Secret Word

In recent years right wing Americans have kept all purpose words of the day handy to make their point, whatever the issue. I remember when the mere mention of “Carter” was considered a powerful rhetorical thrust, at least by those who mentioned it. Had Jimmy Carter been reelected in 1980 we could have avoided our slide down the slope of financial deregulation initiated by Ronald Reagan. Today the password is al Qaeda, leading to curiously belated islamophobia at home and threatening us with the loss of our international compass.

There’s a broad revolutionary movement afoot in Arab nations, home of some of the world’s most valuable real estate. It has already taken place in Tunisia and Egypt, is happening in Libya and threatening other nations in the region. The issue, put simply, is the disparity of wealth.

It was easily predictable that al Qaeda would cast its lot with the disenfranchised. Some Americans, many of those who pilloried Jimmy Carter, are objecting to being on the same side as the perpetrators of 9/11. But our interests are primarily, if not exclusively, with the nations involved and not at all with al Qaeda.  

Revolutions don’t always work for the better, no matter how legitimate the original grievance. We know little about the rebels in Libya and the kind of government that will result if they prevail. Against this thinking is the stigma of our long record supporting almost any dictator who is on our side in matters of concern to us. In this regard the most egregious and significant event was our restoration to power of the Shah of Iran in 1953.

I don’t know where or when axes may fall, in some cases maybe literally. But I’d lay odds that Qaddafi will not be in Tripoli a year from now, unless he’s in jail. For America to be known as having supported, or merely ignored, autocratic regimes while al Qaeda was fighting with the rebels, regardless of the outcome, would be contrary to our national interest in the world community and in our “war” against terror.

There’s a venerable bromide that goes “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It’s carrying this line of reasoning too far to act as if a friend of my enemy cannot also be a friend of mine.