Every time some despot falls in the middle east--an all-too-infrequent occurence, unfortunately--we hear from the left that this is wrong, because it "humiliates the Arabs" (or the Muslims), with their presumably ultra-sensitive national pride. (Of course, the same sort of pride--in a much milder form--is considered intolerably "racist xenophobia" when displayed by Americans, but I digress.) As proof, we get video clips of the latest mob-for-hire shouting "Death to America!" out of their own free will with no coersion whatsoever--in Teheran or Islamabad or Cairo or Tripoli, those bastions of free expression of public opinion.
Well, Saddam fell. The supposedly "humiliated" Iraqis were SO humiliated this time, they danced in the streets for joy, openly claiming this is the happiest day of their lives. And on the same day the pride of the Arab world, the great and brave Hussein, was captured by evil imperialist forces, too!
What's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong with it is that the USA is NOT "humiliating the Arabs". It is merely humiliating the despots who rule the Arab world and the terrorists who would like all of the world to be (their kind of) Muslim. Most Arabs--and most Muslims--fervently wish for their "dear leaders" to be humiliated in this way, and the sooner, the better. If I were living in Libya, I'd be praying to Allah every day that the Americans will decide to humiliate Quaddafi next--and most of them no doubt are doing just that, if they can get a glimpse of the truth from their state-controlled press.
(By the way, one unintentional side effect of state-controlled press is that the public learns to read between the lines. "GREAT DEFENSIVE VICTORY" = retreat and/or defeat, "THE MOTHER OF ALL WARS HAS STARTED" = Saddam failed to stop American invasion, "ARAB PRIDE WILL AVENGE THIS IMPERIALIST AGRESSION" = Saddam finally captured, etc. Those Libyans who learned this art are probably quite happy right now. But I digress...)
In addition, even if it WERE true that "humiliating the Arabs" was a result of toppling Saddam, just like Quaddafi and Hamas fervently claim, SO WHAT?
When you fight a war, you have three options. 1). To lose; 2). To eliminate the enemy to the last man; 3). To defeat the enemy and NOT take revenge upon him, leaving him "humiliated" at having lost a war.
LOSING A WAR MEANS BEING HUMILIATED. DUH! But this is precisely what the USA did to Germany and Japan in WWII, to England in the Revolutionary war, to the south in the civil war, and to the USSR in the end of the cold war, etc., etc. A humiliated enemy come part and parcel with winning war. When the left says "don't humiliate the Arabs", what it really means is "don't you dare win the war, your enemy might not like it!".
But surely, "humiliating" the enemy--as opposed to losing the war or eradicting the enemy--is the least of the three evils, and it usually QUICKLY PASSES, especially since the US was always willing to show good will to a defeated enemy. When your "humiliating" victor comes back the next day and says, "OK, we won the war, now here's this money to reconstruct the damage you suffered and to build a democracy", it's hard to keep a grudge for long. Do we see many German or Japanese suicide bombers angry about their country's humiliation in WWII (and they were FAR more humiliated than the Iraqis ever were)? Where are the Russian jihadist out to avenge the fall of the Berlin wall?
So, first of all, I think that the Arabs, far from being "humiliated", are--unlike their despotic governments--hoping and praying for a lot more "humiliation" of this sort, and the sooner the better. In addition, even if they ARE humiliated, this is by far the least of a few possible evils, and certainly no reason for the USA to stop.
Well, Saddam fell. The supposedly "humiliated" Iraqis were SO humiliated this time, they danced in the streets for joy, openly claiming this is the happiest day of their lives. And on the same day the pride of the Arab world, the great and brave Hussein, was captured by evil imperialist forces, too!
What's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong with it is that the USA is NOT "humiliating the Arabs". It is merely humiliating the despots who rule the Arab world and the terrorists who would like all of the world to be (their kind of) Muslim. Most Arabs--and most Muslims--fervently wish for their "dear leaders" to be humiliated in this way, and the sooner, the better. If I were living in Libya, I'd be praying to Allah every day that the Americans will decide to humiliate Quaddafi next--and most of them no doubt are doing just that, if they can get a glimpse of the truth from their state-controlled press.
(By the way, one unintentional side effect of state-controlled press is that the public learns to read between the lines. "GREAT DEFENSIVE VICTORY" = retreat and/or defeat, "THE MOTHER OF ALL WARS HAS STARTED" = Saddam failed to stop American invasion, "ARAB PRIDE WILL AVENGE THIS IMPERIALIST AGRESSION" = Saddam finally captured, etc. Those Libyans who learned this art are probably quite happy right now. But I digress...)
In addition, even if it WERE true that "humiliating the Arabs" was a result of toppling Saddam, just like Quaddafi and Hamas fervently claim, SO WHAT?
When you fight a war, you have three options. 1). To lose; 2). To eliminate the enemy to the last man; 3). To defeat the enemy and NOT take revenge upon him, leaving him "humiliated" at having lost a war.
LOSING A WAR MEANS BEING HUMILIATED. DUH! But this is precisely what the USA did to Germany and Japan in WWII, to England in the Revolutionary war, to the south in the civil war, and to the USSR in the end of the cold war, etc., etc. A humiliated enemy come part and parcel with winning war. When the left says "don't humiliate the Arabs", what it really means is "don't you dare win the war, your enemy might not like it!".
But surely, "humiliating" the enemy--as opposed to losing the war or eradicting the enemy--is the least of the three evils, and it usually QUICKLY PASSES, especially since the US was always willing to show good will to a defeated enemy. When your "humiliating" victor comes back the next day and says, "OK, we won the war, now here's this money to reconstruct the damage you suffered and to build a democracy", it's hard to keep a grudge for long. Do we see many German or Japanese suicide bombers angry about their country's humiliation in WWII (and they were FAR more humiliated than the Iraqis ever were)? Where are the Russian jihadist out to avenge the fall of the Berlin wall?
So, first of all, I think that the Arabs, far from being "humiliated", are--unlike their despotic governments--hoping and praying for a lot more "humiliation" of this sort, and the sooner the better. In addition, even if they ARE humiliated, this is by far the least of a few possible evils, and certainly no reason for the USA to stop.
