As
I write, yet another war has erupted in the
Middle East, and Condoleezza Rice, an enthusiast of the continuing war in
Iraq, has been dispatched to try to negotiate peace. Setting aside any sense
of irony and hypocrisy in that venture, anyone can see that she has her work
cut out for her. The failure of her mission, needless to say, is a certainty.
Both sides, the Israelis and Iran-backed Hezbollah,
want war and wont accept peace on any terms the United States can
propose. Both can give so many reasons and provocations for fighting that it
is hard to imagine any incentives for them to stop at this point. The most we
can hope for is that the United States wont be drawn further into
another conflict it has done so much to promote.
As all the observers have already observed ad
nauseam, the United States has long since destroyed, through its partiality
to the state of Israel, any possibility of acting as a mediator with the
Muslims. Both the Bush administration and Congress have lost no time in
supporting the Israelis devastating assault on Lebanon, which the
rest of the world has almost unanimously condemned as
disproportionate. And the United States, while piously
deploring the violence, immediately rushed a new supply of rockets to Israel.
How the Israelis should have responded to
Hezbollahs rocket attacks on their cities is a good question, and my
own first reaction was to make allowances for them, until I read that they
had launched their own assault before those attacks. Now I can
only marvel at this administrations ability to make any situation,
however grim, even worse.
Condemning isolationism, the Bush
team has achieved one thing: the isolation of America with Israel. Even Tony Blair must be having second thoughts about
making himself such a reliable ally to this rogue superpower, which makes
even the unmourned Soviet Union seem a model of prudence and
forbearance. Meanwhile, Abe Foxman, Charles Krauthammer, and the rest of
the Amen Corner have been explaining why the Israelis are right
again.
 The
reason men like Washington, Jefferson, and
Hamilton urged Americans to resist entangling alliances was
not that they were xenophobic, but that they understood that there are
often strong motives, moral and otherwise, for intervention abroad. But
even the highest of motives might be contrary to American interests.
In those days the chief
danger they saw was U.S. embroilment in European wars, especially those of
France and England. They would have been utterly incredulous at the idea of
American intervention in the Middle East. Even Tocquevilles prediction
of conflict between America and Russia would have seemed far-
fetched.
But the United States has long since abandoned the
once-revered principle of neutrality. George W. Bush, surpassing even
Woodrow Wilson in moralistic fatuity, has all but declared war on Evil,
proclaiming global democratic revolution. That is, only
democracy can be truly legitimate; with the proviso, of course, that only the
United States can decide what counts as truly democratic.
As Ive noted elsewhere, this comfortably
simple notion, no less than Marxism-Leninism, would serve as a pretext for
eternal war and revolution. And in fact it has already proved impossible to
apply consistently. Recent democratic elections in the Muslim world
in Algeria, Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon, for example have produced
results unacceptable to the United States and Israel. Even conquered Iraq
has proved hard to democratize to American specifications.
In America, we used to be taught, moments of
crisis elicit great leaders. We last heard it shortly after September 11,
2001. One minor consolation of the latest conflagrations in the Middle East is
that this old saw will finally be retired for good.
Joseph Sobran
Article copyright © 2006 by The Vere Company. All Rights
Reserved.
This article may not be reprinted in print or
Internet publications without express permission
of The
Vere Company.
|
Send this article to a
friend.
|
|
Return to the SOBRANS
home page.
|