| « | The Coulter Controversy |
»
|
|
Friday, June 09, 2006
“…because I am involved in Mankind.”
There are a lot of sites quoting the misquotation of John Donne by Michael Berg, who came to prominence when his son Nick was kidnapped and beheaded by al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq. The elder Berg is the sort of Dad-of-a-slain-American the leftist media love: reflexively anti-war and anti-Bush Administration, but with that oh-so-special "absolute moral authority" that comes from having fathered a son who was his moral superior. The Old Media have gotten a lot of mileage out of him, just as they have with Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey Girls, and the 9/11 Families.
Berg is back in the news because of the death of al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's top organizer in Iraq. CNN's Soledad O'Brien dug him up to ask whether he was happy about the death of the man who'd killed his son:
O'BRIEN: Mr. Berg, thank you for talking with us again. It's nice to have an opportunity to talk to you. Of course, I'm curious to know your reaction, as it is now confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man who is widely credited and blamed for killing your son, Nicholas, is dead.MICHAEL BERG: Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that.
I feel doubly bad, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure, and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do want ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.
O'BRIEN: I have to say, sir, I'm surprised. I know how devastated you and your family were, frankly, when Nick was killed in such a horrible, and brutal and public way.
BERG: Well, you shouldn't be surprised, because I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace in any interview on the air.
O'BRIEN: No, no. And we have spoken before, and I'm well aware of that. But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'?
BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead? ...
O'BRIEN: There's an alternate reading, which would say at some point, Iraqis will say the insurgency is not OK -- that they'll be inspired by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the sense of he was turned in, for example, we believe by his own No. 2, No. 3 leadership in his ranks.
And, that's actually them saying we do not want this kind of violence in our country. Experts whom we've spoken to this morning have said this is a critical moment where Iraqis need to figure out which direction the country is going to go. That would be an alternate reading to the scenario you're pointing to.
BERG: Yes, well, I don't believe that scenario, because every time news of new atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq becomes public, more and more of the everyday Iraqi people who tried to hold out, who tried to be peaceful people lose it and join -- what we call the insurgency, and what I call the resistance, against the occupation of one sovereign nation.
O'BRIEN: There's a theory that a struggle for democracy, you know...
BERG: Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy.
O'BRIEN: There's a theory that as they try to form some kind of government, that it's going to be brutal, it's going to be bloody, there's going to be loss, and that's the history of many countries -- and that's just what a lot of people pay for what they believe will be better than what they had under Saddam Hussein.
BERG: Well, you know, I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he's no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn't pull the trigger, didn't commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush. But both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror. (Watch
I don't buy that. Iraq did not have al Qaeda in it. Al Qaeda supposedly killed my son.
Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.
Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.
Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?
It is difficult to express the revulsion your Curmudgeon experienced at reading the above exchange. Even Miss O'Brien, whose job it was to unearth this low creature and generate copy from him, had a hard time controlling her reaction. But let's stay on point.
"Every man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind." Few bits of eloquence have the simple power that those words carry -- and few are as frequently allowed to stand alone, without the sort of explication that would give them truly far-reaching significance.
Does a man who has made it his life's work to kill and oppress deserve to live? Regardless of the answer to that question, when he does die, has the world been made a better place? Has Mankind risen or fallen in moral stature?
To one who is sincerely "involved in Mankind," there come certain moral obligations: duties that he cannot shirk, except at the cost of passivism and utter silence. The highest of these, immutably, is to seek the truth, and to steer by it as best one can. Truth being the accurate narration of objective reality, one "involved in Mankind" is compelled to concede that a murderous oppressor, or murderous would-be oppressor, must be subtracted from the human parade by any means expedient. He who rejects that conclusion has implicitly countenanced ongoing murder and oppression. It really is that simple.
The flimsy counterstroke that "violence only breeds more violence" has been refuted innumerable times, most memorably by Robert A. Heinlein in Starship Troopers:
Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that `violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.
Alongside that, we have this assessment, almost as memorable:
"Violence only leads to more violence."This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it. Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence.
Limp, panicky, half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully-thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. [humorist Larry Miller]
One who cannot grasp these things is of feeble mentality indeed. One who will not grasp them is utterly contemptible, unworthy to have access to the media megaphone. Yet it is in the nature of our Old Media that they seek such persons out every day, and trumpet their ravings to the world as if they were a newly authenticated gospel.
"Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Indeed it does, and it will. A man who enjoys peace and plenty should have the grace to appreciate how he owes those things to the "rough men who stand ready to do violence" on his behalf. He who condemns them, and the deeds they do in his defense, does not deserve the boons of existence. His whole life could not buy a millisecond of their clarity and courage, much less the price they must pay that he might sleep peacefully in his bed.
Comments
Berg seemed to make very little (if any) sense when he talked about this, yesterday. I think the truth is that he is really quite happy that Zarqawi is dead and can’t stand it that he’s happy about it.
Posted by ELC on 06/09/2006 at 12:53 PMYou talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool—you bet that Tommy sees!Though he was not a Tommy, I bet that Nick sees too. So what I don’t see is how Michael Berg can stand himself.
Posted by pascal on 06/09/2006 at 04:05 PMWith all of that forgiving going on, I wonder if he forgives Bush. I heard that Larry Miller had a regular column somewhere, but I can never find it. I love his levels of drunkeness bit.
Posted by Dave Munger on 06/09/2006 at 04:18 PMHey Francis, A very accurate review of the Berg interview. He makes me want to vomit. Read you daily and was happy to see the link from PJM who I also follow daily. Keep up the good work!
Posted by on 06/10/2006 at 06:16 AMWhat a dolt. I am all for forgiving; I suppose all Christians should be, but before you can forgive justice must be served and that is what happened here. I dont understand Berg; this man sees his son murdered in the most barbaric manner possible; his son was not beheaded as with a guillotine, his head was sliced off in a manner you could not inflict on an animal in this country without being arrested for cruelty to animals. And yet Mr Berg wants to forgive. Well, okay, fine, forgiveness is his prerogative as Nick’s father, but when he blames his son’s death on Bush and the American government then he is simply being foolish and listening to him excuse al-Zarqawi’s murderous rampage through history is just plain annoying. Mr Berg may choose to look the other way when his son is butchered like a prize pig, but I think the rest of us will hold off forgiving the jihadis until we have smashed them into the ground. There’ll be plenty of time for peace and love afterwards.
Posted by Akaky on 06/10/2006 at 07:34 PMMy own variation on how it’s Donne:
Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. Still, if by that death, the chances that I will be killed by his friends are also diminished, I’ll adjust. (A variation on the theme of “Send not to know for whom the bell tolls: let the machine get it.")
Posted by CGHill on 06/11/2006 at 12:54 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
