Susan Sontag in Germany’s Der Spiegel
Posted by | Posted in Uncategorized | Posted on 03-03-2003
Der Spiegel also has the interview online here.
[translations are mine, so beware!]
A few quotes from her:
“[The war cannot be stopped] even if Saddam is overthrown or killed or goes into exile. The Americans are committed to occupying Iraq. They are out for a New Order in the Middle East.”
“Just notice the rhetoric of this government. This ‘We’ that Bush and the others use, is the royal ‘We’, not the ‘We’ of the constitution: ‘We, the People’.”
Responding to questions, she also talks about the rift between the US and Western Europe. She points to major gaps on issues such as the death penalty, supra-national organizations (wherein sovereignty is partially given up), and religion. She calls Europe “secular” and comments that most Americans believe in God.
She believes the US only went through the UN in the current crisis because they needed time to build up the military force in the region.
She calls Saddam a dictator of boundless evil, and says that the coming invasion will be welcomed by many Iraqis. However, she is opposed to the war. She says there are other options, as there are with North Korea. We do not need to bomb cities. But she believes the White House wants war in order to occupy Iraq.
When the interviewer wonders how the US has now gotten over Vietnam and how the memory of that unjust (his word) war no longer keeps us from going to war again, she says it’s because there is only one political party in the United States: the Republicans, with perhaps a few stragglers left who can be called Democrats. No one takes opposition seriously, she complains. In the 60s and 70s there was always open debate because there was always an opposition.
When questioned about what September 11 meant, she had quite a long answer wherein she talked about fundamentalism, religious warriors and the reactions against modernity in much of the world. The interviewer had an interesting response to that: “The White House argues similarly and wants to replace Saddam Hussein with a new authority.”
Her reply is “but will it be democratic?” She claims that the result of the war will “almost unavoidably” be more terrorism, more violence, more destruction… and secular leaders will get even weaker. The interviewer immediately pointed out that Saddam is secular. Her reply:
“Saddam is really a monster, … I would be glad to see him thrown out. The only good thing about him is that he is a secular monster. In the long run his removal could bring a fundamentalist regime to power.”
A couple of things struck me about this interview. First, she is on dangerous historical ground thinking that somehow evil backed by religious fundamentalism is always going to be worse than secular evil. So far Stalin and Hitler are our two icons of evil, and yet they were both “secular” in the traditional sense.
The point is, when people convince themselves that indiscriminate violence is justified in the pursuit of a greater idea or goal — be it a religious or secular idea or goal — they become a terrible menace. In the case of Saddam, the greater goal is to be the leader of the Arab world, the new Saladdin. As bad as the Islamists are — and they are rotten — I imagine they still haven’t beated Saddam’s murder record just yet. Don’t quote me on that as a statistic, because it could be wrong. The Islamists might beat Saddam’s murder count in the long run — they’ll certainly try.
The good thing about Saddam is that his goal is largely personal, or shared only by some committed Ba’athists and Tikritis. He is more easily stopped because we know (within a matter of miles) where he is, who fights for him, etc. But the personal nature of his quest — with its hallmarks of vanity and self-preservation — is exactly what makes him a threat. He will do anything, deal with anyone, to maintain his position. But enough about Saddam, and now back to Sontag…
The gem of the interview, for me, was the bit about how the only explanation for the US “getting over” Vietnam enough to go to war right now is that there are only Republicans in control, unlike the good old days of the 60s and 70s. I wonder if she realizes how completely insulting this is to the American people. Only the old lefty leaders could possibly explain what’s right and wrong to the people, could help us ignoramuses understand the lessons of Vietnam! If conservative or pro-American agendas are being pushed, then this must mean that all restraint and all deliberative thought have been abandoned. Because of course if one were really to think, one could only come up with lefty answers to the great questions of our time.
It’s also amazing how she and those like her have so little faith in the Arabs’ ability to actually latch on to an opportunity to be a free people, instead of having to continue to live under the regimes that were convenient for us to install when we saw the Russian bear as a threat. Why shouldn’t we want a “new order” there? I thought that is what the left always wanted for these people. [By the way, I credit Christopher Hitchens for my understanding of this inconsistency in the left's views now that a chance for democracy in a huge Arab country is coming about.]
Related posts: