This reaction is probably fairly typical among the Western press:
The “Shoe heard round the world” was an important symbolic event. I felt his action was appropriate and restrained considering the circumstances.
I applauded this act. I don’t care that it is rude. Why are we concerned about etiquette when a country was destroyed? Did Bush ever apologize to the Iraqis for the hundreds of thousands of dead? Bush is an occupier, a clown pretending to be a hero, so enclosed in his own little self-certain world he probably was surprised an Iraqi could be that angry. I am not surprised. I am only surprised such a thing did not happen earlier.
The reporter may not have noticed that angry Iraqis (mostly the displaced Sunni Arab elite) spent four years setting off massive bombs to kill Americans; this is hardly the first act of defiance. What’s unique about this incident is that it was the kind of relatively nonviolent protest against power that the West loves — no doubt comparisons to Gandhi and MLK will be forthcoming, assuming they have not already been made.Â
And therein lies the rub: Gandhi and MLK were successful only because they acted within a Western paradigm of governance that respects the right to dissent (as opposed to the more traditional remedy of mercilessly slaughtering the dissenters), a paradigm entirely absent in Iraq until George W. Bush decided Sadddam Hussein had to be removed. Thus, the press celebrates the public humiliation of the man most reponsible for bringing about the necessary conditions for his humiliation to be tolerated.Â
Meanwhile, in addition to the advent of free elections, free speech, and free press, GDP in Iraq has doubled and is expected to see another double-digit increase in 2008, while basic services like electricity, sewage service, and water supply have also roughly doubled. And while it is true many innocent Iraqis died over the past few years (along with many guilty of terrible crimes), they generally died in spite of our efforts, not because of our efforts.
Far from being destroyed, Iraq has been rescued — by the man who decided in 2007, when polls urged him to abandon Iraq to the extremists who truly would have destroyed the country, that we would stand by Iraqis against those who were killing them.
{ 13 comments }
Good post. I’m as sure of this as I am of anything: History will fondly remember the presidency of George W. Bush and underline him as an example of uncompromising principle in the face of despicable opposition from within his own country. To draw a line between the opposition he’s had to deal with and that of Lincoln isn’t unrealistic.
I like the title of the post, as the left-wing (and right-wing) Bush haters have truly lost their souls. They were willing to abandon the Iraqi people (and, for some, the Afghani people) to murderous regimes. They spread propaganda and lies against the liberations (when has that ever been tolerated in a time of war. But Bush, in his enlightened wisdom, ignored it). And they were aggresive in abondoning the Iraqi people to murderous reliigious zealots. I’d hope that these people would take the time, now that the object of their psychosis is leaving office, to reflect on their actions the last few years; but I doubt they will.
I have said since the beginning of the Iraq War that such a war is a decade long commitment and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.
There are a lot of fools in the world. Some of them throw shoes.
Check back with me in a decade and we’ll see how Bush is remembered then.
I suspect that a lot of people will be very surprised.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Post-Cristmas musings?
CC, et al-
My take exactly. What would have happened to Mr. Shoechucker had he tossed his size 10′s at Saddam Hussein in 2001?
Iraq is a better country because of the commitment of President Bush and the courage and commitment of the men and women sent to fight that war. It’s not perfect and never will be, but if they get through the next set of elections without violence they will stand head and shoulders above the rest of the Arab world, and it will have been president Bush and the American military that gave them the leg up to do it. God, how that must gall the BDS fanatics.
Oh, and Dave, it’s funny you mention Gandhi. i got my oldest into all sorts of trouble in high school because when he had to write an essay about why Gandhi’s methods were so successful I told him (inspired of course, by so many blog posts on this very subject) to stipulate it was because he was dealing with the ostensibly civilized British instead of the Nazis or Communists. He got an A eventually, but only because he was able to defend his essay on the merits- the teacher hated him for it.
Great post, Dave. I got creamed when I tried to make this point recently, but history will judge you, me and George Bush as having been right on this issue. (Also some of our friends!)
Ron Coleman’s last blog post..Best of 2008: “Small World†(May)
JA Eddy: I’m glad you’re teaching your son that way. And I’m with you entirely: if Gandhi had been up against Nazis or Communists, we wouldn’t even know who he was. He’d have been shot in the throat or hung right after making his first headline.
But he faced the basically decent British. And shamed them into letting India (and Pakistan) rule themselves.
By the way, I have one big hope on Iraq now, which will be that the press suddenly notices how incredibly well things are going there. I expect that to happen fairly shortly after Obama is sworn in. For obvious reasons, they can’t notice any such thing before that.
Dean and J.A.,
It should be noted that nonviolent resistance and subsequent martyrdom worked okay for Jesus and a few other notable early Christians. Granted it took a few centuries longer than Gandhi’s resistance did. Though I suppose you could make the case that the Romans were in many respects fundamentally decent.
Uhr, not only was Jesus martyred, but for the first couple of CENTURIES the early Christians were deeply oppressed, countless among them (numbering in the tens of thousands at least) murdered, enslaved, tortured, etc. Eventually that Church persevered and became the dominant religion in Europe and hugely important in Asia, but "worked out pretty good" only works in this formulation if you count in terms of centuries, and consider the countless dead, maimed, etc. just a small price.
Otherwise I don’t get your point. Jesus wasn’t a political reformer (well that wasn’t his main goal anyway), and he also wasn’t completely pacifist; note his action in laying waste to the moneylenders, his instructions to his apostles to carry a sword on certain journeys, and even his reappearance in Revelation wielding a sword. "Non-violent protest" was not Jesus’ gig, man. Sorry.
Can you name me any other pacifist reformers prior to, say, the 19th century, who had a huge impact on the world? I’m not sure you can.
maybe it’s not the most expert analogy. i’m just saying that i don’t know that ghandi ever claimed that his philosophies would work with no bloodshed, or that they would work quickly. you could describe the martyrdom and persecution of early christians as essentially nonviolent noncooperation.
although, like you said, his aims were basically nonpolitical, so, again, not the best analogy.
Also, I don’t believe Ghandi’s efforts would have been nearly as effective as they were if a number of groups the British knew were willing to use force hadn’t signed up with him.
Ghandi may not have realized it (and I’m fairly sure he didn’t given his absolutely absurd words about Jews under Nazism) but the British did:Â Ghandi had but say the word and many people would have spilled blood for him.
 I have a little different outlook than many of you on this issue. Sure, in the beginning of the invasion Bush was looked at as a "Liberator". However, sadly those times are long gone. In ten years,  history will probably look at the Iraq war for what it is : an illegal pre-emptive strike that toppled a ruthless regime (remember how Saddam got there….CIA installed) in order to show the world that America will bow down to nobody in the name of Capitalism. What companies benefit from all these "success" stories that people seem to applaud? Looks like American business. Sorry folks, but in ten years Bush will look horrible as permanent U.S. bases is Iraq remain and freedom for the Iraqi people is absent.
Well, here’s a few hurtful facts for ya, TTH:
1) The war wasn’t illegal.
2) Saddam was not CIA-installed. That’s a myth.
3) The Iraqi people are already, today, freer than they ever have been in all of Iraqi history, with improvements still continuing.
So, I’d suggest that if "the truth hurts," you’re in a whole lotta pain right now, TTH, because the facts simply don’t match up with what you’ve said here.
Comments on this entry are closed.