King George, al-Maliki, & the Press
by Anthony DiMaggio
When I look at the Bush administration’s actions in Iraq, I can’t help but be reminded of a scene from the classic film, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Consider the parallels, for example, in the scene between Graham Chapman and Michael Palin, where King Arthur (played by Chapman) argues with an English peasant (Palin) about the legitimacy of divine rule under feudal aristocracy. The possibility of such a discourse over enlightenment values and anarcho-syndicalist principles (taking place between a King and his subject over a thousand years before the introduction of modern conceptions of democracy and self-government) is part of what makes the Monty Python scene so funny. However, it is the American elite’s contempt for those same enlightenment principles that qualifies the situation in Iraq as a modern day tragedy. Sadly, President Bush’s behavior in Iraq has been more akin to that of Chapman’s King Arthur than to that of a political leader committed to democracy and self-determination.
Consider the most recent example of disdain for Iraqi national sovereignty: the U.S. attempt to overthrow of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The attempted coup has been received rather well in slavish, sycophantic coverage throughout the American press. The axiom presented amongst U.S. political and media elites is lucid enough: the United States retains the “right” to impose any “necessary” changes in other countries’ political and economic structures, all in the name of promoting the greater good. The greater good in this case? Ñ preventing civil war and societal meltdown. In light of Iraq’s growing sectarian tensions and violence, Republican and Democratic senators such as John Warner, Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton, and Carl Levin have demanded that Iraq’s parliament step forward to throw Prime Minister Maliki out of office. Bush has lambasted Maliki with “demands” that the Prime Minister make serious efforts deter conflict among militias in order to promote national stability.
Media coverage has proceeded accordingly. New York’s Newsday laments the failure of Maliki’s government “to make the compromises necessary to forge a political consensus that would end sectarian violence and start a process of reconciliation,” so as not to jeopardize the “significant successes of the U.S. military surge.” Newsday complains that Maliki “is far too close to Iran and the Shia militias of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.”
A major problem, according to media pundits, is the Iraqi people’s lack of appreciation for just how much the U.S. has sacrificed to “liberate” their country. In a piece titled “Easy Scapegoat,” the Washington Post’s editors contend that “the frustration [with Maliki] is understandable enough. As American soldiers have fought and died to stabilize Baghdad and other key areas in recent months,” while “the parallel progress toward political reconciliation expected by the White House — and promised by Mr. Maliki — has been virtually nonexistent.” The New York Times editors claim that “threatening to pull out [of Iraq] may be the only way to get cooperation from Iraq’s prime minister, who is thrwarting even the most limited American efforts to disarm militias and set timetables for genuine political compromise on the most fundamental issues, like protecting minority rights and fairly apportioning the country’s oil wealth.” The Times has even attacked the Bush administration for its initial hesitancy in getting tough with Maliki by issuing an “ultimatum” to end the sectarian violence.
Missing from all this media and political arrogance is one simple, but vital question: who designated the United States global judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to determining other countries’ political decisions? The answer to this question is simple if one bothers to look and world opinion: no one. [more]