http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/18...st_evil+.shtml

Bush's war against evil

By James Carroll, 7/8/2003

IN THE GOTHIC splendor of the National Cathedral, that liturgy of trauma,
George W. Bush made the most stirring - and ominous - declaration of his
presidency. It was Sept. 14, 2001. ''Just three days removed from these
events,'' he said, ''Americans do not yet have ''the distance of history.''
But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks
and rid the world of evil.''

The statement fell on the ears of most Americans, perhaps, as mere rhetoric
of the high pulpit, but as the distance of history lengthens, events show
that in those few words the president redefined his raison d'etre and that
of the nation - nothing less than to ''rid the world of evil.'' The
unprecedented initiatives taken from Washington in the last two years are
incomprehensible except in the context of this purpose.

President Bush, one sees now, meant exactly what he said. Something entirely
new, for Americans, at least, is animating their government. The greatest
power the earth has ever seen is now expressly mobilized against the world's
most ancient mystery. What human beings have proven incapable of doing ever
before, George W. Bush has taken on as his personal mission, aiming to
accomplish it in one election cycle, two at most.

What the president may not know is that the worst manifestations of evil
have been the blowback of efforts to be rid of it. If one can refer to the
personification of evil, Satan's great trick consists in turning the fierce
energy of such purification back upon itself. Across the distance of
history, the most noble ambition has invariably led to the most ignoble
deeds. This is because the certitude of nobility overrides the moral qualm
that adheres to less transcendent enterprises. The record of this deadly
paradox is written in the full range of literature, from Sophocles to Fyodor
Dostoyevski to Ursula K. LeGuin, each of whom raises the perennial question:
What is permitted to be done in the name of ''ridding the world of evil''?

Is lying allowed? Torture? The killing of children? Or, less drastic, the
militarization of civil society? The launching of dubious wars? But wars are
never dubious at their launchings. The recognition of complexity - moral as
well as martial - comes only with ''the distance of history,'' and it is
that perspective that has begun to press itself upon the American conscience
now.

Having forthrightly set out to rid the world of evil, first in Afghanistan,
then in Iraq, has the United States, willy-nilly, become an instrument of
evil? Lying (weapons of mass deception). Torture (if only by US surrogates).
The killing of children (''collaterally,'' but inevitably). The
vulgarization of patriotism (last week's orgy of bunting). The imposition of
chaos (and calling it freedom). The destruction of alliances (''First Iraq,
then France''). The invitation to other nations to behave in like fashion
(Goodbye, Chechnya). The inexorable escalation (''Bring 'em on!''). The
made-in-Washington pantheon of mythologized enemies (first Osama, now
Saddam). The transmutation of ordinary young Americans (into dead heroes).
How does all of this, or any of it, ''rid the world of evil''?

Which brings us back to that Gothic cathedral of a question: What is evil
anyway? Is it the impulse only of tyrants? Of enemies alone? Or is it tied
to the personal entitlement onto which America, too, hangs its bunting? Is
evil the thing, perhaps, that forever inclines human beings to believe that
they are themselves untouched by it? Moral maturity, mellowed across the
distance of history, begins in the acknowledgement that evil, whatever its
primal source, resides, like a virus in its niche, in the human self. There
is no ridding the world of evil for the simple fact that, shy of history's
end, there is no ridding the self of it.

But there's the problem with President Bush. It is not the moral immaturity
of the texts he reads. Like his callow statement in the National Cathedral,
they are written by someone else. When the president speaks, unscripted,
from his own moral center, what shows itself is a bottomless void.

To address concerns about the savage violence engulfing ''postwar'' Iraq
with a cocksure ''Bring `em on!'' as he did last week, is to display an
absence of imagination shocking in a man of such authority. It showed a lack
of capacity to identify either with enraged Iraqis who must rise to such a
taunt or with young GIs who must now answer for it. Even in relationship to
his own soldiers, there is nothing at the core of this man but visceral
meanness.

No human being with a minimal self-knowledge could speak of evil as he does,
but there is no self-knowledge without a self. Even this short ''distance of
history'' shows George W. Bush to be, in that sense, the selfless president,
which is not a compliment. It's a warning.



--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt

"Feels Good!"
---George W. Bush on the Brink of Declaring War on Iraq.

americaaaaans and those remaining Americans should
be checking the real terrorists - americaaaan fascists.

JHall.