. He has managed to nail down the base, while not alienating the middle of the country, where he knows he needs support. But the war has been a huge advantage in this process; and post-Iraq, when domestic issues begin to grab more attention, the environment could well deteriorate. For much of last week, Washington was buzzing not about Iraq but about Gingrich and Santorum. The Republican faultlines that helped destroy Bush's father have not, it turns out, disappeared. Bush is going to need every ounce of political capital to keep them from undermining his re-election.

April 27, 2003, Sunday Times.
copyright © 2000, Andrew Sullivan


-----

Real Quick
Jon Ward

There are quotes we read that synthesize or capture something huge in just a few words, and then there are quotes that do that and more--they hit on a theme or idea that defines us or is central to the way we look at the world. We come upon these quotes only ever so often. The following, however, says what I have felt for a few years now, and have felt to be deeply important.

“The insignificances of daily life are the importances and the tests of eternity because they prove what spirit really possesses us” (44).

That is from Andrew Murray's book "Humility." Not only is it important to me in a spiritual sense, but it captures one of the things that drives my writing--the desire to find out who people really are by observing them in the most mundane of moments.

You don't find out who people are from seeing them at a press conference, or on a reality TV show, or from rushing upon them and breathlessly asking them for a few choice words. Knowledge of others comes over time, as the observer fades into the scenery and is able to see how Susie reacts when she stubs her toe or wins at Uno.