THE PERSIAN GULF was recentlynthe scene for a replay of thenSpanish-American War. This time ourn”Manifest Destiny” was the “NewnWorld Order.” Our Teddy “RoughnRider” Roosevelt was “Stormin’ Norman”nSchwarzkopf Our “Butcher”nWeyler was “Hitler” Hussein. OurnFrederic Remington was Peter Arnett.nOur “Cuban sugar” was Kuwaiti oil.nBoth wars were crusades for the liberationnof a small and defenseless countrynfrom an oppressive, “inhuman,” butnweak and financially drained power,nand both wars were immensely popular,nshockingly short, and studded withndecisive victories and few battlefieldnlosses.nThe analogy of choice, however,nremains World War II. The nationalnpress continues to compare the endingnof the Persian Gulf War with theneuphoric defeat of Germany and Japan.nAs David Brinkley put it, “WorldnWar II is no longer America’s ‘lastngreat war.'” Never mind that our involvementnin that war lasted four years,nthat we entered it because Americannpersonnel and materiel had actuallynbeen attacked, and never mind that thenAmerican Army didn’t have to issuen”Why We Are Here” cards to ournsoldiers in the Pacific.nNever mind all of this, because itnmerely gets in the way of our newnnational pastime, gloating. Everyone’sndoing it—the President, the press.nCongress, the Army, and apparentlynevery barber and shoe salesman fromnTopeka to Charlotte. The lie is that wenpaid one of the lowest prices in historynfor our right to gloat. President Bushnputs the cost at slightly more than onenhundred dead Americans. Others putnthe cost at more than one hundrednthousand dead Iraqis.nThe biggest gloater of all has beennGeneral Schwarzkopf. At his postwarnpress conference, he congratulated thenAmerican press for its “cooperation” inndisseminating Allied propaganda concerningntroop strength and preparednessnin the early stages of the war. “Wencouldn’t have done it without you,” hensaid. Few of the reporters seemed evennto get the joke.n6/CHRONICLESnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnBut the Allies'”yellow press” reallynneeded little goading. The British andnAmerican Jimmy Olsens of the desertnwere actually more than happy to reportnthat Allied forces “took out,”neliminated, and neutralized, while Iraqisnkilled, slaughtered, and destroyed;nthat the Allies held “press briefings”nand issued “reporting guidelines,”nwhile Iraq conducted censorship andnissued propaganda; that Allied forcesn”dug in,” while Iraqis “cowered inntheir foxholes”; that Tomahawk missilesnscored direct hits, while Scudnmissiles were “intercepted” and scorednmerely “with debris”; that Allied forcesnlaunched “first strikes” and did son”preemptively,” while Iraq conductedn”sneak missile attacks” and did son”without provocation”; that Alliednplanes bombed with precision accuracy,nwhile Iraqis shot “wildly at anythingnin sight”; that Allied planes only sufferedn”attrition,” while Iraqi planesnwere “shot out of the sky”; that Iraqinbombings killed civilians, while Alliednbombings caused merely “collateralndamage”; that the Allies constituted an”formidable force,” whereas Iraq hadnamassed “a war machine”; that Alliednforces were comprised of brave andnloyal professional men and women,nwhereas Iraq had “overgrown schoolchildren”nwho were “blindly obedient”;nthat George Bush was “resolute,”nbut Saddam Hussein, “defiant.”nWith press coverage like this, whonneeds the First Amendment?nShakespeare’s King Henry V, innassessing the slaughter at Agincourt —nten thousand dead French and lessnthan thirty dead English — asked,n”Was ever known so great and littlenloss / On one part and on th’ other?nTake it, God, / For it is none butnthine!” The American secretary ofnstate, however, is no humble Henry:n”It has been a splendid little war,nbegun with the highest motives, carriednon with magnificent intelligence andnspirit.” That might have been JamesnBaker or President Bush talking, but itnwas Secretary of State John Hay inn1898.n— Theodore PappasnnnENTERPRISE ZONES are thensubject of Jeffrey Tucker’s article in thisnissue; Mr. Tucker found that despitenthe free-market wrapping paper JacknKemp’s gift to the American public isnonly more welfare, this time for businessmen.nThe original idea, as it wasntransported here from Thatcher’s Englandnby Stuart Butler, was that economicallyndepressed areas should get anbreak from all government regulationsnin an effort to kick-start the local economy.nThe utter reversal of meaning ofnthe term is reminiscent of the transformationnof “educational choice.”nSheldon Richman’s article on choice,nwhich ran in Chronicles in March ofn1990, documented the sea change thatnword has undergone in its journeynfrom Good Idea to White House policy.nParental choice and the freedom tonchoose a school among a mix of public,nprivate, and parochial schools, withoutnthe double burden of school taxes andntuition, has come to mean choice withinnthe public school system only. Suchnis the complete victory of the newndefinition that education reporters nownregularly use the term “choice” as if itnnever had any but its second meaning.nThese two examples are not coincidental,njust typical. When Orwell hadnOceania fighting a perpetual war fornperpetual peace he was not making anprediction about the nature of despoticnpower but an observation. Governmentsnhave always fought defensivenwars of aggression, and on the domesticnfront as well, no tactic is so effectivenas to take the language of one’s critics,nredefine it, and embrace the revisednconcept as your own—because now itnis your own.nCongress, the Executive Branch,nand the millions who administer thenappropriations money, by men who areneven weaker and more venal than thenrest of us, are not interested in salvagingnan inner city or improving education—nonly in expanding their ownninfluence and buying more votes. Thisnis one of the many reasons why reformnwill never come from the top down,nand those who are looking for leadershipnfrom Washington, whether theirncause is abortion or acid rain, aren