Posted on 09/06/2002 2:29:10 AM PDT by kattracks
In one morally bankrupt sentence, low-wattage actor Woody Harrelson recently defined the self-hating American: "The war against terrorism is terrorism."Unfortunately, the star is not alone in despising his country for defending itself. Or in seeing no moral distinction between provocateur and protector.
Prominent Columbia University historian Eric Foner spoke for self-loathers everywhere when he proclaimed himself unsure which is "more frightening, the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House."
Too many literati, glitterati and academicians share that view - that America the beautiful is really America the ugly. They reflexively oppose American use of power and cringe when their country exercises its military might. They believe we must study the frustrations of the Arabs, Al Qaeda's grievances, the root causes of their behavior and, hence, their victimhood at our hands.
And out of this comes the wrongheaded conclusion that the U.S. must act as punching bag for those who hate us because terrorism and defense against terrorism are morally equal acts. To buy into this fallacy is to equate victims with murderers and murderers with victims.
Charter members of the I-hate-America brigade include:
- Novelist Norman Mailer. He suggested that maybe the Sept. 11 "perpetrators were right, and we were not." As if mass killers could have been right.
- Actor Richard Gere. He pleaded with his fellow citizens to "identify with everyone who's suffering." The poor terrorists are hurting because of the "negativity of the karma" and should be treated with "love and compassion." Try telling that to the victims' families.
- Rutgers University English Prof. Barbara Foley. She taught that "whatever the proximate cause of Sept. 11, the ultimate cause is the fascism of U.S. foreign policy over many decades." Really? And I thought the cause was hard-core Islamic fascism's plot to annihilate Americans.
- Director Robert Altman. In January, in London, he sneered that when "I see an American flag flying, it's a joke." The three firefighters who hoisted Old Glory at Ground Zero were not chuckling.
- Writer Katha Pollitt. She wrote in The Nation that when her daughter, a Stuyvesant High School student, wanted to fly a flag from their window, she put her foot down: "Definitely not ... the flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war." Not freedom?
The legacy of Vietnam conditioned a generation's elite to believe that their country could do no right. It was a message spread for 35-plus years in movies made in Hollywood, books written in Brooklyn Heights, seminars held in Morningside Heights.
But even as today's self-hating American struts the stage, there is hope for the breed's passing. If the anti-Vietnam movement gave rise to a loss of faith in the country, Sept. 11 could prove the historical moment that dethrones moral equivalence and gives birth, in the next generation, to the unabashed patriot.
What some now perceive as America the ugly will again become America the beautiful.
A.M. Rosenthal is on vacation.
Expound, please, on why you think so, or is merely saying it enough of a reason for you?
Tuor
Thank you. It's nice to know that some people out there are listening to what I have to say, whether or not they agree with it.
Tuor
Better learn to goosestep.
Tuor
You raise very good points, but let me throw a spanner in the works by asking the following: What level of detail do you require? Suppose some of the Government's knowledge about Iraq is through highly-placed turncoats in Saddam's own party. Saddam thinks they're local, but they'll be part of the new government when he goes. Do we disclose their presence and the information that they've provided?
That was a hypothetical scenario, but its not that much of a stretch - Orin Hatch, in a stupid blunder told a reporter (almost boastingly) they we could pin-point Osama bin Laden's position. How do you know? Came the question. Because we can track his cell phone, came the reply. Guess who stopped using his cell phone?
Providing absolute proof that will convince all the doubters is a monumental task. And if you have a piece of information, but cannot reveal where you got it, will you be believed? What kind of evidence would you need to be satisfied? I do not know what the right answer is. But, I am more willing to give this administration the benefit of the doubt than Clinton's.
So what I'm hearing you say is that we have to wait until we know he has capability when we already know he has intent and is actively working to attain capability... am I understanding you correctly?
Oh Pulleease.
Excuse me while I go retch.
Ok well that has been done. Remember that they have already declared a formal jihad against the US. Which makes it now religiously sanctioned to carry out these atrocities against us. Are we going to *wait* now until they spray thousands and thousands of people with anthrax or the like before we respond? You asked for information which would prove his motivation to use these weapons, and I gave it to you... but now you're saying that they have to ACT first? Then why didn't you say that in the first place?
Beliefs determine action. One can hold certain beliefs for a long time before he sees fit to act on them. We should be about changing people's beliefs/hearts, because by doing so we will change their actions. However sometimes we realize it is too late to change their beliefs without extreme danger to innocent (legally speaking, not morally speaking) people.
Isn't it possible that the people on the ground providing the information might care a great deal what Saddam knows we know? I'm no expert on gathering intelligence, but it seems plausible that some of this information you require could compromise assets that are very difficult to replace.
I agree that there should be a declaration of war in Iraq's case before significant action is taken. I'd suggest that since Congress must make the declaration, then only Congress need be privy to the info, but I'm sure anything of interest would be leaked within the day.
Frankly, a good deal of the information you claim to require seems to me to already be public knowledge. Some of the rest would at best be strictly emotional, on a "wag the dog" level (video of weaponry aimed at Israel? Anything they have could be retargeted rapidly. I wouldn't feel at ease if all Iraqi technology were aimed at Bagdad right now were I in range). Any public support gained from such "evidence" would likely be ephemeral, especially in the face of US casualties or use of weapons of mass destruction.
A formal declaration, OTOH, provides an inertia that might be more resiliant.
I'm sorry this response has taken so long, but I absented myself from FR for a while because it was becoming too depressing. I'll try to finish off whatever discussion remains on this subject before fading back into the woodwork again...
My view on Saddam's intent:
Saddam intends on gaining weapons of mass destruction because they are the only means by which he can deal with the US on even vaguely equal terms. In fact, I suspect many nations are secretly or overtly trying to do the same thing for the same reasons, and the more we stomp around the globe, the more smaller nations will try to find an equalizer, both for self-protection and for force-projection.
All this talk of 'regime change' (read: assassination) probably hasn't made Saddam any less eager to find a way to get the US to back off. If we keep applying the pressure, he'll probably grow increasingly desperate, with unknowable results. In the end, if he sees our boys outside his window, he'll probably have some sort of nastiness on hand to take down as many of us with him as possible.
Yes, we have to wait. We waited in WWII, and while the results were horrific, they were necessary. No one now doubts the intent of the Japanese, and we were able to fight the war unified as a country and with a clear conscience. These are not minor issues when fighting a protracted war. Without such certainty, and in the current political and social climate, a war such as the one being proposed against Iraq is certain to only deepen existing fractures in our society: it will weaken the unity of the country rather than strengthen it.
We follow British Law which states people are innocent until proven guilty. The idea behind this is that you must gather evidence to prove guilt, rather than the guilty having to find evidence to prove innocence.
Would you instead have us acting like some neurotic, jumping at every imagined crime, living in paranoia, wildly swinging at every nation that looked at us wrong? Be sure that there are many nations in the world today that wish us ill, and that would act against us covertly, if not overtly, had they the power to do so. You can bet China is among these nations, yet I do not hear our government officials demanding we do something about China.
When will it stop? When will you feel safe? How many Iraqs are there out there? How many menacing countries that, somehow, are a threat to the US? As many as have ill intent towards us? If so, then we'll be forced to conquer most of the world, with those unconquered growing more apprehensive towards us all the while. We will make *more* enemies in our fearful attempt to make the world safe.
It is easy to say that by imposing order on nations like Iraq we are doing the world a favor. That is hubris, IMO, and in the opinion of a great many foreigners, many of whom probably don't even know what the word means. Britian tried something very similar to this one, in fact most of Europe did, it was called Colonialism and was all about the White Man's Burden. Take a look at Africa and you'll see the wonderful results of their intervention. Do you honestly think it will end up any different with us? I tell you truly: it will not, but it may be worse.
I don't care if Saddam lives or dies. He is nothing to me. If he *does* attack us in some direct manner, we declare war on Iraq and level Bagdad, with a nuke if necessary. We can do this, and Saddam knows it. Therefore, if he wants to live (and he does), he will leave the US alone. He may think ill thoughts about us, and he may say bad things about us in public, but he will not move against us directly unless we attack him first. That's my view, and I think it a very logical one.
I utterly disbelieve most of what Bush is saying about Iraq. The man is so transparent in his longing to attack Saddam, whatever the evidence and whether or not it is in our best interest, that I cannot trust him at all. How many times have I seen empty words and rhetoric about Iraq, about Iraq being friends with Al-Queda (when obviously they are not), about rumors and unsubstanciated claims? That they *still* lack credible evidence convinces me that his motives are not pure, and thus all he does is suspect. Add to this my general cynicism towards big government, and you should be able to understand my deep reservations towards what our government is trying to do.
We are about to embark on an unending war. One that could easily outlast our lifetimes if it doesn't tear apart the country first. A war against non-government, non-geographic forces, whose numbers are not known. And, of course, the best part is that it wont technically be a war at all, as that would require a specific foreign power to declare it against, and the Senate would actually have to do its job, as it hasn't done since WWII.
But, I guess, if it makes American citizens *feel* safer (rather than actually be that way), then the political fuel is there and the famous words uttered by Ben Franklin will come true: Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for a little security will receive neither (paraphrased, I'm sure).
Tuor
It is, IMO, essential that there be convincing evidence supporting the idea that Iraq poses a real threat directly to the US. We *must not* act without that sort of evidence, not just due to Consitutional concerns, but also future world opinion and domestic opinion as well.
The point I was making is that it is worth it to compromise some of our intelligence assets of that is what it takes to provide American citizens convincing proof that we must go to war to protect ourselves from Iraq. We can bring them to the US and give them new identities if necessary. A war against Iraq isn't going to be one of subtlty with spys and counter-spys, but one of brute force with the US doing the pounding and Iraq taking the beating: we a great enough technological edge in real-time intel-gathering, that our war isn't going to depend on agents in enemy territory giving us the latest skinny on what the enemy is up to; we'll know their every military move as soon as they make it.
So, I don't care if Saddam knows we are coming. It is like seeing a giant tidal wave coming towards you while you are walking on the beach: you can run wherever you want, but you're still going to die just as certainly as if you stand still. Once the US military starts, Saddam has no way of stopping it, and he knows this.
So, to summarize (I'm tired and I tend to ramble when I'm tired): It is more important from a moral and Constitutional standpoint that the people of the United States know, without any doubts, exactly why we are going to war, so that when Johnny or Jane get blown away in action, and the dreaded letter or visit arrives, they will know that he or she died protecting the country, not for oil, not so that Bush could get revenge for Saddam trying to take out his father, not to stablize the region, not to instill democracy on a nation that doesn't apparently want it (or maybe can't deal with it). The *only* reason we should be initiating a war is self-defense, IMO.
Also, since you mentioned my comments about a declaration of war: only the Senate, not the whole congress, has that power. A declaration of war is *not* a resolution of force. It is pretty specific as to just who we are going to war against and why. We have not fought a declared war since WWII.
You can find on-line copies of some of our previous declarations by doing a search via google or a similar search engine.
Tuor
When I said 'start a Jihad,' I meant governments sponsoring acts of violence against us on the basis of religious fervor. I could declare a Crusade against the Moslems right now, and it would mean exactly nothing. If the Pope did it, it would mean, technically, exactly nothing so far as the US is concerned: only the Senate can declare war, not the Pope.
Similarly, if some Moslem holy guy declared a Jihad against the US, it might give individuals the feeling they could act against us, but on a governmental level, no war would exist, and those who conduct acts against our country would not be soldiers or foreign combatants, but criminals.
If a foreign power knows that a Jihad has been declared by a non-governmental agency, and that its citizens were taking part in the call, then it is obligated to intervene. Failure to intervene makes the government an accomplice to criminal acts on a foreign nation and greviences can be lodged against it. Eventually, a war could be declared based on the idea that if the government of the offending citizens will not act to reign in its own people, then the offended country has the right to protect itself.
Iraq has not, so far as I know, directly sponsered terrorist acts against other countries, nor have I heard that Iraqi citizens have been involved in acts of terrorism against the US. OTOH, I *have* heard that many citizens involved in criminal acts against the US were from Saudi Arabia: what sort of steps is the government of that country taking to ensure that such actions cease? And if they cannot or will not stop their own citizens from criminally attacking other countries, at what point will we step in and do it for them, for our own self-defense?
It seems to me that if we have greviences with any Middle Eastern country right now, it would be those whose citizens were involved in the crimes committed against us on 9/11.
Tuor
Thank you for your response. Now... when you say that Iraq hasn't and won't attack us "directly" you are right. We in the west think of an "attack" in the Western sense of conventional warfare, also a legacy of the British. Conventional warfare is where the two sides line up nice and neat and march toward each other. Conventional invasion is where their ships pull up to our beaches and discharge soldiers who come running up onto the sand. Conventional attack is where planes fly overhead dropping bombs. This is the western way. This is what we recognize as "first strike." Saddam has no capability to do this, we are too far away and he does not have the technology to strke at the mainland.
But Saddam is not "western." Like Marxist rebels the world over, he knows that the best way to attack a superpower is with guerilla warfare. The attack on the WTC back in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing are guerilla warfare with links to Iraq. The attacks of 9/11 are guerilla warfare with links to Iraq. You feel the links are not strong enough. I feel they are. One of the aspects of guerilla warfare, of course, is to displace blame so that the attacked do not know or are not completely sure at whom to strike back.
As for your optimistic survey of our moral comfort concerning Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't speak too fast. My university is giving a series called "9/11, one year later" and 2 of the 3 speakers have referred to those incidents as evidence of US "terrorism." Convincing the civilian populace of the necessity of dismantling one of the regimes funding this guerilla warfare is impossible. Anti-Americanism is too strong and it isn't because of our foreign policy. It's because we are capitalist (mostly, still) and our enemies are universally collectivist. And if you think that Muslims and Marxists, or Islamists and secular dictators, won't form temporary alliances to fight a common enemy, I think you are mistaken.
Don't you think a war should require a little more than a 'we have reason to believe'? I do.
I also use the word 'directly' to mean an attack in a manner which can be traced, point to point, back to the Iraqi government, if not to Saddam himself. Bank statements, a spy-taped interview between a terrorist and a member of the Iraqi government, recon photos showing terrorist training camps with Iraqi military giving training. A link. A smoking gun. With all of our high tech gizmos, I am astonished that nothing has been forthcoming -- at least, nothing I've seen.
As for your optimistic survey of our moral comfort concerning Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't speak too fast.
I wasn't speaking of them at all, not as seperate events. I was talking about the war as a whole. From 12/7/41 right up to the nuking of Nagasaki, the US was about as unified as it can get: politically, morally, socially. We were a house united, not a house divided, as we increasingly are today.
My point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is however unified we may have been at the time, we are so "multicultural" today that even actions that were approved at the time are being second-guessed today... probably by some of the same morons who want state-of-the-art spying to be conducted in full view of the entire world.
That may be so. However, how does the State Department view these matters? How do diplomats in general view it?
Even in Arab countries, there is usually a nominal seperation between church and state. Granted, it is much thinner and tenuous than in the US, but it exists, even if it is a facade. The US has shown in the past that it is willing to accept this facade in the name of not having to intervene every time some Moslem holy man spouts off. As long as no overt acts are conducted against the US as a result, I agree with that policy.
If, however, the church has real or effective control of the government, and an official of that church calls for a Jihad, and members of that nation act upon the call, then I think we can safely declare war against that nation and act to stop them, even if it means eradicating the entire populous.
Providing evidence to the American people of such a situation would be easy, it seems to me, and we could then act without questioning ourselves or our motives.
I'm not specifically anti-war. But I do believe that great care should be used in determining we do the right thing because, being so powerful, a mistake on our part could have great consequences, not so much from without, but from within. We don't need another Vietnam.
Tuor
I believe that *some* of our intelligence assets should be compromised (after they have been safely removed) if that is what it takes to ensure sufficient hard evidence can be provided to the American people to justify a war. We have a duty to be as sure as possible of that we are doing the right thing: as sure as possible doesn't mean impossibly sure only, to me, reasonably sure based on some hard evidence.
The idea of revealing *all* that we know is ludicrious and unnecessary. There *should* be something that can be compelling evidence. If we can't even dig up something that we can show the American people, how can we trust our actions? How much do you trust our government to be truthful about things it has an interest in? Remember the baby's in incubators and the bad Iraqi soldiers who were said to have turned them all off? Remember how Social Security was never meant to be used for identification purposes? Remember how federal income tax wasn't supposed to be forever or to include everyone?
I want hard evidence because the US government has proven *repeatedly* that they cannot be trusted to tell the People the truth. I will continue to doubt the sincerity of their actions until they provide it, if they ever do. I'm sure there are many more who feel just like me, though I agree that the majority (and the voting majority at that) probably side with you in how much factual data is needed and how much you're willing to trust the word of your elected officials.
I understand your point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki now. You're talking about today's environment while I was talking about the effect of Pearl Harbor on the contemporary environment. I agree that even an event similar to Pearl Harbor might not have the same galvanizing effect today that it once had -- would probably not, in fact. It might even have the opposite effect of fracturizing us further. This speaks loudly of the state of American culture today, IMO. A house divided cannot stand forever, and this American House has got some serious cracks in it today.
Finally, it doesn't matter if Saddam knows a lot about our capabilities. He is like, as I said once before, a man standing on the beach staring at a tidal wave that is fast approaching. He may know it is a tidal wave, and that it is made of water, and that it is caused by an underwater earthquake. He may even know how big the quake that produced it was and how high the crest of the wave. The knowledge wont save him from the wave. If we have credible evidence that he has attacked the US or our direct interested, he's dead regardless of what he knows, and *he* knows that.
Tuor
The fact that Congress... who must have more information than we can have... has voted to support him does not mean anything to you?
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.