Where is Chris Kyle when you need him?
The late hero of the movie “American Sniper” made no apology for killing as many members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the precursor of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as he could get in his rifle sights.
After the burning alive of a captured Jordanian pilot by ISIL, who would object to Kyle, or any other American sniper, shooting down these murderous fanatics if he could get access to them? And who would quibble with Kyle’s characterization of these people as “savages,” even “damn savages”?
Perhaps NBC News correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin would still denounce Kyle for his “racist tendencies” and “killing sprees,” as he did on air the other day, but most everyone else would welcome the late Navy SEAL bringing his cold-eyed professionalism to bear on ISIL.
Part of what the left finds objectionable about Kyle is the unshakable moral certainty he brought to his fight. In light of ISIL’s spectacular advertisements of its own cruelty, though, Kyle’s point of view holds up very well. It is becoming practically an international norm.
“This evil can and should be defeated,” a spokesman for the Jordanian government said after the execution of its pilot.
The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates spoke in a similar key: “This heinous and obscene act represents a brutal escalation by the terrorist group, whose evil objectives have become apparent.”
So did the British foreign secretary: “This latest depravity will only redouble international determination to eradicate the evil that is ISIL.”
Here at home, “Morning Joe” on Wednesday did a segment on ISIL labeled “Evil Acts of History,” comparing its depredations to those of the Nazis and other barbarous killers.
The ISIL beheadings last summer marked the return of the rhetoric of evil, because no other word will quite suffice for beheadings, crucifixions and, now, an immolation.
“Violent extremism,” the administration’s phrase of choice, obviously doesn’t capture it. You can pile on the adjectives — hideous, savage, heinous — and still not get at the willful malevolence of caging a man and burning him alive.
In his first statement after the horrifying news of the pilot’s fate, President Barack Obama said the act reinforced the “viciousness and barbarity” of ISIL, which he repeated must be — what else? — “degraded and ultimately defeated.” He added that “whatever ideology they’re operating off of, it’s bankrupt.”
Argentina is bankrupt. Radio Shack is bankrupt. ISIL is evil.
Obama has used the word “evil” about ISIL on other occasions. It was noted that in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly last September, the president sounded like George W. Bush when he insisted, “There can be no reasoning — no negotiation — with this brand of evil.”
Throughout his presidency, Bush made unapologetic use of the word “evil” to describe our terrorist enemies and caught hell for it. On the left, it became a given that Bush’s reliance on the word spoke to his manifest unsuitability for the presidency.
The controversial ethicist Peter Singer wrote a book titled, “The President of Good and Evil: Questioning the Ethics of George W. Bush.” Needless to say, it wasn’t an endorsement of his ethics. Glenn Greenwald wrote his own tome titled, “A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency.”
It became a trope that Bush was just like his enemies in his fearsome certitude. Bush critic Ron Suskind approvingly quoted commentator Bruce Bartlett, who unburdened himself of this deep thought: Bush believes the Islamic radicals “can’t be persuaded, that they’re extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he’s just like them.”
University of Chicago professor Bruce Lincoln wrote of Bush and Osama bin Laden, “Both men constructed a Manichaean struggle, where Sons of Light confront Sons of Darkness, and all must enlist on one side or another, without possibility of neutrality, hesitation, or middle ground.”
Yeah, they were exactly the same except that one unhesitatingly ordered the hijacking of civilian aircraft to crash into skyscrapers, and the other unhesitatingly described that act of mass murder as evil.
What is it about the word “evil” that so offends the left?
It smacks of a religious worldview that makes secularists uncomfortable. It sets up a natural opposition between good and evil — what experts dissecting Bush called a “binary discourse” — that is altogether too confident in our own virtue for the left. It doesn’t necessarily entail any particular policy response, but it tilts toward a total commitment to fighting the enemy, since a campaign to degrade evil feels inherently inadequate.
If Bush was ill-served at times by his stubbornness and certainty, it’s always worth remembering Democrats were perfectly content to lose to Al Qaeda in Iraq when Bush was ordering the surge in 2007, and Obama’s insistence on pulling out of Iraq entirely was a priceless boon to ISIL.
Obama was allegedly the embodiment of a wholly different approach than Bush, much more nuanced and sophisticated than his predecessor and his embarrassing nomenclature of “evil.” Yet Obama’s doubts were more about the usefulness and goodness of American power than about his own purposes. He pursued the “end” of the Bush-era wars at all costs, regardless of the depravity of the forces on the ground who would benefit.
We were supposed to be beyond good vs. evil, although the other side didn’t get the memo and never left the field. It’s almost as if the greatest trick evil ever played was persuading the left not to call it by its proper name.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/jordanian-pilot-return-of-evil-114927.html#ixzz3Qvwovwxs
No comments:
Post a Comment