Jewish World Review May 17, 2004/ 26 Iyar, 5764
Now's not the time for Bush to go soft
Unknown to the big shot diplomat, 'round about that exact moment halfway across the world, Nick Berg's captors were cutting his head off or, to be more precise, feverishly hacking it off while raving ''God is great!''
So Bob Novak's ''senior official'' some languid upper-class Brit? a cynical Continental? usefully reminds us of the difference between the participants in this war. On one side, references to decapitation are purely metaphorical; on the other, they mean it.
One way to measure the softness of a society is to look at how hitherto robust language becomes drained of all literal meaning. Take Novak's own CNN show ''Crossfire,'' and a testy exchange on the subject from Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. Contemplating Pat Buchanan's experience as a TV host, Dole muttered, ''I was in the real crossfire. It wasn't on television. It was over in Italy somewhere, a long time ago.''
Just so. Back before 9/11, real crossfire was long ago and far away. Not anymore. And that's the problem: We still have a ''Crossfire'' culture in an age of real crossfire. We have the ersatz warriors, the ham actors of Washington Senators Kennedy, Levin, Leahy, Harkin and others too fond of seeing their names in print to mention ''calling for Rumsfeld's head'' at a time when America's enemies have already got Nick Berg's, and they're swinging it around on camera for the snuff video they'll be distributing as a recruiting tool.
Yet they published them. Because they wanted them to be true. Because it would bring them a little closer to the head they really want to roll George W. Bush's. If you want to see what the Islamists did to Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl or to those guys in Fallujah or even to the victims of Sept. 11, you'll have to ferret it out on the Internet. The media aren't interested in showing you images that might rouse the American people to righteous anger, only images that will shame and demoralize them.
Goh Chok Tong, the prime minister of Singapore, was in Washington the other day and summed it up very well: ''The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the U.N. The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail.'' In Britain, they used to say that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton i.e., it was thanks to the fierce resolve inculcated by an English education. The war on terror will be lost in the talking shops of Washington i.e., it will be thanks to the lack of resolve inculcated by excessive exposure to blow-dried pundits and Senate hearings. The war now has two fronts. In Iraq, the glass is half-full. In Washington, it's half-empty, and draining fast.
The administration, in trying to see its way through both the phony crossfire and the real one, has been rattled by the fake war. Someone in the White House needs seriously to stiffen the Bush rhetoric. When the president talks about ''staying the course'' and ''bringing to justice'' the killers, he sounds like Bill Clinton, who pledged to stay the course in Somalia and bring to justice the terrorists, and did neither. Bush has to go back to speaking Rumsfeldian, not Powellite: He has to talk about winning total victory, hunting down the enemy and killing them.
He also needs to promise himself that he'll never again apologize to some Arab despot even relatively benign ones, like the king of Jordan for events in Iraq. If he feels the need to apologize, he should apologize to the American people for apologizing to the Arab world. This isn't just because what went on in Abu Ghraib is a picnic well, a Paris Hilton video picnic compared to what goes on every day in the prisons of our Arab ''allies.'' More important than that, the Bush apology buys into one of the most fetid props of the region's so-called stability ''pan-Arabism.'' If U.S. troops ''humiliated'' some Portuguese prisoners, the president wouldn't apologize to the king of Norway or the prime minister of Slovenia. So why, when U.S. troops humiliate Iraqi prisoners, would he apologize to Jordan's King Abdullah or Egypt's thug-for-life? ''Pan-Arabism'' is one reason why the region's a sewer. If Iraq succeeds, it will be by breaking with regional solidarity.
By the way, you might be wondering by now where the great procession of Arab leaders lining up to apologize to America for Nick Berg's murder has gotten to. Only a few Middle Eastern men want to saw the heads of Jews and infidels. But an awful lot more the majority in some states are either noisily approving or silently accepting of such an act. Winston Churchill wrote of two ''curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries'' not only the ''fanatical frenzy,'' which you can see in the orgiastic pleasure Berg's killers take in their clumsy work, but also the ''fearful fatalistic apathy,'' to which many more Arabs are prone. It's the latter that makes them such easy waters for the sharks to swim among.
We always come back to that strong horse/weak horse thing. But the point to remember is that Osama bin Laden talked about who was seen as the strong horse: It's a perception issue. America may be, technically, the strong horse but, thanks to its press and its political class, the administration is showing dangerous signs of climbing into the rear end of the weak-horse burlesque suit. If America retreats into its own fatalistic apathy, there will be many more Nick Bergs in the years ahead.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Mark Steyn is North American Editor of The (London) Spectator and the author, most recently, of "The Face of the Tiger," a new book on the world post-Sept. 11. (Sales help fund JWR). Comment by clicking here.