by Eric Martin
Prolonged military occupations breed resentment and hostility amongst the occupied population. That is not a particularly piercing insight, but then as Fred Kaplan observed, the Bush administration "has violated so many precepts of International Relations 101 that clichés take on the air of wisdom." Speaking of which:
Monday, Iraq's largest Sunni Arab party said it rejected an apology made by the U.S. military after an American sniper used a Quran for target practice. The unidentified soldier was disciplined and removed from Iraq, the military said Sunday.
The Iraqi Islamic Party called the shooting of Islam's holy book a "flagrant assault on Muslim sacraments" and that the "apology alone" was not enough. It said the U.S. military should impose the "severest punishment" on the soldier to ensure others do not repeat his act.
The Quran, with 14 bullet holes and graffiti marked on its paged, was found on May 11 by Iraqis near a former base outside the town of Radwaniyah, west of Baghdad.
On Saturday, the top U.S. commander held a formal ceremony apologizing to Radwaniyah's Sunni tribal leaders, vowing the act would not be repeated.
Paul Bremer (unintentionally confirming his inability to grasp basic human nature and its political ramifications) recently claimed that using the term "occupation" to describe the US presence in Iraq was "in many ways more important" in terms of generating opposition to the US presence than the many inevitable, if regrettable, provocations of the occupying army/political authority. The belief that good marketing can overcome the facts on the ground is a particular affliction of the Bush administration, and its contingent of Mayberry Machiavellis.
However, as Juan Cole points out while commenting on the Koran desecration incident mentioned above, the marketing message isn't even that good - or at least, there are key elements that work against each other:
The incident crystallizes the contradiction in Bush administration policy, between promoting Islamophobia among Americans while attempting to cultivate Muslim allies abroad.
Fareed Zakaria neatly summarized this conundrum:
This is the [Republican] party's dilemma -- it wishes to spread liberty to people whom it doesn't really like.
The Boys with the Arab Trap as I termed it. Even Rich Lowry can see the cracks in the facade:
Bush’s emphasis on the inherent hunger for freedom is powerful. It clothes his foreign policy in an undeniable idealism. It puts his liberal opponents in a tight spot, because it is awkward for them to object to the kind of sweeping universalism they have always embraced. It might be simplistic, but that is often an advantage in political communication.
The problem with Bush’s freedom rhetoric is that it appears to not be true.
That is a problem, isn't it.
Who would have thought the "we will keep bombing you until you love us" policy wouldn't work out?
Posted by: Ugh | May 19, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I'm sure Bush would embrace peace-nik Hippie-Talk if he knew it would be a great way to start and maintain a war.
This was never about freedom and liberty. Bush is an old fashion elitist, he engaged in mass death and the destruction of families for reasons that have nothing to do with “liberty and freedom.”
Posted by: someotherdude | May 19, 2008 at 01:09 PM
I really am getting tired of people who believe it was Bush's naiveté and his willingness to dream and that is why so many have been killed and maimed.
Bush has a very dark heart, trying to cover it in the rhetoric of dreams and hope is truly degenerate.
Posted by: someotherdude | May 19, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Shooting a Quran will get a soldier out of Iraq, eh? I predict a rash of Quran shootings in the near future.
Posted by: ...now I try to be amused | May 19, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Does it have to have bullet holes or can we go with basic graffiti?
Liberation isn't important. Getting Iraq to normal isn't. Afghanistan isn't either. We can just walk away. Dreams? Why bother, we don't have to, bye. If we left now, it wouldn't make any difference.
The point might be the bombing of New York and the pentagon,etc. was wrong. The cost for the terrorists is pretty high. Iran has alot of infrastructure.
The problem is being nice. We can leave now, there's nothing we can do. Next time, we'll keep it in the air. Bomb anything of value and let them starve.
Posted by: adiu | May 19, 2008 at 01:35 PM
The Boys with the Arab Trap as I termed it.
It could have been a brilliant career.
Posted by: matttbastard | May 19, 2008 at 02:00 PM
mattbastard wins!
Lousy T-shirt is in the mail*.
Arab Strap dight be my favorite record of B & S, and it might be my favorite track as well.
(no t-shirt or other prizes actually awarded for guessing song allusions. all references to gifts is purely accidental. void where exhibited)
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 19, 2008 at 02:06 PM
[neocon alternate version of mattbastard's post]
The Boys with the Arab Trap as I termed it.
Is it wicked not to care?
Posted by: Ben Alpers | May 19, 2008 at 02:27 PM
[GOP strategist's alternate version of mattbastard's post]
Their love hate affair with their racist clientele
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 19, 2008 at 03:25 PM
Is it wicked not to care?
sure, if you're feeling sinister.
Posted by: cleek | May 19, 2008 at 03:35 PM
Dear Catastrophe Soldier?
The Qur'an shootin' soldier should be brought onstage at a convocation of several hundred of his comrades, and introduced along the lines of "someone is going to maim or kill one or more of you because of this guy."
What they do to him after that, I dunno.
Posted by: Anderson | May 19, 2008 at 05:00 PM
More to the point, is there any evidence that "liberation" was a realistic objective in the first place? That it was the actual objective?
Posted by: idlemind | May 19, 2008 at 07:39 PM
The Qur'an shootin' soldier should be brought onstage at a convocation of several hundred of his comrades, and introduced along the lines of "someone is going to maim or kill one or more of you because of this guy."
What they do to him after that, I dunno.
Did you order a Code Red?
Posted by: Catsy | May 19, 2008 at 10:11 PM
That is a problem, isn't it.
It's not. No more than it is for the "pro-life" rhetoric, "states rights" rhetoric, "strict constitutionalism" rhetoric, "free market" rhetoric, "small government" rhetoric, or any other bullshit rhetoric.
Posted by: abb1 | May 20, 2008 at 08:33 AM
methinks the Bush administration's attitude is perhaps best summed up by the title of a certain debut single by The Cure . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | May 20, 2008 at 10:38 PM