The above heading is taken from J.M Coetzee's novel of the same name. I read Waiting for the Barbarians some months ago and the experience was chilling. As usual, somebody else summarizes the feeling far better than I ever could.
Like all [Coetzee's] books, Barbarians can be read in a single evening, but its pungent evocation of a menacing yet beautiful country that both is and is not South Africa, its exploration of what it means to be human in the face of monstrous cruelty, stays with you a lifetime."
-Andrew O'Hehir, Salon Guide to Contemporary Authors
Perhaps the best scene in the book comes when Coetzee's protagonist, a decent and imprisoned man stuggling against an empire he once served, speaks with a colonel who has converted the hinterland town into a garrison. When the colonel tells his captive that it is the empire's duty to bring civilization to the barbarian frontier, Coetzee has his chararacter reply:
"Ah yes," I say: "time for the black flower of civilization to bloom." He does not understand.
Coetzee won the Booker Prize for Waiting for the Barbarians that year.
So why am I bringing this up now? The book's storyline echoes in the present. I become more convinced of this when I read articles like the following.
New Policy in Iraq to Authorize G.I.'s to Shoot Looters
(snip)
BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 13 — United States military forces in Iraq will have the authority to shoot looters on sight under a tough new security setup that will include hiring more police officers and banning ranking members of the Baath Party from public service, American officials said today.
The far more muscular approach to bringing order to postwar Iraq was described by the new American administrator, L. Paul Bremer, at a meeting of senior staff members today, the officials said. On Wednesday, Mr. Bremer is expected to meet with the leaders of Iraqi political groups that are seeking to form an interim government by the end of the month. "He made it very clear that he is now in charge," said an official who attended the meeting today. "I think you are going to see a change in the rules of engagement within a few days to get the situation under control."
Asked what this meant, the official replied, "They are going to start shooting a few looters so that the word gets around" that assaults on property, the hijacking of automobiles and violent crimes will be dealt with using deadly force."
Shoot a few looters eh? Sure why not? They're just Iraqis and they're committing a crime right? Wrong. The Pentagon grossly underestimated the number of troops it would need for post-war occupation. Yes, the looters themselves are to blame for the chaos that is Iraq today but so is the United States government for not taking adequate measures to insure relative calm once the actual fighting ceased. As an additional egregious offense, the government continues to lie to the public about how long U.S. forces will need to remain in Iraq. Joe Biden had the balls to call Paul Wolfowitz on this bullshit during the latter's recent congressional testimony. While the Iraq war is already fading to the back of Americans' memories, American responsibilities to Iraq will not end for years, and may perhaps last a decade or more.
After this story broke about a week ago, Pentagon spokespeople beat a hasty retreat, telling reporters that a policy of "shoot looters on sight," was never intended and would not be enacted. Since then, I haven't heard anything more on the subject. Bob Herbert, the NYT Columnist, had something to say about this new Pentagon policy. He tells a story of reading Life Magazine some 36 years ago, right after the Newark riots. The cover apparently "showed a 12-year-old black kid in filthy sneakers and worn-out jeans sprawled on the filthy pavement of a street in Newark."
I opened the magazine, still thinking about the kid on the cover. He was like zillions of kids I had grown up with. It was sad, depressing. Then I got to Pages 20 and 21. They are still shocking to me.
There, in a sequence of photos that would go on for four pages, was a guy I had known in my hometown of Montclair, N.J., a casual friend named Billy Furr.
The sequence starts with Billy looting beer from a liquor store. Then a squad car pulls up and police officers with shotguns jump out. Billy takes off, the tails of his light-colored shirt flapping. A uniformed cop in a yellow hard hat lifts his shotgun to his shoulder, aims and fires.
In a photo that covers two-thirds of Page 22, Billy lies on the blood-stained sidewalk, dead. On the next page was another photo of the 12-year-old boy. He was a bystander who was hit in the neck and thigh. Although seriously wounded, he would recover.
This all came back to me yesterday with the news report out of Baghdad that U.S. military forces would be authorized to shoot looters on sight. The first thing I thought was that Billy Furr had been dead these 36 years because he stole some beer. It was wrong, but the barbaric punishment in no way fit the crime.
Herbert also mentions writing down his first impressions upon hearing of the Iraq story:
I wrote: "We are not barbarians. Our young men and women in uniform did not join the military to take on the odious mission of gunning down unarmed Iraqis in the streets. Deadly force should always be a last resort, and shooting looters on sight does not fall into that category."
So what is barbarism exactly? This is the central theme of Coetzee's book. Sure, Saddam and Osama fit the definition easily, but they have plenty of company. I fear that the list has grown very long this past two years and that we, as a nation, drift uncomfotably close towards barbarism with every passing day.
Posted by mike at May 15, 2003 01:01 PM