Halacoglus "study" Finally Out?

[Sasun]

Sasun, when I reffer to racism, I am talking about the real definition of the word, and not the one generally used. Racism is about classifications of people based on races, "superior" and "inferior" races. The Turks were not considering Armenians as inferiors like the NAZI did with other people. The reason why the Armenians were exterminated had nothing to do with race classifications. If you consider a people as racially inferior, why will you steal their wives and breed them? Why will you take orphans and "convert" them to another nationhood? A racist would consider this as attempt against the purity of his race. Dadrian rightly differenciate a racial crime and the Armenian genocide in his essay on the Turkish physicians role in the genocide.

OK, I get it now Domino. But I think it is more important what they Ottomans viewed as race. In my (unqualified) opinion, they did differentiate between Armenians and themselves but in this case genes were not the determining factor but rather self-classification. In other words, if someone has been converted he is no longer of Armenian "race". So the racist goal is achieved in that way, rather than exterminating the Armenian gene.

[DominO123]

Yes, this is because you use the popularist definition of what racism is. The idea behind racism concerns the maintain of the purity of a race. In the cases of the Turks, even their pan-turanist ideology lacked of what really racism was. Racism appeared in Turkey, but not with the Young-Turks and the Ottoman, Islam ironically was opposing to such views. Racism happened with the Kemalists and the introduction of the Turkish nationalism. Karabekir was a racist and many others, which influenced greatly Turkey.

[DominO123]

Oh and... I forgot to say that even if the genocide itself was not racism, its denial is.

[Twilight Bark]

There is nothing wrong or pathetic with what Yalcin said. He is not saying that he is ashamed of each and every individual that belongs in his nation. He is expressing shame in the collective, overall results of his nation's actions. It is quite alright to be ashamed of one's own nation in that sense. And in fact most "major" nations fully deserve to be ashamed of in many respects. And of course there are many redeeming qualities of those "major" nations, which we can perhaps summarize as acts of "creative destruction". Many of those nations did produce something of enduring value in the evolution of human civilization. The issues of whether the Turkish civilization has contributed something substantial and positive, and where its overall balance stands perhaps belong to another discussion. But it remains true that, whatever their overall balance, it is pefectly fine to be ashamed of any one of the "major nations", and many of the "small nations" as well.

 

Stormig and Steve are perhaps confusing "merit" with "utility". It is true that Yalcin's style or emotions cannot be expected to be adopted by most Turks. That simply means it is not something that is to be expected from most Turks, and means nothing more. We also don't expect most Turks to learn ballet dancing. On the other hand, perhaps Stormig and Steve are underestimating the fundamental goodness in most Turks, or humans in general. Now that would be shameful.

[DominO123]

TB, what would be the utility of such a speech, when near all the Turks that will read it will be disconnected from the writer? I really question the utility of such a speech here.

[Twilight Bark]

Yes, this is because you use the popularist definition of what racism is. The idea behind racism concerns the maintain of the purity of a race. In the cases of the Turks, even their pan-turanist ideology lacked of what really racism was. Racism appeared in Turkey, but not with the Young-Turks and the Ottoman, Islam ironically was opposing to such views. Racism happened with the Kemalists and the introduction of the Turkish nationalism. Karabekir was a racist and many others, which influenced greatly Turkey.

Domino,

One kind of racism is no better than any other kind. Just as some people were victims of their "genes" that they could not change, as far as the Young Turks were concerned, Armenians were not assimilable, and as such rather similar to having "different genes". The question in racism (regardless of whether it involves genes or culture) is whether "the others" are "redeemable" or not. Armenians were regarded both inferior ("how dare they see themselves equal to us?") and unredeemable by the Young Turks. That perception, and not the source of such perception, is the crucial issue.

[Twilight Bark]

TB, what would be the utility of such a speech, when near all the Turks that will read it will be disconnected from the writer? I really question the utility of such a speech here.

Utility or lack thereof is a very poor correlator of merit, and has next to nothing to do with being pathetic or not. That is a separate discussion. That's all.

[DominO123]

TB, the reason why the Turks did not considered Armenians as people being assimilable, was because they were not able to assimilate them, they have tried and tried with limited success. The notion of racism goes just beyond that. Racism is against the option of assmilation of a people that is considered as inferior, because it will be against the purity of the race. The notion of race for the Turks was unknown at that time. I think that we still agree that culture was involved here, and the Turks thought they had a superior culture. But for the Turks the notion of nationalism was new in order for it to have emerged to something that could be considered as racism, but it did, later with the Kemalists.

[DominO123]

Utility or lack thereof is a very poor correlator of merit, and has next to nothing to do with being pathetic or not. That is a separate discussion. That's all.

I agree with you then.

[Twilight Bark]

TB, the reason why the Turks did not considered Armenians as people being assimilable, was because they were not able to assimilate them, they have tried and tried with limited success. The notion of racism goes just beyond that. Racism is against the option of assmilation of a people that is considered as inferior, because it will be against the purity of the race. The notion of race for the Turks was unknown at that time. I think that we still agree that culture was involved here, and the Turks thought they had a superior culture. But for the Turks the notion of nationalism was new in order for it to have emerged to something that could be considered as racism, but it did, later with the Kemalists.

I am using a more generalized, operational definition of racism. If genes could be washed away and replaced with "approved" genes as easily, or say even more cheaply than forming concentration camps or organising death marches, it is likely that the perpetrators would simply perform it and be done with their objective. Same goes with the "cultural racism". If Young Turks were certain that they could assimilate Armenians into a muslim Turk identity in a decade or so, they probably would not have committed the monstrosities that they did. The fundamental issue in a generalized concept of racism is the getting rid of the "undesirable qualities", and the most effective way of doing so. Whether those qualities are tied to genes or culture is secondary.

Edited May 12, 2004 by Twilight Bark

[bellthecat]

The notion of race for the Turks was unknown at that time. I think that we still agree that culture was involved here, and the Turks thought they had a superior culture. But for the Turks the notion of nationalism was new in order for it to have emerged to something that could be considered as racism, but it did, later with the Kemalists.

The notion of race was central to almost everything that happened in Turkey during the final years of the Ottoman Empire. At the empire began to go though its final decades Turkish intellectuals, both reputable and disreputable, were trying to work out exactly what it meant to be a "Turk" rather than a "Muslim" or an "Osmanli", and how that Turkishness could be encouraged to grow. Maybe a major failing of Armenians was not realising that they no longer lived in the Ottoman Empire - because it was dead in everything but name.

Edited May 12, 2004 by bellthecat

[DominO123]

Oups my mistake, I meant to say "racism" not "race."

[Stormig]

The likes of Kemal Yalcin are Turkish trash (which like all trash such as the genocide denialists needs to be thrown out) and won’t get anyone anywhere, except provide entertainment in a mutual exchange – his ilk preying on emotions, his prey entertaining emotions of bewildering awe and astonishment and a mouth locked agape for hearing something beyond their wildest dreams. It is the level-headed researchers – name them, from any country – who will make that difference, if you care and would like to believe in a process. While they get you from point A to point B, Kemal Yalcin and the likes of him will get you from point A to point A. This much I’ve seen of his speech is so low-quality, I am disappointed to see anyone taking what he says with a grain of salt (too generous), defending him against a critique, even. That really is an insult to the better-qualified researchers, among them a few notable Turks, as if what is wanted now is a dumbing-down of research and rhetoric and what-not.

 

 

In another universe out there, things are different mirrors of what goes on here down on Earth.

 

Kemal Yalcin: Ooooooooooooo, my name is Kemal Yalcin, see me now??? I am ashamed of being a Turk - applause please – thank you - and I am also ashamed of my nation, you can have all the land back, and also my house and my car, and my crook-ed nose, too, with this promotion I am offering – just for you!!! Ooooooooooo, does that please you? Yes? Oh how I am delighted. I have never felt so noteworthy in my life. I can also stand on my head. Wanna see? I also do on-stage exorcism. Will you stroke me now? Ooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

Noam Chomsky: Yes, yes, and I, too, am ashamed, of being an American in my case. I’m no longer going to do research and write articles of well thought-out and wonderfully constructed material. I see no hope. I’m going to do things the American way – keep them short and simple – America just plain sucks, folks. I am ashamed of having wasted all these years beating around the bush, not getting straight to the point, I am ashamed of being American, I am ashamed of the United States of America, I am sorry for all that America has done to the world – everything - for reference, see this thread:

 

http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4865&hl=

 

- and I am done with it. I am fed up. Somebody please help. I am suffocating. I can’t apologise for all of this. Too much shame. How will I live? I’ve written so much with mine own hands. :sniffle:

[Stormig]

There is nothing wrong or pathetic with what Yalcin said. He is not saying that he is ashamed of each and every individual that belongs in his nation. He is expressing shame in the collective, overall results of his nation's actions. It is quite alright to be ashamed of one's own nation in that sense.

He says, I am ashamed of being a Turk. What is it that is not absolute about it? Such a person merits nothing, other than the order of "clown"...

[Twilight Bark]

He says, I am ashamed of being a Turk. What is it that is not absolute about it? Such a person merits nothing, other than the order of "clown"...

I don't know what is absolute or relative or whatever. All I can surmise from what he says can be summarized, as I said,

He is expressing shame in the collective, overall results of his nation's actions.

 

And that is perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with being ashamed of the collective results of one's group of belonging. And you cannot be ashamed of your group's actions without being ashamed of belonging to such a group. And such feeling of shame does not imply that he is ashamed of each and every individual of that group. In fact it doesn't even imply that he is ashamed of most of the members of his group. It means he is ashamed of the collective result of the actions taken in the name of his group of belonging. And as far as the denial goes, he would be justified to be ashamed of most of his peers, individually. Being ashamed doesn't mean he is advocating a permanent dissolution of Turkishness. It probably does mean, however, that the nature of Turkishness needs to change in order to accomodate the "new" view of it own origins. And such a drastic revision of Turkish mythology can be accomplished only with a certain degree of shame about the earlier self-view. It is perhaps a simple question, Stormig. Was the invasion of Anatolia by the Turks and the totality of their subsequent actions all the way through today a net positive or a net negative for humanity, and how does that net contribution compare with other nations? I ask this not with prejudice about the answer, but as a tool for reflection.

 

As I said, there is plenty of shame to go around, and Turks are not the only ones due such feelings. Most major and many minor nations could do well to take a good, hard look at their history and see if they too should be ashamed before proceeding to feel clean and "proud", whatever the latter means. A little shame is long overdue in the consciousness of many of the nations.

[bellthecat]

He says, I am ashamed of being a Turk. What is it that is not absolute about it? Such a person merits nothing, other than the order of "clown"...

I suppose, in fairness to him, his words might not be being quoted exactly, or since English is not (I presume) his native language he might not be correctly saying what he is trying to express. But, if that is not the case, then I agree with you.

[Sasun]

He says, I am ashamed of being a Turk. What is it that is not absolute about it? Such a person merits nothing, other than the order of "clown"...

If you pick that sentence alone it is a foolish thing to say, that is being ashamed for no reason. But it is pretty straightforward in the right context it makes a lot of sense. I don't know how others would feel, but in my eyes his statement only enhances the image of collective Turkishness as a group who is capable of rectifying its mistakes and improving.

[Armat]

This is going to sound kookoo, but if you are who I think you are, you once wrote me a poem.

Yes, that person was I and I still disagree with you however TB and Sasun expressed the gist of what I was trying to convey. Turkish musician acquaintance of mine named Mamul or Mamuth (Can't remember exactly)expressed the same sentiments and he was not over the top or wanting attention. He was simply sincere in his feelings.

I do believe there are many Turks out there who have similar sentiments and I would not think of them as pathetic human beings or Turkish trash. I know you referred him spicifically however does it logically fallow that any Turk expressing shame (AG context) must be pathetic, Turkish trash or have an emotional problem. Have we lost faith in humanity?

Edited May 13, 2004 by Armat

[Stormig]

Was the invasion of Anatolia by the Turks and the totality of their subsequent actions all the way through today a net positive or a net negative for humanity, and how does that net contribution compare with other nations? I ask this not with prejudice about the answer, but as a tool for reflection.

TB, I am astounded you can give one person's sentence so much space to manoeuvre in, yet a piece of chaos is asked to be summed up in one sentence. In my view there can be no simplistic answer to your question any more than there can be one to a similar question asking whether Europeans' exploration and exploits of the Americas or Africa would be a net positive or a net negative in view of where the world is today.

But here goes anyway. I will not cater to romanticism. All I can say is that if one were to take the Americas alongside, there would be two cases at hand where genocides took place (the smitten civilisations of Mexico and Peru come to mind), with the Armenians' and Pontic Greeks' taking place later. That one took place later is hardly a piece of flattery to anybody, especially not the perpetrator, since there were several centuries apart, whereas most Turkish apologists will try to point out the "fact" of oh how good it was that minorities had "survived' under the Ottomans for so long, especially since you had nothing happening to the Armenians under Persian rule for so many centuries. In neither case will I go into looking for "blessings" of time and opportunity. However, yes, that so many millions of inhabitants of Anatolia were assimilated by Turks to the point where they were so few that it was possible to commit genocide upon them, erase their memory from their land, even deny their history and spit on them, is as great a shame, stain, as a nation can possibly have upon themselves and a great loss for the world, history, culture, you name it.

 

And I don't at all understand how it follows after all I've said that I am saying any Turk that has conscience, honesty, and a figment of modesty to apologise to the Armenian people for the crimes of their ancestors and the CUP is pathetic. I get the feeling nobody is reading what I write carefully. None of you here disagreeing with me pay heed to the interchanging of Turk with German, or Israeli, or Hutu, or what have you - I just don't sense that anyone is doing it. Please spare a minute to each and ask yourselves if it doesn't sound wooden to your ears. Instead you go off on about ballerinas (learning a skill - positive) and such or that I am taking things out of context. I'm sorry, I don't take things out of context, I'm not buying this person or the likes of him or what he says nor what he claims to stand for, nor the approach of any of your acquaintances, and I am not to blame for more time than deserved being spent on this trash. This is an insult to the many more Turks (or people of whatever other nationality) who can express their sincerity and apologies without sounding like a precise c*nt. If I at all had the predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories, then I would have questioned this person like Arpa. If English was his problem, he should have got himself a translator. Better is deserved than of him.

[axel]

A little shame is long overdue in the consciousness of many of the nations.

 

There is a somewhat related idea expressed in one of Tarkovsky's movie something in the vein of "shame will save humanity".

The problem is that in order to feel ashamed, one has to have the notion of what honor is.

Edited May 13, 2004 by axel

[Twilight Bark]

TB, I am astounded you can give one person's sentence so much space to manoeuvre in, yet a piece of chaos is asked to be summed up in one sentence.

.

.

.

Stormig,

It is in fact quite reasonable to give "more maneuvre" to the statement by a single person than the total sum of millions of actions over a thousand years. It is called "the law of large numbers". The latter at this point should be answerable very precisely, and certainly as a "was it a net positive/negative" question, while a statement by one person does need to be treated with less dogmatism than you seem to be displaying. In any event, since I think most major nations do need to feel ashamed before they can justifiably feel clean and proud, I don't have any problem with what you describe as pathetic. I have no idea if he is indeed a pathetic person with personality problems. I also don't know if he is sincere. But the nature of the person making the statement is not really the point. We should be discussing the statement. As it stands, the statement is not out of place when you replace it with German (who did go through the shame part for the Jewish genocide) or Hutu either. Unjustified national pride has blinded enough people long enough. The path between a bully nation and justified pride passes through the painful part involving shame. They cannot go from here to there without feeling like shit first, if not for the "actions" (done by "earlier generations"), then for being willing dupes for a ridiculuous collection of tales with repugnant values (main one being the taking of pride in domination and slaughter). And the "justified pride" that would follow would have no resemblance in its nature to the pride preceding the shame.

 

As for the rest of your argument, I think they should not be addressed to me. I have not implied anything about your stance concerning apologies, conscience etc.

 

As a final note, a contemporary Turk cannot disassociate himself/herself from a shameful (i.e. negative) legacy to the extent of eliminating (or even diminishing) shame and simultaneously lay claim to the "positive" legacy (e.g. the ownership of the land). That would be a little too convenient to be called sincere. It would be more along the lines of "Alright I admit it. I'm sorry. Satisfied? Now get out of my hair". True evolution takes more than that.

[Stormig]

Stormig,

It is in fact quite reasonable to give "more maneuvre" to the statement by a single person than the total sum of millions of actions over a thousand years. It is called "the law of large numbers". The latter at this point should be answerable very precisely, and certainly as a "was it a net positive/negative" question, while a statement by one person does need to be treated with less dogmatism than you seem to be displaying. In any event, since I think most major nations do need to feel ashamed before they can justifiably feel clean and proud, I don't have any problem with what you describe as pathetic. I have no idea if he is indeed a pathetic person with personality problems. I also don't know if he is sincere. But the nature of the person making the statement is not really the point. We should be discussing the statement. As it stands, the statement is not out of place when you replace it with German (who did go through the shame part for the Jewish genocide) or Hutu either. Unjustified national pride has blinded enough people long enough. The path between a bully nation and justified pride passes through the painful part involving shame. They cannot go from here to there without feeling like shit first, if not for the "actions" (done by "earlier generations"), then for being willing dupes for a ridiculuous collection of tales with repugnant values (main one being the taking of pride in domination and slaughter). And the "justified pride" that would follow would have no resemblance in its nature to the pride preceding the shame.

 

As for the rest of your argument, I think they should not be addressed to me. I have not implied anything about your stance concerning apologies, conscience etc.

 

As a final note, a contemporary Turk cannot disassociate himself/herself from a shameful (i.e. negative) legacy to the extent of eliminating (or even diminishing) shame and simultaneously lay claim to the "positive" legacy (e.g. the ownership of the land). That would be a little too convenient to be called sincere. It would be more along the lines of "Alright I admit it. I'm sorry. Satisfied? Now get out of my hair". True evolution takes more than that.

Well, then, like I said, it only goes to show I really have nothing more to say, wary of pathetic Germans, pathetic Croats, pathetic Israelis, pathetic Chomskies (the alternate universe ones I just made up), the lot of the charlatans, who perform in front of their audiences. And, yes, the rest of my post was addressed to Armat whom, try as I may, I can't seem to communicate my points to.

[Armat]

The path between a bully nation and justified pride passes through the painful part involving shame. They cannot go from here to there without feeling like shit first, if not for the "actions" (done by "earlier generations"), then for being willing dupes for a ridiculuous collection of tales with repugnant values (main one being the taking of pride in domination and slaughter). And the "justified pride" that would follow would have no resemblance in its nature to the pride preceding the shame.

Well articulated!The heart of this argument.

 

Stormig

Acknowledgment of AG by the Turks, which takes the path of healing a nation and redemption, cannot go through shortcuts. Frankly I am pessimistic if ever Turkey would acknowledge the AG officially since perhaps that would bring shame to itself and honestly besides politics it is this factor alone is enough motivation to keep the jar tightly closed and this is perhaps more important then politics since this touches the collective psyche, attitudes of the Turks at large.

[Twilight Bark]

A few more bits to add clarification:

 

* Dragging individual Turks in front of Armenian audiences for "performance" would indeed be grossly unfair and in extremely poor taste, and I don't think anyone here has suggested that. I don't think that was ever the point of the discussion.

 

* Being ashamed of one's group identity (Turkish, German, Hutu, etc.) is not the same as being ashamed of oneself. It is the first step to disassociate from what that group identity stands for (and not the "shell" of that identity itself), and to synthesize a new version of that identity. The individual shame about the evils of its collective should in fact be a source of pride, as it involves a great amount of intellectual and moral dexterity, and "cleansing" oneself of any implied support for the evil aspects of what the identity stood for. The reason such a "deep surgery" is needed lies in the fact that the glorification of conquests, wars and dominating others has become an integral part of Turkish identity. So again, the shame I talked about is not "being ashamed of oneself". And again, the ultimate purpose should be the construction of a new identity that the New Turks could be justly proud of, without reference to wars, conquests, and domination.

[bellthecat]

Don't know if this should be here or in the "for Sip" thread.

 

 

Washington Post

May 8-9 2004

 

A Sorry State

The Artlessness Of the Apology

 

By Tony Judt

 

 

We live in the age of the public apology. When a crisis occurs or a

scandal is exposed, the first instinct of many public figures today

is to erupt in a torrent of remorse. From Bill Clinton's 1992 apology

to his wife for his sexual infidelities to the notorious 1998 Oprah

Winfrey show where guests apologized to people they had "hurt,"

saying sorry has become all the rage. On the Oprah show experts even

offered tips on how to apologize. "Don't be afraid to apologize," the

incomparable Ms. Winfrey advised on her Web site. "Apologizing to

your child doesn't mean you lose."

 

President Bush could have used a few such tips this month. Faced with

the evidence of serial abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers,

Bush condemned, decried and regretted; but he didn't apologize for a

week. In a world where victims -- real or presumptive -- demand not

merely justice but penitence, the president's reluctance became a

political issue in its own right.

 

For the second time this spring the Bush administration was caught up

in the media's passion for public contrition. In late March the

public commission investigating security lapses before 9/11 was

transformed into a daytime soap opera. Would Condoleezza Rice follow

Richard Clarke's cue and offer a telegenic "sorry" for letting it all

happen? How would she "look" if she did offer an all-points apology?

And -- of even greater media interest -- how would she look if she

didn't?

 

Rice is a mediocre national security adviser but a good tactician. By

refusing to express remorse ("I don't think that there is anyone who

is not sorry for the terrible loss that these families endured," she

told Ed Bradley on "60 Minutes," but she added, "the best thing that

we can do for the future of this country is to focus on those who did

this to us."), she paid a small price in the congeniality stakes

while keeping journalists' attention firmly diverted from anything

that mattered. It was Rice's present sentiments, rather than her past

actions, that held center stage. We used to pay attention to what

public figures did and what they thought. Now all we really want to

know is how they feel. And everyone, even the president,

enthusiastically obliges.

 

Public apologies used to be a very serious matter -- that's why they

were so uncommon. In the past, when faced with bad news, politicians

would do anything rather than confess. Typically, they dissimulated.

Rather than tell you how they felt about something unpleasant for

which they might be held accountable, they just issued denials: "It

never happened." Later, when denial was no longer possible, they

downplayed the matter: "All right, it happened, but it wasn't as bad

as you say." And then, later still, when the scale of the crime or

scandal was clear to all, they would concede that, "Well, yes, it

happened and it was every bit as bad as you say. But it's all so long

ago -- why dredge up the past?"

 

That is still the response in cultures where the public confession of

failure or misbehavior carries heavy social penalties. In Japan, the

wartime mistreatment of Chinese and Koreans is still mired in

semi-denial and official mis-memory. Turkish authorities -- and many

Turks -- shift uncomfortably between exculpatory re-description and

outright denial when confronted with the massacre of the Armenians.

Australia's leaders no longer deny the near-genocide of the

Aborigines, but it is such old news that they refuse to dwell on it.

 

Even where international pressure has made official "regrets" and

restitution unavoidable, as in the case of the Holocaust, heartfelt

official remorse is rare -- the recent apology by President Alexander

Kwasniewski for his countrymen's part in the destruction of their

Jewish neighbors was all the more effective for being unprecedented

in Poland.

 

The public apology, in short, is not a universal political response

to bad news. But in the United States, where virtually everyone

(except the 43rd president) apologizes at the first opportunity, it

has a very different resonance. This does seem to be a distinctively

American development. True, Tony Blair also indulges in it, but then

in his well-advertised religiosity and his propensity to wax

moralistic, Blair is the most "American" prime minister in modern

British history. He is also of an age with Bill Clinton, Al Gore,

George W. Bush and other baby boomers molded by the pedagogical

revolution of the '60s and the narcissistic preoccupations of the

era.

 

For this generation of political leaders -- and followers -- it has

always been important to have the right sort of feelings and to

display them copiously. Thus (according to his spokesman) President

Bush -- hitherto seemingly immune to the sensibilities of his

generation -- feels sorry for the "pain caused" by the publication of

pictures and reports of American soldiers torturing Iraqis. In Bush's

own words he feels "bad" about what happened, "sorry for the

humiliation" of Iraqi prisoners. He might not say that he exactly

"feels their pain" -- that is a more distinctively Clintonian

sentiment -- but it is the same general idea: Saying "sorry" makes it

better. The victim feels better and so does the perpetrator --

indeed, you score a triple: You are good, you do good and you feel

good.

 

The preferred use of sorry, however, is in the formulation "I'm sorry

that such and such happened," distancing the speaker from any

connection to the events, thereby relieving the speaker of any need

for self-examination.

 

But in any case, in its transition from private relations to public

affairs, the apology encounters some intriguing paradoxes. In the

first place, it is self-undermining. As anyone knows who has ever

dealt with young children, saying "sorry" has a dual purpose: It

concedes guilt and exculpates the perpetrator. "I said I'm sorry --

why are you still upset?" Thus President Bush undoubtedly hopes that

by saying how sorry he feels that his army has disgraced itself he

can speedily put the affair behind him. But in this he is surely

mistaken.

 

In our age of instant remorse the currency of penitence has been

hyperinflated and has lost almost all its value. Most of those who

heard the president expressing his regrets, above all the Arab and

Muslim audience to which they were primarily directed, will have

echoed the celebrated response of Mandy Rice-Davies at the height of

the Christine Keeler affair in Swinging London, when Lord Astor

denied under oath that he had been involved with her: "Well, he would

say that, wouldn't he?"

 

Moreover, while the president's regrets are doubtless heartfelt, his

skeptical international audience is likely to reflect that he is no

less "sorry" that the news leaked out. He may also come to rue the

carefully qualified apologies offered by his subordinates: Maj. Gen.

Geoffrey Miller, in charge of Abu Ghraib prison, first offered his

apologies and then spent some time explaining that what he was

referring to were the "illegal or unauthorized acts" of "a small

number of soldiers." Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the U.S. army spokesman

in Iraq, similarly qualified his expression of regrets -- "a small

number of soldiers doing the wrong thing." Such grudging, formulaic

repentance (alleged sodomy "with a chemical light and perhaps a

broomstick" is now "the wrong thing"?) merely calls attention to its

own inadequacy -- and invites charges of bad faith.

 

So what is a democratic leader to do? If you apologize too soon it

rings false -- particularly to foreign audiences unfamiliar with the

American cult of contrition. But if you stay silent it suggests

callous indifference or a coverup. The crimes in Abu Ghraib and

elsewhere are not comparable to My Lai in Vietnam or other atrocities

committed in the heat of battle by terrified GIs and inadequate

officers. They were born of that arrant indifference to laws,

regulations, rights and rules that has characterized this

administration from the outset, and that was bound, sooner or later,

to percolate down to the sergeants and mercenaries who do the dirty

work. Thus Bush had no option but to acknowledge immediately that

terrible things had been done in Iraq -- and he would be wise to make

sure that he has been told and is telling the whole story. But a

public expression of his pain and sorrow will no longer suffice.

 

What is missing in the modern American cult of "sorry" is any sense

of responsibility. Whether it concerns the incompetence of the

security apparatus before 9/11, a misguided and failed imperial

adventure, the mismanagement and degradation of the army, or the

criminal behavior of Americans in Iraq, everyone feels "bad" and

everyone expresses "regret." But until Defense Secretary Donald H.

Rumsfeld testified on Friday, no one even hinted at feeling

"responsible." According to Bush (interviewed on the U.S.-funded Al

Hurra Arabic language television network), "We believe in

transparency, because we're a free society. That's what free

societies do. If there's a problem, they address those problems in a

forthright, upfront manner." Except, of course, we don't.

 

 

 

For in the very next sentence, Bush assures his interlocutor that

"I've got confidence in the secretary of defense, and I've got

confidence in the commanders on the ground . . . because they and our

troops are doing great work on behalf of the Iraqi people." So the

commanders are off the hook.

 

Meanwhile the New York Times (on May 6) carries a touching little

story about the confused and helpless GIs who actually did the

torturing, claiming that they were following orders/ had no orders/

misunderstood those orders/ were themselves misunderstood/ suffered

great stress at the time/ are suffering even greater stress now --

and so forth.

 

Everyone is sorry "it" happened. But unless its leaders can get

beyond that sanctimonious and self-serving response, the United

States is in deep trouble. If Rumsfeld (who on Friday offered his

"deepest apology"), Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz or

Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard B. Myers were honorable men they would

resign in shame. But they are not.

 

If Bush were of presidential caliber he would have sacked them by now

-- and taken full personal responsibility for their incompetence. But

wherever the buck stops these days, it surely is not on the

president's desk. Yet nothing short of such an old-fashioned

assumption of duty can now retrieve America's standing in the

community of nations.

 

To the rest of the world Bush's apologies are mere exercises in

damage control. The same president who spoke of leading God's crusade

against Evil and who basked in the self-congratulatory aura of his

invincible warriors will have difficulty convincing the rest of

humanity that he really cares about a few brutalized Arabs.

 

Given the president's simultaneous and reiterated insistence that

neither he nor his staff have done anything wrong and that there is

nothing to change in his policies or goals, who will take seriously

such an apology, extracted in extremis? Like confessions obtained

under torture, it is worthless. As recent events have shown, America

under Bush can still debase and humiliate its enemies. But it has

lost the respect of its friends -- and it is fast losing respect for

itself. Now that is something to feel sorry about.