[Ricardo Nunes]

America's elite hurting nation's resolve in Iraq
The Straits Times

By Alfred Balitzer

IT IS common to speak of the United States as the world's only remaining superpower, but this is at best a transient designation: History books enthral us with tales of the decline and fall of superpowers. A failure of political or military nerve in Iraq will lead to a tectonic shift in the world community, including the creation of a power vacuum that will tempt all sorts of dangerous ambitions.

Accordingly, there is reason to worry about the impact of the extraordinary onslaught by America's media and political elite on the war and on the Bush administration. Judging from the ceaseless torrent of criticism by the elite, there is nothing good whatsoever coming from the Iraq war - no benefits for the Iraqi people, no progress in the war on terrorism, no enhanced security for America, her allies or the people of the region. Good news, except in a very few instances, is simply not carried by America's print or electronic media.

By and large, the international media imitates the negativism of the American media and is silent about positive news. Indeed, anything that may be positive for the Bush administration goes unnoticed or is buried deep in the back pages of the newspaper. Members of the elite have made up their minds: President George W. Bush, whose resolve is the backbone of America's determination to win in Iraq, must go.

The volume of criticism is especially dangerous because it has distorted public discourse about the war, confusing some, demoralising others, and chipping away public support for the war and the President.

In the US, for instance, it is popular among the elite to speak of the war in Iraq as a war of ideas, a contest for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, perhaps of Muslims everywhere. These phrases blind us to the true meaning of the war. They are part of the hogwash that now dominates the debate over the war, derailing sensible discussion about what must be done to win in Iraq and defeat the danger of global terrorism.

The war in Iraq is not a war of ideas. It is not a philosophy class. Neither does it fit the terms of 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill's 'marketplace of ideas', an arena of engagement that assumes agreed-upon rules and mutual obligations.

In Iraq, there are neither agreed- upon rules nor mutual obligations. Rather, Iraq is a combat zone where decisions are made by the application of force.

In Iraq, hearts and minds follow good arms. So long as the US is victorious and demonstrates strength, the Iraqi people will give the coalition its tacit, perhaps over time even its open, support.

However, should the US appear weak, confused, indecisive or lacking control, should battlefield victories be shrouded by the politics of the home front, Iraq will certainly become a quagmire for the Iraqi people and for America.

This brings us to the hazing of Iraqi prisoners by a handful of American troops at the Abu Ghraib prison. Indeed, the actions of these soldiers are incomprehensible, violating law, offending decency and sickening anyone who has seen the photographs. Investigations should proceed expeditiously and perpetrators should swiftly face the bar of justice.

At the same time, in order to avoid demoralising the troops in the field, it is vital that American officials avoid the temptation to rush to judgment, looking to lay blame where it is not deserved in order to placate the outrage of US senators, the media or the Arab street.


In this, as in any legal proceeding, there is no room for politics. The intrusion of politics can only have a detrimental effect on America's armed forces at a time when they are in harm's way. The success of American arms will quell the passions of the Arab street.

Sanctimonious expressions by the political and media elite serve neither the cause of justice nor the cause of truth.

Based on the volume of moral outrage, one may think members of the elite are talking about Auschwitz. By comparison to the daily acts of violence in American prisons, about which public officials are largely silent, Abu Ghraib pales.

The average American understands better than America's elite that words must be used with special care when the nation is at war. Balance and self-control in what is said, especially by representatives of public institutions, is of vital importance in maintaining morale at home and among the troops while keeping the enemy off balance.

The single-minded focus on Abu Ghraib by elected officials and media commentators, especially after the recent decapitation of American civilian Nicholas Berg by Al-Qaeda forces, is hard for most Americans to understand. They wonder aloud in cafes, in barber and beauty shops and in bars why the ruling class has lost all sense of proportion - why it has its priorities so wrong. They have a better understanding of the war against terrorism than their leaders, and are confused and troubled, expecting better of their leaders.

The terrorist enemy, too, understands the importance of America's domestic front and believes it knows how to exploit American weakness. Mr Berg was butchered only in part out of retaliation for Abu Ghraib. His killers, who have demonstrated a clear capacity to think tactically, seized on the display of the Abu Ghraib photographs, seeing in the ensuing controversy, which has obscured almost all other issues pertaining to the war, weakness and an opportunity to use fear and terror to undermine American resolve.

The writer is professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.

Comentários?

[Luso]

"At the same time, in order to avoid demoralising the troops in the field, it is vital that American officials avoid the temptation to rush to judgment, looking to lay blame where it is not deserved in order to placate the outrage of US senators, the media or the Arab street."

Que "american officials"?
Já não há nada disso. Actualmente, não há funcionários públicos em cargos de responsabilidade com eles no sítio.
Agradeçam ao Dale Carnegie e quejandos.

[dremanu]

Agradeçam ao Dale Carnegie e quejandos.

"How to win friends & influence people"

Seria talvez mais correto dizer:

"How to butt-kiss your way to the top"