Learning From Our Mistakes

A common refrain among the left-wing/anti-American crowd post-11 September 2001 was that America should examine itself and figure out why the rest of the world (supposedly) hated it so much. Presumably, this was a call for America to rectify those faults. Many conservative bloggers deride this idea, which they call the “root causes” argument.

Let’s take a look at some of the popular “root causes” that were put forth, though. Maybe they’re worth considering, especially in the light of today’s events in Baghdad.

• Support For Their Oppressors

  This argument goes something like, America has supported every tin-pot dictator that has come along, so no wonder the oppressed masses detest America. (This ignores the fact that many of said despots milk anti-Americanism for all it’s worth through state-controlled media, but we’ll leave that aside for now.) The argument that America supplied much of Saddam’s combat power, though rather thoroughly debunked by the Dissident Frogman a couple of weeks ago, is of that vein.

  Well, scratch one dictator from the scene.

  We backed away from toppling Saddam in 1991, famously abandoning the mostly-Shi’a uprising we encouraged for two reasons: the lack of mandate from a United Nations that Bush 41 respected a lot more than Bush 43, and fear of Iran attempting to fill the power vacuum if we were not committed to the reconstruction process (which we probably would not have been). The fear of a similar betrayal probably held back popular uprisings in Iraq’s south early in this war.

  As Den Beste predicted, we left the Brits to take Basra and headed straight for Baghdad this time. Once we got over initial hiccups at An Nasiriyah, there was absolutely no question we were in this to stay. I’d bet that the British tactic of surrounding Basra, making periodic power-establishing raids and otherwise sitting outside the city, was designed to take advantage of this strategy — and it worked. As soon as the locals figured out we meant business by what they heard from the various media pounding them (particularly Baghdad Bob’s pronouncements of Iraqi victories that came closer to the capital day by day), they promptly rose up themselves and saved the Brits the trouble.

  So, now the world is minus one dictator that some folks claimed we created. I’m having a tough time crying over that one.

• Ideals, or Not Living Up To Them

  This could be considered a variant of the “supporting their oppressors” argument. Generally stated, it points out that America talks a lot about freedom and justice, but pursues realpolitik-based national interest far above any political ideals it claims to hold. There are quite a few grains of truth to this argument.

  But as is pretty well-known by now, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had a major falling-out over the future of Iraq some weeks back. Powell was said to favor the traditional State Department ‘stability’ approach, even insofar as to install a U.S.-friendly autocrat in the new Iraq, who wouldn’t scare the other autocracies in the region with whom we have slightly better relations. Rumsfeld and VP Dick Cheney rejected this “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” idea wholeheartedly; better to try to build democratic institutions than push the same old idea that hadn’t worked in the past. (We thought Saddam looked friendly in 1980, compared to the Ayatollahs next door holding our embassy staff hostage.)

  If democracy scares the neighbors, then as former CIA director James Woolsey said in a speech at UCLA last week, good. It certainly seems to have better long-term prospects for creating America-friendly populaces than does despotism, judging from past cases. Its agreement with America’s basic political ideals works for us too.

• (Supposed) American Moral Arrogance

  This may itself be the ‘root cause’ of the root causes argument. What really appears to most bother these people is the advocacy of American standards and ideals (or, as I think of it, America’s societal moral code) as a universal force for good.

  Now, don’t get me wrong. I got my G-School multicultural indoctrination like everyone else there, and part of the reason I think foreign travel is good is because we see that the American way isn’t the only way things can or should be done. The people I’m arguing against take multiculturalism way further than that, though, into the realm of moral equivalence, the idea that all moral codes are equal — applied to cultures, this posits that each culture’s morals are equally valid.

  My main objection to this is: if you believe your moral code is correct, then don’t you have an obligation to attempt to share it, and hold others to it? You don’t have to do so by force, but you surely should do so by words, or at least exemplify your moral context/moral code by your actions. If you can’t or won’t do this, doesn’t that illustrate that you aren’t really confident in your own moral code?

  And speaking of arrogance, isn’t the exaltation of moral equivalence above all itself a form of moral superiority? But I thought all moral codes were the same — if that’s so, your adherence to equivalence/relativism can’t possibly be superior to my adherence to my chosen code!

I’ll grant that self-examination is good, and that we can learn from looking at episodes in our past as partial causation of some of today’s problems. But I think the left would much rather we stew on our failures. I’d prefer that we get to work fixing the problems. And I think the people partying in the streets of Baghdad tonight would agree with me.