Anybody Out There Seen Eddie?

It’s been coming for a long, long time, junior high school back in the forties, to put a time frame on it. Every social studies teacher of the era was a cheerleader for our late beloved Woodrow Wilson. Aside from studying all of the line items in the budget for the City of Brockton, MA and otherwise being brow beaten into becoming responsible citizens, we spent hours on Woodrow’s fourteen points and learned how one of our own senators, Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., was a wicked old man intent on nothing more than ruining the future of not only the United States but of innocent people everywhere.

By the time I reached the age of reason (Please!) the idealism of Woodrow was at the ready, and I was about to become a do gooder ready to make your world a better place. What could be more reasonable than the right of self determination for all peoples? Why shouldn’t the ethnic groups of the Balkans have rights to space? Why shouldn’t the Baltic States be free? Why, why, why?

But over a lifetime of watching American statesmen operate from the perspective of American self interest, my views became more like those of Dr. Strangelove – excuse me – Henry Kissinger, James Baker, and Brent Scowcroft rather than old Woodrow and of European statesmen of old such as Bismark. I also realized that my political hero, Franklin Roosevelt, while committed to internationalism was so only inclined in the long term best interests of the U.S.

But as so aptly described by Andrew Bacevich in his fine book The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War after Vietnam the loss of prestige of the U.S. military and the seeming drift away from American and Christian values drove two groups, the neoconservatives and Evangelical Christians, into a strange alliance for control of America’s destiny. Both groups, idealistic to the core, fought tooth and nail for a return of values that peaked with the coming of Ronald Reagan. American foreign policy turned away from the realpolitik of presidents like John Kennedy and Richard Nixon and brought the idealism of Woodrow Wilson and his intellectual offspring, the neocons, back into vogue in the presidency of George W. Bush.

The neocon view that America at the head of a coalition of the willing had the power and prestige to remake the world in its own image became our new paradigm. Democracy would replace tyranny and the obvious dangers of dictators and terrorist organizations would be displaced by free peoples everywhere, especially in the chosen laboratory of Iraq.

The war drums began their heavy beat and quick as a wink, Saddam fell like an overripe tomato. Sadly, as I read the papers this morning, none of the idealism propounded to get us into this mess seems present. The holy proclamations of those spreading the word of American democracy ring hollow on this warm summer morning.

Today, the world is divided over the war raging in Lebanon. Frankly, the Israelis were absolutely correct to respond aggressively to the Hezbollah provocation. The question arises when is enough enough? Every player sees the conflict through its prism. The U.S. and its partner Israel view the situation through the eyes of the neocon philosophy of applying power to the struggle to the point of annihilating the Hezbollah fighters massed against them. Others, including Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, and most European governments call for an immediate end, and now most Arab states call for a cease fire in place. But the power resides with Bush and the Israelis and they appear to be going to continue with an aggressive incursion.

I’m a moderate conservative and, as indicated, much closer in view to the Scowcroft/Bush 41 view. But more important I’m of a the view of pursuing the view of enlightened self interest as proclaimed so long ago by Edmund Burke of England. Angry letters to editors from American Jews demanding explanations of proportionality in the current conflict when compared to the actions taken in the past by many asking them to halt their attack, are very difficult to answer. For example, how could anyone who supported the dropping of the a-bombs or the firebombings of WW II ever preach to the Israelis when there is no balance of proportion given that innocent deaths in Lebanon are in the hundreds and not in the hundreds of thousands?

To me the only answer lies in the concept of enlightened self interest. There are 400 million Arabs and each day significant numbers of them grow more sympathetic to the plight of the innocent Lebanese caught in the crossfire. Even if the Israeli/American vision of cleaning out the nest of terrorists is completely fulfilled, do the Israelis gain total victory over those wishing the end of their state?

American neoconservatism has pushed Arab Shiites – even beyond Iraq - into an alliance with Iran. That nation has gained great sway over many Arabs by being even more bellicose in its talk of annihilating Israel. Even Arab leaders from mostly Sunni nations are growing more uncomfortable with the heat being placed on them as innocents die.

Were I an Israeli, I’d be as outraged as they are over the terrorist attacks and the failure of outsiders to see their plight. But I’d also try to see my enlightened self interest and to attempt to balance my rage with my long term need to continue to live in a largely hostile environment in which current actions are not winning the war for hearts and minds of my neighbors.

Where’s Ed Burke when you most need him?

Blog on!

Mild Bill