|
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments
by Victor 'Davis Hanson
Monday, Nov. 17, 2003 at 8:42 PM
Lame pretexts left wingers, KPFK, Edward Said / Chomsky and Cockburn types and their fascist buddies use to justify attacking US policy and the US military. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's not forget the NY Times Dowd and Friedman, the Times two apologists for Muslim terrorism.
The Tyranny of “BUT” Bring back plain speaking. By Victor Davis Hanson
The conjunction BUT, in discussions about the current war, has become endemic in the year since the victory in Afghanistan. So are its wishy-washy siblings of American conversation — the kindred "although, " "however," and "nevertheless." A few experts employ the more formal "on the one hand… on the other hand…." "One could argue" is another, though weaker, method of qualification.
The current proliferation of these words reflects the popularity of equivocation, of covering all bets. Or maybe it is deeper — proof of an insidious relativism that now infects our thinking generally. There must be various explanations why so many of us cannot flat-out distinguish between right and wrong, smart and dumb, evil and good, or stasis and action — period.
Some of the blame can go to a certain deductive, anti-empirical view of the universe that has become institutionalized in our schools and popular culture. Timidity and the fear of losing our comfortable lifestyle may play a role as well. Clintonism and the idea that Americans did not know what "is" really meant left an unfortunate legacy.
In the new orthodoxy, for example, all cultures are a priori equal, so any evidence — like a public Iranian stoning, racist Saudi op-ed, or Sudanese genital mutilation or two — that, in fact, there exist vast civilization fault-lines has to be qualified. Force is presumed always wrong in our enlightened, postmodern world, so any proof that it actually solves problems — such as Milosevic or the Taliban — must be qualified. The United States is across the board dubbed unthinking, clumsy, and often sinister, so any evidence — such as its efforts in Afghanistan — suggesting that it is, in fact, sophisticated and benevolent, requires prevarication.
Life in the West is easy and good. So any course of action that calls for sacrifice and danger — higher gas prices, treasure and lives risked, and terrorist reprisals — is de facto wrong. Our enemies are usually seen as poor and less educated rather than as medieval, so that when they murder, explode, and terrorize us they are to be understood, rather than detested, opposed, and defeated. Oppression and exploitation are deemed reasonable pretexts for terrorism, so when multimillionaires like bin Laden carry out — and pampered Sheiks fund — terrorism, qualification and nuance are required.
In the same fashion, religions must all be founded on principles of peace, so that when Islamic radicals — in Pakistan, the Philippines, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Europe — daily kill Christians and Westerners, and do not act like Buddhists, we must assume that they are either deranged or using exceptional exegeses not being promulgated in thousands of mosques or madrassas.
The old, less-sophisticated America has gone the way of the coalmine, steel factory, and farm. Indeed, there are very few dinosaurs left who, after using reason and logic to discern good from evil, will grudgingly accept the world as a tragic place, inhabited by bad characters who cause suffering and pain — in a world of constant dangers, both natural and human. Not surprisingly, the world of "He's no damn good" and "I've had about enough of that nonsense" is gone — replaced by different sorts of people who speak in different sorts of ways. Hence we see the ascendancy of our ubiquitous BUT.
Mr. Bush, who may lament this loss of absolutes, is, of course, caricatured for his accent and occasional mispronunciation. Yet perhaps the real reason for the unease is that he — more so than his diplomats — employs the old language of "smoke 'em out" or "dead or alive," and so draws into question our comforting assumption that the world is too complex to be so easily fathomed by the mere senses and by intuition. Mr. Reagan's "evil empire" chilled many who had been accustomed to Jimmy Carter's "no inordinate fear of Communism" — perhaps in the same manner that the "axis of evil" is now scarier than Mr. Clinton's "I feel your pain."
The result? We now live in a labyrinth of BUTs, and they appear almost daily in clusters, like the following:
The Washy-Washy BUT
I am no fan of Saddam Hussein, BUT… I don't particularly like Arafat, BUT… September 11 was horrible, BUT… The terrorists were not justified in what they did, BUT… Suicide murdering is wrong, BUT… The Koran forbids killing innocents, BUT…
The Nonsensical BUT
Iraq is capable of being contained and thus does not warrant military intervention; BUT Iraq is too dangerous, due to its arsenal, and thus military intervention is not worth the risk.
There is no real proof that Iraq possesses chemical weapons; BUT were we to invade, our troops could die horrible deaths from chemical weapons.
Because Korea already has nuclear weapons, we should deal with that threat first; BUT because Korea already has nuclear weapons, we should not dare provoke them.
Once a country gets nuclear weapons, our options are limited; BUT why pick on Iraq when, unlike North Korea, it does not have nuclear weapons?
The Dilatory BUT
The Taliban are terrible; BUT let us first take care of al Qaeda. Saddam is terrible; BUT let us first take care of al Qaeda. Saddam is terrible; BUT let us first take of North Korea. North Korea is terrible; BUT let us first take care of al Qaeda.
The America-Is-Always-At-Fault BUT
The removal of the Taliban was, of course, good; BUT we installed them in the first place. I support removing Saddam Hussein, BUT we helped him in the past. Who likes bin Laden? BUT we created him. Everyone agrees that the mullahs in Iran are terrible, BUT our past policies are to blame for them.
The Israel BUT
Of course, Israel is a democracy, BUT… No one supports the methods of the intifada, BUT… I am not saying what the Palestinian bombers are doing is right, BUT… Arafat is terrible, BUT look at Sharon.
The Bush BUT
Bush gave an excellent speech after 9/11, BUT… Of course, Bush was right to take out the Taliban, BUT… No one is a fan of Iran, Iraq, or North Korea, BUT… Sure, in theory, there are potential terrorists right here in the United States, BUT…
The Alternative Is Worse BUT
The Saudi monarchy is pretty awful, BUT… I agree that Mubarak really is a dictator, BUT… I don't like Musharraf any better than you do, BUT… Remove Saddam? Sure, BUT…
To dethrone the reign of BUT, I suggest a revolution led by therefore — a better adverb which follows from, rather than sidesteps or elides, the truth:
Saddam Hussein murders his own, attacks others, and threatens us; therefore let us remove him.
Options are limited when a rogue nation gets nuclear weapons; therefore let us ensure that Saddam does not.
Israel is a democracy; its enemies are not; therefore let us be sure to support freedom over autocracy.
The Saudi monarchy is pretty awful; therefore let us insist on reforms or cease our support.
Language is the mirror of morality. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, BUT and its weasel-word clan were huddling in silence, afraid to come out when people of confidence and conviction had no use for their prevarication. But I'm afraid that now the worm tongues are making a comeback, and thus their BUT once more threatens to lord over us all.
This is a pity, because in times of crisis we need concrete language to reflect our moral clarity — not more double-talk on the eve of war about infighting in the Congress, eleventh-hour grand plans for a draft, harping over the U.N. weapons charade, and more worries about last-minute bailing on the part of reluctant allies. Important issues are on the horizon — What are our exact aims in Iraq? How will we define victory? Will we stay engaged after Saddam's defeat? — that were not addressed candidly in 1991, but now demand clear thinking and clearer talk.
For better or worse, we have now crossed the Rubicon with Iraq, thereby assuring oppressed peoples that help is on the way, and warning terrorist enemies and duplicitous friends that the Middle East is soon to be altered in ways they should fear. Free Kurdistan exists only thanks to a few brave American and British pilots who risk their lives daily; the safety of thousands more rests with the specter of American force. There is no backing away; indeed, in many ways the war has already started. So the entire world is not only watching what we do — but also what we say and how we say it.
Report this post as:
by Seymour Butts
Monday, Nov. 17, 2003 at 9:05 PM
bakkmon.gifgkibjq.gif, image/png, 300x100
error
Report this post as:
by Meyer London
Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 at 11:29 AM
I' m not saying the author is a crackpot, BUT when candidate Barry Goldwater made statements like this in 1964 he was widely diagnosed by psychiatrists as being off his rocker.
Report this post as:
by nonanarchist1656
Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 at 1:53 PM
...about the article other than ad hominems?
Didn't think so.
Just so you know, I hear statements like Hansen describes in here all the time.
You're just miffed because he's got you pegged.
Which is why you don't even ATTEMPT to refute his statements.
'Cause you can't!
Report this post as:
by Meyer London
Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 at 2:56 PM
What arguments? There are no arguments worthy of the name - just an idiotic assertion that one has to go all the way with Bush's war against the peoples of the Middle East or else be labeled as a wimp or an agent of the Taliban. That is the kind of "argument" that second-graders make.
Report this post as:
by c/o Andrew Sullivan
Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 at 4:27 PM
So now the "anti-globalization" fringes are actually contributing money to the Baathist cause. Why not raise money for al Qaeda while you're at it? Yes, these people are on the extreme. But the alliance between the anti-globalization left and Islamo-fascism is a natural one. It will grow and deepen. They share a hatred of Western freedom, a deep anti-Semitism and implacable hostility to capitalism. The alliance is as predictable as, oh, say that between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3277029.stm
Report this post as:
by Meyer London
Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 at 4:48 PM
There never was any alliance between Iraq and Al Quaida; not even Bush and his fellow liars claim that anymore. As for the anti-globalization left giving money to the Bath Party, you are so right. We save every penny in order to give it to them; now, if you would only tell us where to mail the checks. And Islamic authoritarians are against capitalism, that is for sure. That is why bin Laden gets his money from the international oil business. All his family members in Saudi Arabia hate capitalism, too.
Report this post as:
by nonanarchist2047
Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 at 5:53 PM
See the "Case Closed" thread for details of Iraq/Al Qaeda ties.
But actually, why bother?
You'll claim it's a bunch of lies anyway.
Report this post as:
by more rational
Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 at 7:12 PM
It's nice rhetoric he's got going there, but it's not an "argument" for anything or against anything. Here are a few "therefores" to make my point.
The USA is the wealthiest nation in the world, therefore, we can reasonably expect to implement universal health insurance, housing for everyone, and food for everyone.
The Bush family is deep in the oil business, therefore, we should be more vigilant that GW will use his position to create a business advantage for himself, his family, and friends.
Since the 1960s, people in Eastern Europe and South Africa, have overthrown their governments without war, and founded democracies, while dictatorships founded or supported by the old USSR and US have remained dictatorships, therefore, we can expect the operation in Iraq to fail to produce a viable democracy.
Republican Party fund-raisers are involved at the top level of the operation of the biggest players in the touchscreen voting machine business, and they are very secretive about how the equipment works, and have disregarded demand for more transparent audit trails, therefore, we can expect increases in fraudulent voting to benefit Republicans more than Democrats.
Power is seductive, therefore, we can assume the Clinton sex scandal will be replayed over and over, daily, in Washington DC, and will go unreported in the media.
Fighting war is a government job, therefore, war leads to increased taxes.
Schwartzenegger's father was a Nazi, therefore, we can guess he's more sympathetic to Nazis than a Jew would be.
No point in belaboring this further.
Report this post as:
by nonanarcist0555
Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2003 at 3:00 AM
No point in beating the same old dead horses, is there?
Report this post as:
by nonanarcist0555
Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2003 at 11:13 PM
so I'll just post some cute soundbite to look like I had the last word.
Report this post as:
by nonanarchist0636
Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003 at 3:43 AM
Ther was not. One. Single. Original. Thought. in there.
The tired opld tripe he posted has been shown for what it is countless times.
Not my fault of he keeps bleating the libbie/annie "I hate everybody but me and thee, and I'm not too sure about thee" party line.
Report this post as:
by nonanarchist0636
Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003 at 8:11 PM
I did not post the above comment. Stop impersonating me.
Report this post as:
by Adult Supervisor
Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003 at 8:19 PM
I don't recall anyone thinking Barry Goldwater was off his rocker.
Perhaps you're confused. Surely you were referring to Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore or some other moronic loser like them.
Report this post as:
by Adult Supervisor, a.k.a nonanarchist
Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003 at 10:09 PM
that I always must have the last word? Makes me look like I won the argument. Can't explain it, has to do with a tremendous insecurity I think.
Report this post as:
|