THE WANDERER, MARCH 30, 2006
JOSEPH SOBRAN'S
WASHINGTON WATCH
From Cakewalk to Quagmire
As we enter the fourth year of the Iraq war,
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld continue to insist that it has been a
success so far, hinting broadly that we must try this
again some time soon in Iran.
The neoconservatives can hardly wait, and they may
not have to wait long. Given what an attack on Iran would
do to the world oil market, you may want to think about
purchasing a new mode of transportation. A horse,
perhaps.
Amazing. At least during the Vietnam War, Lyndon
Johnson and Richard Nixon, even at their most stubborn,
never told us we needed an even wider war to go with it.
One quagmire at a time was more than enough. Few people
would now quarrel with the word "quagmire" to describe
the current war. Bush, though, still denies that what is
happening in Iraq is a "civil war."
Nearly everyone else, at this point, is discussing
the best way to get out of Iraq and cut our losses,
instantly or gradually. Like Social Security and
Medicare, this war is turning out to be more costly than
even the pessimists predicted. But once again, nobody --
nobody in national politics, that is -- seems to want to
admit its whole premise was wrong and start over. The
warfare-welfare state is here to stay for a while longer,
until it collapses of its own weight. Bush, even more
than Johnson, has seen to that.
I once asked how Bush's successor will clean up
after the mess he is leaving. It seems I was premature.
Bush is going to have to cope with his own mess before he
leaves office. So far, he is denying that there is any
mess. He refuses either to reduce troop levels or to
raise taxes to pay for his huge additions to Medicare.
Not that taxes should be raised, but he should face the
fact that he has committed us to the impossible.
Congress has responded by raising the national debt
limit to $8 trillion, thereby passing the cost along to
future generations; this is the Republican version of
socialism, redistributing wealth from the unborn to the
living.
Republicans mocked the licentious Bill Clinton as a
child of the sixties, and so he was, but the jeer also
suits their spendthrift president, who wants to put
everything on the future's charge card. Most observers
have quit asking what Bush's political philosophy is,
since he obviously has none.
When I saw a picture of Bush in New Orleans, using
hammer and nails to repair a damaged house, my sense of
unreality peaked. I realized it was only a photo-op, as
we now say; but the idea of a wartime president pitching
in with manual labor.... Perhaps we should take another
look at that Constitution.
The Parties
The Democrats would love to capitalize on Bush's
floundering, foundering presidency, but they are still
having trouble getting their act together. When Sen. Russ
Feingold introduced a motion to censure Bush for his
illegal domestic surveillance, but not his conduct of the
war itself, they panicked and repudiated the measure;
just as Hillary Clinton has criticized the Iraq war while
suggesting that something must be done about Iran.
The Republicans are similarly confused. Bush's
approval ratings are just above 30%, his lowest ever, so
they want to keep a prudent distance from him, especially
on domestic spending; but they also know that his hard
core of support is also their base, so repudiating him
outright is another matter. November's midterm elections
are coming up.
Lines between -- and within -- the two parties have
been further confused by the ports deal, illegal
immigration, and other issues that stir unpredictable
passions but fall outside traditional ideological
guidelines.
Then, once again, there are figures like Bill
Buckley, who had no sooner enraged neoconservatives by
pronouncing the Iraq war a "defeat" than he sought to
redeem himself by calling for a military strike against
Iran.
But at least Buckley had raised a serious question.
Even if you think a war is justified, you have to face
the consequences. Buckley thinks the war on Iraq was
justified, but says the results have turned out to be
more than we can bear. This is a mature distinction, a
recognition that optimism has its limits.
Bush and the hawks, on the other hand, argue that
because the war is justified, the results can only be
good, as long as we "stay the course." In John Kennedy's
now-hackneyed words, "we will bear any burden, pay any
price."
So Bush sees it as his mission to keep up morale
until victory is achieved. Unfortunately, he is not cut
out for leadership. That is becoming clearer every week.
Faith in War
Every so often, I get an abusive letter from a
reader, who is sometimes a patriot first, a Catholic
second, and a logician a distant third, along these
lines: "Our brave soldier are fighting in [wherever] to
protect the very freedoms, such as freedom of speech, you
cowardly peaceniks are abusing."
Ignore the accusation and examine the premise. This
assumes that we owe our freedoms to war, and that our
wars, no matter where, defend those freedoms. It is an
odd assumption, but it has the status of an American
dogma, which we are all expected to accept as an
unquestioned article of faith.
Never mind that our freedoms are actually won at
home (as in common law and the Bill of Rights), that wars
are waged for other reasons, and that the enemy seldom if
ever aims to destroy our domestic freedoms. Was Jefferson
Davis trying to enslave the North? Was the Kaiser aiming
to abolish free speech? Was Manuel Noriega intent on
preventing us from worshiping freely? Was Saddam Hussein
(or Osama bin Laden) hoping to repeal the Bill of Rights?
These questions answer themselves.
And never mind that our freedoms have been most
seriously abridged by our own presidents during wartime:
Lincoln, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and now Bush.
Nor can I think of a notable philosopher or
theologian who has held that war has any inherent
tendency to promote personal liberty. The idea is absurd.
Yes, now and then invaders are repelled or occupiers
expelled by violence, but these are exceptional cases.
Did our Lord ever celebrate a war? This question
answers itself too.
+ + +
"The measure of the state's success is that the word
anarchy frightens people, while the word state does not"
-- SOBRAN'S. If you have not seen my monthly newsletter
yet, give my office a call at 800-513-5053 and request a
free sample, or better yet, subscribe for two years for
just $85. New subscribers get two gifts with their
subscription. More details can be found at the
Subscription page of my website, www.sobran.com.
Already a subscriber? Consider a gift subscription
for a priest, friend, or relative.
--- Joseph Sobran
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2006/w060330.shtml".
This column copyright (c) 2006 by THE WANDERER, the
National Catholic Weekly founded in 1867,
www.thewandererpress.com. Reprinted with permission.
This column may not be published in print or Internet
publications without express permission of THE WANDERER.
You may forward it to interested individuals if you use
this entire page, including the following disclaimer:
"THE WANDERER is available by subscription. Write
subscription@thewandererpress.com for information.
Subscription price: $50 per year; $30 for six months.
Checks can be sent to The WANDERER, 201 Ohio Street,
Dept. JS, St. Paul, MN 55107.
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's syndicated columns are
available by e-mail subscription. For details and
samples, see http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."
This page copyright (c) 2006 by THE VERE COMPANY.