The result has been that American soldiers have stood by and watched while the criminal element of Iraq did just about whatever it wanted (short of rape and murder, of course). The cheering crowds weren't as large as we had hoped, and resentment is strong.
It is very difficult for us to imagine ourselves "in the other man's shoes." We Americans have grown so used to economic and military hegemony in the world that we hardly even remember the days we dug shelters in our back yards for fear of the Russians. But let's try to imagine what it might be like if the south had won the 1860s war and the nation had later further divided.
Let's also imagine that one of the resulting countries, probably the part where I now live, evolved into a Christian republic where evangelicals decided all the rules. These rules would include, of course, a strict ban on abortion, homosexual conduct, extramarital sex, and the teaching of evolution in public school.
While some of the other middle-American nations weren't as strict, the presence of this Christian republic in their midst led them to move in that direction. Christians in the other nations were emboldened, and pushed strongly for similar laws.
Of course with the people of middle-America divided, Russia developed into the world's only superpower, dominating Europe, and directly controlling about half of it. The Christian republic in middle-America made them nervous, and their foreign policy experts sought ways to dilute that country's influence on the rest of the region. National security concerns justified their involvement.
In the nation just north of the Christian republic the Russians found their opportunity. The elected president was weak, and factions in the military strongly opposed him. A little under-the-table money to a general sparked a coup in which the general assumed power -- lots of it. This general was a little heavy-handed, but he insisted that evolution be taught in the schools, that abortions be available under certain circumstances, and that homosexuality be decriminalized.
Of course under-the-table money is never totally secret, and the residents of surrounding nations guessed or learned quickly how this general had moved into power. These more conservative nations strongly distrusted the general and resented the Russian intrusion into middle-American affairs.
The small but wealthy country surrounding the mouth of the Hudson River controlled a major port through which millions of tons of middle-American products were exported to Europe and Russia. Middle-America was rich in one of the world's scarcest resources: food. Much of it made its way across the Atlantic through the Hudson River port. This made that nation wealthy, and aligned it as much with Russia as with its middle-American neighbors.
Meanwhile the general-turned-dictator began to think how grand it would be if he could succeed where Mr. Lincoln had failed. Perhaps through military might he could reunite middle-America. He started with his Hudson River neighbor. The military campaign was simple. The people of the country were wealthy and despised taxes. Anyway, they had an aversion to the violence of war. Their weak military organization was no match for the army of a country run by a general.
The move alarmed the Russians, the Europeans, and the Chinese. The Christian republic and three nations from western middle-America put up large sums of food-derived cash to pay these three groups to drive the dictator back to his own country. This temporary trans-Atlantic alliance had many strains and few strengths. The middle-American countries involved knew only the Russian alliance had the power to stop the dictator. But they didn't want the Russians to end up with a puppet state in their midst.
Their cash saved them. Russia and China (and the Europeans) would get it ONLY if they promised to stop when the threat to the Hudson River country had been neutralized. Acting with the honor that befits a world superpower, the Russian president called his reluctant generals home before they could destroy the dictator.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. How will the other middle-American nations feel when the Russians move in to take over the dictator's country? The Russian system encourages abortion as a means of birth control, prohibits the teaching of creation in public school, and grants marital rights to any two people who commit to monogamy. Most of those rights will be considered mandatory in any government that follows the Russian invasion. What are Christian nations to do?
Yes; I know; my title was misleading. So let me get to that.
A recent Ann Coulter column discussed the meaning of freedom of speech. She specifically stated that the truth was now available on the Internet, talk radio, and Fox News. Anybody with a knowledge of the Internet knows that most of what appears there has a relatively dubious relation to truth. As for Fox News....
I found the article interesting in light of a Press Club speech by an actor opposed to the war. The Baseball Hall of Fame had just cancelled an event marking an anniversary of the film Bull Durham, because of this actor's stance on the war. He gave other instances where opponents of the current administration were being intimidated. One rock star said he'd speak up except for the influence of Clear Channel. That company controls many of the stations that play this star's records.
Ann tried to turn this on its ear. The liberals, she tried to complain, opposed the free speech of conservatives. Her examples included a concert by a rap artist whose fans booed him when he expressed doubts about the war. He squelched the free speech of his audience, she claimed, through his microphone and 50,000 watts.
I suppose the conservatives have a point. For years "politically correct" usually meant liberal. It does seem that political correctness has taken a sharp right turn in recent years. But I wonder if the pressure to be "PC" really matches the current pressure to support an insane war?
When Bill Clinton was the president under the gun, did anyone cancel the appearance of a celebrity who openly criticized him? Was the patriotism of anyone who suggested Bill was immoral and unworthy of the presidency seriously questioned? Were people afraid to speak out about the Lewinsky affair at work? Did a major news outlet fire reporters who gave interviews to the president's enemies? My guess is that the level of intimidation of Bill's critics was far lower than the level of intimidation of those who criticize King George.
So I'm taking a stand. When it comes to the morality that counts, Mr. Bush plays a leage or two below the decidedly immoral Bill Clinton. This war has "liberated" only the worst elements of Iraqi society, leaving honest, law-abiding citizens to cower in their powerless, waterless, phoneless homes. In terms of American security this war has been primarliy counterproductive.
Does that mean I don't support our troops? Of course not. Long before this war started I spoke out asking that they not be sent into the paths of Iraqi bullets. Do I pray for our troops? I may not have asked the ruler of the universe to help them win, but I certainly asked that they not be forced to fight so uselessly.
Does this mean I support Saddam Hussein? Absolutely not. But while I abhor the brutality of his rule, I recognize that Iraqi women had rights unrivaled in the Middle East (except for Israel, of course). Ousting Saddam was a job for Saddam's people and neighbors. If they had asked us to help them defeat an enemy too powerful for them, we'd have better justification for our war. But they didn't!
We need to learn to treat the world as we would like to be treated. Reform begins at home. If we want other countries to empower their underprivileged citizens, we need to take steps to empower our own poor. If we fear militant Islam, we need to put a reign on militant Christianity in our own country. If we want to stop other countries from developing nuclear weapons we need to destroy our own. And if we think other people should have the right to oppose their own governments, we need to stop intimidating those who believe the current administration has made a lot of poor choices.