The Events are in the Saddle

“The events are in the saddle and ride mankind,” Under Secretary of State George Ball once said about US involvement in Vietnam, quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson. Since revelations in May of evidence of the murder of two dozen civilians by US marines in Haditha, Iraq, pundits, civilian leadership and the military have all been in a state of, shall we say, “shock and awe,” ignorant of the lessons of Ball’s trenchant analysis. Repeatedly, we hear outrage and condemnation of these “few bad apples.” Commentators and officials wonder aloud if the deaths will compromise America’s efforts in Iraq, its standing in the world and its other national interests. Such malfeasance is not unprecedented though, (See: Abu Graib and other cases of prisoner abuse around the world). William Kristol of The Weekly Standard has had perhaps the most sober analysis of the situation, describing such human rights violations, if indeed they have occurred, as inherent to war. (This is of course ironic—and scary—for Kristol, neoconservative par excellence, has been a prominent agitator for regime change in Iraq for over a decade.)
I have no doubt that the vast majority of the US military is comprised of “good apples” or that the Hardball talking heads really wants to see the US bring universal democratic and human rights to Iraq. In the end though, these heartfelt concerns are misguided. As the US indulges in narcissistic, morally-gratifying patriotism based in faith in an omnipotent America, uniquely able to do good in the world, the basic flaws in America’s mission are ignored—with disastrous consequence for those the mission is supposed to serve.
The American exercise of hegemony in Iraq (whether history will describe this as “benevolent” has yet to be determined, though with civil war raging, it is increasingly less likely) to effect change in a region encompassing Morocco, Lebananon, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, is predicated on the existence of a single entity to receive American efforts, often referred to as “the broader Middle East.” However, the social, cultural and political variance within the “broader Middle East” is enough to make the notion of a “broader Middle East” inherently sketchy. This inconvenient fact, along with disregard for the motivations for threats to American interests mandated the construction of a “broader Middle East” as essentially flawed and in need of American charity, was integral to the case for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Once ignited in Iraq, Bush said in his second inaugural address, the “untamed fire of freedom [fueled by its universal appeal] will reach the darkest corners of our world.”
There is no room in this logic for opposition, since enemies of the United States would have to be enemies of the universal values of democracy and the human rights protected therein. However, while oppressed societies of Iraq and the rest of the region are to be helped by American intervention, elements of these societies also tenaciously combat American policy. Standard war ethics—embodied in the Marine Corp motto “no worse enemy, no better friend”—are no help either, for the friend and enemy appear to be, and according the politics of this war, are, the same. The US mission cannot help but embody the infamous and paradoxical Vietnam mandate to “destroy the village in order to save it.” Bill Kristol is correct to say that human rights violations are inherent to war, but there is more: the very definition of America’s enemies in Iraq essentially condones the murder of civilians.
American officials and media choose to ignore the disconnect between stated American, universal, values and the effective endorsement of their violation. Discourse centers around the conduct “a few bad apples” on one day a few months ago in Iraq, rather than the enabling and ultimately responsible policy and the support for it found in a public opinion informed by popular media. On June 6, for example, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was incredulous that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki would condemn atrocities committed by US troops and then have the gall to assert that such misconduct was commonplace.

I was pretty surprised, this coming from a man who is prime minister largely because of the United States and the U.S. loss in lives, the invasion, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent to try to establish a democracy there. And here, he's lecturing the United States about U.S. military misconduct.

Wolf could not be bothered to explore the potential veracity of Prime Minister Malaki’s statement, as the suggestion that human rights abuses are widespread implies that America’s morally “good” foreign policy is flawed, and America itself is fallible.
As John J. Mearsheimer, renowned theorist of international relations from the University of Chicago said in June at the At U.S. Naval War College,

Every time I look at the situation in Iraq today, I think of Vietnam, and I think of The Plague (by Albert Camus), and I just don't think there's very much we can do at this point. It is just out of our hands. There are forces that we don't have control over that are at play, and will determine the outcome of this one. I understand that's very hard for Americans to understand, because Americans believe that they can shape the world in their interests.

Or, as George Ball might have said, “The events are in the saddle.” And now there's nothing America can do about it.