Posted on 01/25/2007 5:12:26 AM PST by RAY
HATING HORATIO
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Wednesday, 24 January 2007
Ancient Rome's greatest historian was Titus Livius, known to us as Livy (59 BC-17 AD). In the Second Book of his monumental history of Rome, Ab Urbe Condita (From the Founding of the City), he tells the famous story of Horatio at the Bridge.
In 510 BC, Rome was threatened with destruction from an invading army of Etruscans. All Romans living in the countryside had abandoned their homes and fled for protection inside the city. The city walls were heavily garrisoned, but the most vulnerable point was a wooden bridge, the Pons Sublicius, across the river Tiber and into Rome.
When Etruscan forces focused their attack on the bridge, the Roman troops guarding it fled in fear - save for one man, a soldier named Horatius, whom we call Horatio.
"Proudly," says Livy, and all alone, "Horatius took his stand at the outer end of the bridge; conscious amongst the rout of fugitives, sword and shield ready for action, he prepared himself for close combat, one man against an army. The advancing enemy paused in sheer astonishment at such reckless courage."
Horatio bellowed to his fleeing comrades that they burn and chop down the bridge while he fought the Etruscans off. Livy continues:
With defiance in his eyes he confronted the Etruscan chivalry, challenging one after another to single combat, and mocking them all as tyrants' slaves who, careless of their own liberty, were coming to destroy the liberty of others. For a while they hung back, each waiting for his neighbor to make the first move, until shame at the unequal battle drove them to action, and with a fierce cry they hurled their spears at the solitary figure which barred their way. Horatius caught the missiles on his shield and, resolute as ever, straddled the bridge and held his ground.
When the bridge finally collapsed, Horatio fell into the Tiber and was able to swim to safety. The citizens of Rome bestowed upon him every possible honor.
This happened in Rome's youth. What if it had happened in Rome's prime, with its citizens so prosperous they were cynical and spoiled? What if they despised Horatio's solitary heroism, and their leaders and intellectual elite pined for Rome's defeat instead? What if the Roman people hated Horatio for his attempt to save them, rather than honoring him?
For that is the question I had watching the President's State of the Union speech last night. Listening to him, I thought of Horatio at the bridge.
Despite all else upon which we may disagree with him, what blindingly came through last night was that this is a noble man, a heroic man, standing alone against America's enemies and viciously ridiculed and reviled for it. Yet he stands there with graciousness and courtesy, as a gentleman.
He stood there alone and spoke eloquently to a Congress, to a nation, of spoiled brats.
The day of the speech (1/23), a Washington Post/ABC News poll announced that 52% of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of terrorism, when we have not suffered a single terrorist attack in the over five years since 9/11 - and that 57% disapprove of his handling of the economy.
That means that 57% of Americans are clinically deranged. On every measure - the stock markets, corporate profits, employment, inflation, spendable income, take your pick - the US economy is doing astoundingly well. How can people possibly disapprove? Yet they do. Because they are spoiled brats.
There's an old saw that says in a democracy, voters get the leaders they deserve. Bush disproves it - for in him, voters are getting better than they deserve. If they got what they deserved, they'd get Hillary Clinton, and may very well in 2008.
But like Ronald Reagan, Bush's faith in the goodness of Americans has never wavered. Today, I talked with Tony Snow, the president's spokesman, and he explained why:
The most important word the president used in his speech last night was victory. Unlike some members of Congress, those who sat on their hands at the mention of it, Americans want victory. So we are going to give it to them.
This is no time to feel desperate. What we need is a sense of mission, a purposeful dynamism. General Petraeus will be giving regular briefings from now on, and be issuing a progress report on Iraq every two weeks. He'll report on what progress we are having on de-Baathification, disarming the Shia militias, on taking the fight to the bad guys in a very methodical way.
To lose this war is to lose our soul. The soul of our country, the soul of America. If we lose in Iraq, the terrorists will be here, the war will be here and among us. But we are not going to lose. We still have an enormously strong hand to play and we are going to play it.
Conservatives need to understand that our best days are still in front of us, if we proceed with confidence and principle. Ours is an ideology of freedom, and an ideology of freedom is an ideology of joy. Joy and freedom will triumph over fear and cynicism.
Watching Bush last night and talking to Tony today inspired me to believe that this president just may drag Americans back into adulthood once again. A nation that hates its Horatios is already in grave danger of losing its soul. GW's determination to succeed in Iraq may enable our nation to regain it.
That's sure the truth. Good column, he sums up many aspects of this situation that have been bothering me - not just the partisan hysteria of the Dems, but the immature and completely divorced-from-reality attitude of many Americans, regardless of party.
Wonderful, wonderful parody! Noting that this was written by a Brit in 1953, I see some things (a) are the same everywhere and (b) never change.
Good grief. I'm assuming they're too young to have lived through those awful Carter years. I remember seeing the lights go out on entire industries where I was living.
I can write off the anti-war complaints because those have never been grounded in reality, in any of the many attacks by the anti-war crowd on any war we have ever fought. But I honestly can't see how they can complain about the economy. We are literally booming; nobody in my area can even find enough employees.
It's a shame more people haven't read this article. I guess I will bump it to the top again.
bttt
Hoping more people will read this, I am bumping it up to the top again.
I'm so glad you bumped it- or I would have missed this wonderful piece.
You are welcome! Upthread Peach has a biography of the author, which should open some eyes!
Good! Keep on bumping! It's an excellent article.
Will do! I don't suppose any of the Bush-bashers will read it, but hope springs eternal.
Bumping this article for the lunch crew.
If there's any potential Horatio in this fight it's Gen. Petraeus, who, dispite the woeful mismanagement of the war in Iraq by his predecessors and superiors, looks like he might have the stones to pull this one out of the fire. And if he does, then we might be able to say that we have a leader that we don't deserve.
I'm also getting very tired of people hyping Iraq's importance to the US as a whole. Iraq is not Rome, Iraq is not Washington D.C., Iraq is not New York City. Failing there, we can and will fight elsewhere.
Great Story, and George W Bush is the right man for the Job!
I'm not a Democratic shill, nor a limp-wristed pacifist who habitually protests US military activity. I have no problem with our presence in Afghanistan, which in the form of its proxy al-Qaeda, attacked us. I'm a Catholic who believes in the teaching of his Church on the requirements for just war. I don't believe those conditions were fulfilled with respect to Iraq and the previous Pope, John Paul II didn't either, when he counseled against military action against that country. It's a shame we didn't listen to him because the situation in Iraq is deteriorating.
It's also unfortunate that this war is now overshadowing Bush's other achievements. The economy is picking up and he gave us two apparently conservative Supreme Court Justices but unless something miraculous happens soon, the war will be his legacy.
On a site like FR, it would be nice to be able to discuss Bush's shortcomings without screaming "Bushbot" or "Bush basher" at each other. A sycophantic praise of everything he does is as odious as its opposite, a visceral hatred of his every action which one sees on other web sites.
Well said.
I suggest that you review exactly what situation we were in before we invaded Iraq. Pay special attention to the plight of the Iraqi people. If we had NOT invaded, they would still be under Saddam's tyranny, with his sons ready to pick up the reigns of power when he died.
Unlike some, I take to heart the admonition that we ARE our brother's keeper, especially when people are being oppressed by a guy who was actively seeking nuclear weapons, which Saddam was doing, as has been amply demonstrated on this forum, regardless of what the media says.
I am sorry you don't see this, but it doesn't change my opinion. As far as Pope John Paul II's protest against this war, it was not made with the knowledge of all that the President knew, and the Holy Father was in failing health as well.
Yes, it is true that there is too much name-calling on these threads, and that is a shame. On that we can agree. Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts.
Iraq ISN'T Washington, D.C., and that's the point! Yes, if we leave Iraq, we will fight them elsewhere. Wouldn't you really rather fight them there and be done with it, or would you rather they show up somewhere else, perhaps somewhere in Europe?
Bush was so certain of Iraq's importance that he spent 3000 good men and women, 1 trillion dollars, and the Reagan Revolution on it. The tragedy is that we could have fought these same men in Afghanistan or Western Pakistan. We could have killed the REAL architect of 9/11 instead of letting him hide out in the mountains for the past six years.
Bush isn't Horatio, he's Hector, letting bad judgement and pride lead him to ruin.
The Catechism says this:
1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
That's a very high standard. Note the wording. It does not say "possible", "probable" or even "highly likely.". It says certain.
2) - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;.
Were they? Or did we simply tire of Saddam playing games with UN inspectors and decide to eliminate him?
3)- there must be serious prospects of success;
OK, fair enough. We truly thought we could turn Iraq into a model Middle Eastern democracy.
(4)- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
This is where it really falls apart, in my opinion. The "evils and disorders" which an Islamic, sectarian, destabilized Iraq will present, surpass Hussein's secular dictatorship, I believe. Not to mention the American lives lost. And for the Christians, in Iraq, life is now infinitely worse. Most have left Baghdad and are sheltering in enclaves for protection.
Being one's "brother's keeper" is not synonymous with the application of overwhelming military force and the declaration of war.
Carolyn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.