Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America and Anti-Americans
New York Times ^ | 2/04/02 | SALMAN RUSHDIE

Posted on 02/04/2002 2:47:36 AM PST by kattracks

LONDON -- They told us it would be a long, ugly struggle, and so it is. America's war against terror has entered its second phase, a phase characterized by the storm over the status and human rights of the prisoners held at Camp X-Ray and by the frustrating failure of the United States to find Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Additionally, if America now attacks other countries suspected of harboring terrorists it will almost certainly do so alone. In spite of the military successes, America finds itself facing a broader ideological adversary that may turn out to be as hard to defeat as militant Islam: anti-Americanism, which is presently becoming more evident everywhere.

The good news is that these post- Taliban days are bad times for Islamist fanatics. Dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar look like yesterday's men, unholy warriors who forced martyrdom on others while running for the hills themselves. Also, if the persistent rumors are to be believed, the fall of the terrorist axis in Afghanistan may well have prevented an Islamist coup against President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, led by the more Taliban-like elements in the armed forces and intelligence services — people like the terrifying General Hamid Gul. And President Musharraf, no angel himself, has been pushed into arresting the leaders of the Kashmiri terrorist groups he used to encourage.

Around the world, the lessons of the American action in Afghanistan are being learned. Jihad is no longer quite as cool an idea as it was last fall.

States under suspicion of giving succor to terrorism have suddenly been trying to make nice, even going so far as to round up a few bad guys. Iran has accepted the legitimacy of the new Afghan government. Even Britain, a state which has been more tolerant of Islamist fanaticism than most, is beginning to distinguish between resisting "Islamophobia" and providing a safe haven for some of the worst people in the world.

America did, in Afghanistan, what had to be done, and did it well. The bad news, however, is that these successes have not won new friends for the United States outside Afghanistan. In fact, the effectiveness of the American campaign may have made some parts of the world hate America more than they did before. Critics of the Afghan campaign in the West are enraged because they have been shown to be wrong at every step: no, American forces weren't humiliated the way the Russians had been; and yes, the air strikes did work; and no, the Northern Alliance didn't massacre people in Kabul; and yes, the Taliban did crumble away like the hated tyrants they were, even in their southern strongholds; and no, it wasn't that difficult to get the militants out of their cave fortresses; and yes, the various factions succeeded in putting together a new government that seems to have broad support among the people.

Meanwhile, those elements in the Arab and Muslim world who blame America for their own feelings of political impotence are feeling more impotent than ever. As always, anti- American radicalism feeds off widespread anger over the plight of the Palestinians, and it remains true that nothing would undermine the fanatics' propaganda more completely than an acceptable settlement in the Middle East.

However, even if that settlement were arrived at tomorrow, anti- Americanism would probably not abate. It has become too useful a smokescreen for Muslim nations' many defects — their corruption, their incompetence, their oppression of their citizens, their economic, scientific and cultural stagnation. America-hating has become a badge of identity, making possible a chest- beating, flag-burning rhetoric of word and deed that makes men feel good. It contains a strong streak of hypocrisy, hating most what it desires most, and elements of self- loathing. ("We hate America because it has made of itself what we cannot make of ourselves.") What America is accused of — closed- mindedness, stereotyping, ignorance — is also what its accusers would see if they looked into a mirror.

These days there seem to be as many of these accusers outside the Muslim world as inside it. Anybody who has visited Britain and Europe, or followed the public conversation there during the past five months, will have been struck, even shocked, by the depth of anti-American feeling among large segments of the population. Western anti-Americanism is an altogether more petulant phenomenon than its Islamic counterpart and far more personalized. Muslim countries don't like America's power, its "arrogance," its success; but in the non-American West, the main objection seems to be to American people. Night after night, I have found myself listening to Londoners' diatribes against the sheer weirdness of the American citizenry. The attacks on America are routinely discounted. ("Americans only care about their own dead.") American patriotism, obesity, emotionality, self-centeredness: these are the crucial issues.

It would be easy for America, in the present climate of hostility, to fail to respond to constructive criticism, or worse: to start acting like the overwhelming superpower it is, making decisions and throwing its weight around without regard for the concerns of what it perceives as an already hostile world. The treatment of the Camp X-Ray detainees is a worrying sign. Secretary of State Colin Powell's reported desire to determine whether, under the Geneva Convention, these persons should be considered prisoners of war was a statesmanlike response to global pressure — but Mr. Powell has apparently failed to persuade President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

The Bush administration has come a long way from its treaty-smashing beginnings. It should not abandon consensus-building now. Great power and great wealth are perhaps never popular, yet, more than ever, we need the United States to exercise its power and economic might responsibly. This is not the time to ignore the rest of the world and decide to go it alone. To do so would be to risk losing after you've won.

Salman Rushdie is the author of ``Fury: A Novel'' and the forthcoming essay collection ``Step Across This Line.''




TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Great power and great wealth are perhaps never popular, yet, more than ever, we need the United States to exercise its power and economic might responsibly.

Why, so that those who hate us will come to love us? BS! If they can't love us let them fear us.

1 posted on 02/04/2002 2:47:36 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
American patriotism, obesity, emotionality, self-centeredness: these are the crucial issues.

The EU loathe patriotism. They can't have patriotism if they're to forge a "reich".

2 posted on 02/04/2002 3:08:31 AM PST by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

"...America did, in Afghanistan, what had to be done, and did it well. The bad news, however, is that these successes have not won new friends for the United States outside Afghanistan. In fact, the effectiveness of the American campaign may have made some parts of the world hate America more than they did before. Critics of the Afghan campaign in the West are enraged because they have been shown to be wrong at every step: no, American forces weren't humiliated the way the Russians had been; and yes, the air strikes did work; and no, the Northern Alliance didn't massacre people in Kabul; and yes, the Taliban did crumble away like the hated tyrants they were, even in their southern strongholds; and no, it wasn't that difficult to get the militants out of their cave fortresses; and yes, the various factions succeeded in putting together a new government that seems to have broad support among the people..."



Nicely stated.
3 posted on 02/04/2002 3:09:47 AM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Rushdie wa tiptoes all the way to the edge, leans over, looks down into the abyss, but doesn't have the guts to try and cross the bridge......figures..the last para makes no sense whatsoever......shame....
4 posted on 02/04/2002 3:10:32 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cachelot

"...Night after night, I have found myself listening to Londoners' diatribes against the sheer weirdness of the American citizenry. The attacks on America are routinely discounted. ("Americans only care about their own dead.") American patriotism, obesity, emotionality, self-centeredness: these are the crucial issues..."




They HATE us for being ourselves. Tough. We are going to be the way we are. I am sick and tired of accepting everyone else as they are. It's about time that they start accepting me as I am.


These euro-trash speak loudly about acceptance of others. I sure don't see it when the "others" that they refer to are Americans.


If you don't accept us. Fine. Continue to hate us. And we will continue to be ourselves.


5 posted on 02/04/2002 3:15:04 AM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I guess Rushdie wants to avoid another Fatwa. He is a good enough writer that his thinly veiled criticism of US policy and UK manners seems to be the voice of reason but yet, it is not. The USA may go it alone ine the end, but I think we will have a few allies willing to stick with us over the long haul. We are the only nation which has a chance of eradicating the bulk of terrorism's resources and the terrorists themselves. We have committed to doing so and the rest of the world be damned if they lack resolve.
6 posted on 02/04/2002 3:19:17 AM PST by Movemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Somewhere in a posh wine bar in a city somewhere in Europe there are a group of people.

Well dressed well moneyed and all work in the world of Media or News. They are in constant contact with another wine Bar somewhere in America

These individuals take it in turns to write such articles as Europe hates America, followed by Europeans hate America because Americans are so , followed by Americans are bad because followed by Europeans are bad because of .

The average European is just like there average counterparts in the states, worries about such mundane things as careers, rent education, there health, travel too and from work( I spend three hours a day on that),bills, to and from work.

Most don’t give a dam who runs the white house, most and this is true cant not see the difference between the democrats and the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy and why should they.

America is the land of Hollywood, Dallas, Dynasty MTV, Frazier South Park the Simpson’s and a good holiday destination to most Europeans.

Cheers Tony

7 posted on 02/04/2002 3:24:00 AM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
PS, being told that I am very fit, very handsome and even sexy, I have yet to ever meet a American I would be jealous of.

Cheers Tony

8 posted on 02/04/2002 3:26:19 AM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh
Somewhere in a posh wine bar in a city somewhere in Europe there are a group of people.

Something tells me Salman Rushdie is somewhere else :).

9 posted on 02/04/2002 3:31:18 AM PST by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"The Bush administration has come a long way from its treaty-smashing beginnings."

Sigh! I guess he is referring to the 1972 ABM Treaty. That treaty set forth a process for withdrawal by each party. Withdrawal from a treaty pursuant to the terms of the treaty is not "shattering" the treaty (notwithstanding the issue of whether there still is a treaty, given that one of the signatories no longer exists). The relevant portion of the treaty is set forth below:

Article XV

1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

10 posted on 02/04/2002 4:09:27 AM PST by Freemyland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freemyland
in exercising its national sovereignty

The libs among the poor Europeans don't approve of this concept. Therefore anything done through national sovereignity is to them, illegitimate. ; )

11 posted on 02/04/2002 4:17:44 AM PST by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The treatment of the Camp X-Ray detainees is a worrying sign. Secretary of State Colin Powell's reported desire to determine whether, under the Geneva Convention, these persons should be considered prisoners of war was a statesmanlike response to global pressure ? but Mr. Powell has apparently failed to persuade President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.
O.K. Let's do it here and now. None of the suicidal maniacs who executed 9/11 were in uniform, none carried their weapons openly, none represented a responsible state, and they attacked civilians--in the case of the WTC, civilians almost exclusively. They were, in just about every way, unlawful combatants explicitly excluded from POW status by the Geneva Convention. So the case of those (dead) attackers is open-and-shut.

The al Qaeda foreign Arabs in Afghanistan represented no state, and were there precisely to preach, teach, and learn terrorist--"unlawful combatant"--tactics. Even tho they fought with the nominal (if not recognized by the U.S. or many other nations) government, when push came to shove they actually controled the Taliban and exerted themselves for their own, not the Taliban's, defense. They were captured by what all now recognize as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and were turned over to the U.S.

The al Qaeda are distinct from ordinary pirates only in that their motivation is hatred rather than greed. The U.S. is not obligated to treat that distinction as a difference. Certainly not a mitigating one . . .

12 posted on 02/04/2002 4:54:49 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
. . . those elements in the Arab and Muslim world who blame America for their own feelings of political impotence are feeling more impotent than ever. As always, anti- American radicalism feeds off widespread anger over the plight of the Palestinians, and it remains true that nothing would undermine the fanatics' propaganda more completely than an acceptable settlement in the Middle East.

However, even if that settlement were arrived at tomorrow, anti- Americanism would probably not abate. It has become too useful a smokescreen for Muslim nations' many defects ? their corruption, their incompetence, their oppression of their citizens, their economic, scientific and cultural stagnation. America-hating has become a badge of identity, making possible a chest- beating, flag-burning rhetoric of word and deed that makes men feel good. It contains a strong streak of hypocrisy, hating most what it desires most, and elements of self- loathing. ("We hate America because it has made of itself what we cannot make of ourselves.") What America is accused of ? closed- mindedness, stereotyping, ignorance ? is also what its accusers would see if they looked into a mirror.

. . . there seem to be as many of these accusers outside the Muslim world as inside it.

- - - - - -

What's new. Here, they're called, "Democrats" . . .

13 posted on 02/04/2002 5:07:41 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
I doubt there is one in a hundred people accessing FR who have read Salman Rushdie. His writing is execrable. Worse, it is pompous (as this article demonstrates). There was a rather pro forma anger in the scribbling community that he was targeted for death by an Iranian-issued fatwa, but there would have been few to attend his funeral.
14 posted on 02/04/2002 5:12:45 AM PST by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
If you don't accept us. Fine. Continue to hate us. And we will continue to be ourselves.

Well said (bet that felt good).

15 posted on 02/04/2002 5:22:27 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Here! Here! You tell 'em! To co-opt a slogan, "We're fierce, we're Freepers, and we're IN YOUR FACE!"
16 posted on 02/04/2002 5:23:23 AM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
Rshdie hit most of the nails right on the head, though he missed a few.

Rushdie is and always has been a bit of a lefty, but he doesn't hate the USA. He does hate the jihadis. Any guesses why?

18 posted on 02/04/2002 6:22:07 AM PST by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coteblanche
Yes! It's brilliant. Or is just that I'm a damn Yankee?
19 posted on 02/04/2002 7:27:30 PM PST by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson