Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, February 3, 1994 TAG: 9402050008
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Ray L. Garland
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
But virtually all parties and politicians of the past 200 years have presented themselves as repositories of true patriotism. Grievous errors of policy, even high crimes, have been committed in its name - by both liberals and conservatives - and excused by their apologists as serving the higher truth, the greater good.
That brings us, inevitably, to Oliver North, the retired lieutenant colonel of Marines and central figure in that celebrated sideshow commonly known as Iran-Contra, who stands on the brink of being the Republican candidate for United States Senator from Virginia to oppose Charles Robb, the Democratic incumbent.
North's friends, and they are legion, will militantly insist that he is a great American patriot, a hero in the long, victorious struggle against godless communism. His enemies, and they are many, will equally persist in seeing him as a clumsy zealot who mocked the Constitution and almost ruined a presidency. Others will see him as neither hero nor villain, but as a small player thrust by an accident of history into a struggle for power as old as history.
Certainly, if you define the highest patriotism as the willingness to risk your life for your country in battle, North is a great patriot. His bravery under fire in Vietnam is undeniable. It places him in select company and should count heavily in his favor.
Our political system is hardly free of corruption and injustice. But the corrosive corruption of communism now stands naked before the world and should put professional anti-communists like North in a better light. But it hasn't worked that way. The present tendency is to see them as dinosaurs in some remote, geopolitical Jurassic Park.
There are many who profess astonishment at the fantastic tale of arms-for-hostages, diversions of funds to the Nicaraugan Contras, Iranian moderates in need of shoring up, Israeli sensitivities to be stroked and passing the cup for donations from such characters as the sultan of Brunei, the king of Saudi Arabia and assorted American millionaires.
Such people suffer from a lack of perspective. Diplomatic history is full of such tales. Persons bearing high responsibility are just like you and I, busy with the ordinary chores of life, improvising from day to day, confounded by the ineptitude or disobedience of those upon whom they depend, discovering an orderly system in their affairs only through the forgiving eyes of hindsight.
You must also consider the incredible size and complexity of the present governmental establishment. Winston Churchill conducted the affairs of the British Empire in a global war with a smaller personal staff than a member of Congress today. Ditto for Franklin Roosevelt, who managed with fewer people than the first lady requires today.
North was a cog in a vast, cumbersome machine that sought to mesh the activities of the State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, the National Security Council and the regular White House staff to get done what the president had clearly proclaimed as his policy in the elections of 1980 and 1984. I accept as true the statement of President Reagan in his memoir that the only one-on-one conversation he ever had with North was the day he fired him.
But it seems equally true that North was elected to take the fall. Cast in the role of scapegoat, we can't blame him for figuring out how to turn the tables on a stellar cast of congressmen and legal eagles, to emerge briefly in the role of national hero. Nor can we blame him for seeing a way to turn his 15 minutes of fame into a money-milking machine to pay for his costly legal battles while building a base for a second career in politics.
In the multitudinous facets of Iran-Contra, mistakes were made and laws broken. It could hardly be otherwise. But context is everything. Those involved didn't know the Cold War was almost over. They saw a modern Russian battle fleet cruising the Gulf of Mexico. They saw a communist beachhead in Central America. They saw Moscow's hand in grievous events in the Middle East. They faced relentless criticism at home over the fate of American hostages there. And they believed congressional Democrats capable of passing along classified information to their friends in the media to embarrass the administration.
The claim of North and others that the Iran-Contra investigations represented an effort to criminalize policy differences seems not far off the mark.
But a policy no matter how crudely pursued must be judged against results. The future of Central America may not be any happier than its past. But when voters there were able to express themselves in free elections, they rendered verdicts adverse to the claims of local Marxists and their apologists here.
None of this should be taken as an endorsement of North's candidacy, but only to place it in perspective. For what it's worth, I think he's the wrong candidate at the wrong time: the one Republican most likely to make Robb look good. Certainly, there are many Virginians who might make us a better senator than either man. But a Senate candidacy is rarely a matter of happenstance and our choices are seldom ideal.
North is a viable candidate because he has mobilized the resources required. He deserves to be judged by the content of his present ideas. When his past actions are brought up, they should be viewed in the context of their time and circumstance.
\ Ray Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB