We ARE better than our enemies
"So why is it that My Lai has become a byword for brutality while Hue is a footnote? Why will Menchaca and Tucker be forgotten while incidents like those under investigation — or the grotesque theater of Abu Ghraib — will persist, fester, be written about, analyzed, become vehicles for critiques of U.S. policy, the military, or the whole of American culture?
By rights these incidents should demonstrate that we are better than our enemies. We are civilized, they are barbarians. What we are fighting for is objectively superior to what they are fighting for. Our struggle is legitimate, theirs is not. There is no room for moral relativism in this war. Certainly those who view torture and beheading as acts of piety have no problem seeing it as a black and white conflict. And when faced with extremism of this sort, we should take it at face value.
Those who say that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter should be asked how they define freedom. Those who compare terrorist or guerrilla leaders to George Washington or other Founding Fathers should explain when it was exactly that they ordered the killing of innocents as a method, or even as a matter of expediency. And especially when they ever sought to invoke God’s approval for inflicting agonizing deaths on helpless captives."
--James S. Robbins, writing in today's National Review Online
I don't have a problem with much of what Robbins presents here, except that he stops short of explicitly answering his own questions. The answer, quite simply, is: We are better than our enemies. That is why our actions are held to highest standards, while those of terrorists and dictatorships are predictable in their barbarism. That is why the world dwells on our occasional failures, while overlooking the frequent travesties of our enemies.
And as it relates to Iraq, I can't recall anyone comparing the terrorists and insurgents to the Founding Fathers. Always gotta insert that strawman in there, for good measure.
On a related note, it is somewhat reassuring to see crimes by American soldiers being addressed head-on by the military. However, with a third accusation of murder, it leads to several possible not-so-reassuring questions:
- Why are these crimes cropping up all of a sudden (though no evidence of any prior cover-ups has been implied)?
- Why does the chain of command seem to be breaking down in these isolated incidents?
- If these crimes are occuring for the first time - which seems to be the case - why now? Is it indicative of the stress on our soldiers? A coincidence?
What's going on here?
posted by David Kennedy at 4:24 PM
6 Comments:
How are you any different to your enemies? Your soldiers are killing people right and left. What's the death rate from violence in Iraq today compared to what it was under Saddam? We already know the Iraqis are getting less electricity, clean water, medicine and all the other basics of civilised society under the U.S. occupation than they were under Saddam's tyranny. How stuffed is that, when the United States makes things WORSE than they were under a despotic Stalinist murderer? And now it's coming out that your troops are killing people in cold blood. You might be doing it with bombs and bullets, instead of knives and electric drills the way barbarians like Zarqawi did. But the victims of both sides are just as dead. You're NO DIFFERENT!
By the way, I'm not Muslim, just another white person living in the land of Oz. You'd be surprised at how the whole of our society, which once modeled itself on the U.S. (much more fun than the whingeing Poms) is now sickened by your States. The U.S. has become the new USSR, a murderous empire that espouses a supposedly noble ideology but is actually bent on death and domination. And like the USSR, you will fall from the weight of your military misadventures. Bad onya, boyos!
8:32 PM
And folks, I give you Exhibit A of what happens when America fails to hold itself to the highest standards, rather than compare our behavior to terrorists. What my visitor from down under seems to have missed (from just about every other posting I've ever published about the Iraq war) is that I am fully aware of what effect our actions are having on our reputation among our closest allies, not to mention the rest of the world.
But no, friend, we are DIFFERENT. Our nation, though it is in danger of leaving them behind, still clings to ideals that our enemies (i.e. fundamentalist terrorists) reject outright. Europe is on the brink of a crisis brought about by coddling Islamic fundamentalism for decades, and the world is slowly awakening to the real threat it poses.
I disagree with just about everything this Administration (and by extension, our nation) has done post-Afghanistan. Our citizens have let far too much incompetence and moral relativism infect the policies of the United States. However, if I don't believe we still control the moral high ground relative to our enemies - whoever they might be - how can I possibly still fight for a change in the most flawed policies and actions of America? What may not be apparent to the rest of the world is that the U.S. is deeply divided over our actions in Iraq and deeply conflicted over the next logical step. Feel free to compare us to the USSR, but if your comparison were remotely accurate, the world would be in even deeper shit than it already is.
And lest you konk your head on the ceiling while balancing on your soapbox, last time I checked the Aussie government was a loyal ally of the United States in Iraq. I'm sure you don't approve of that either, and so both of us have much work to do to convince our respective governments to change our ways!
9:54 PM
And one further note, since I apparently made myself so entirely unclear in the posting...
One of the stupid arguments that gets tossed around in the Conservative bizarro world here in the United State is that the media covers things like Haditha and Abu Ghraib heavily, but sometimes glosses over atrocities committed by insurgents or terrorists. I don't particularly agree with that assertion, but let's just assume it has a kernel of truth. My point is simply this: when an American soldier murders in cold blood (as a handful have recently been accused), it is a big fuckin' deal because our soldiers are SUPPOSED to be disciplined and be our representatives to the world. And the vast majority are (though you may entirely disagree with their mission).
So my point was directed at conservatives mainly. I don't particularly give a shit whether a terrorist beheads a soldier - that is to be fucking expected from a fucking terrorist. American soldiers are supposed to be better than that. So yeah, it is pretty horrific to Americans - and yes, the American media pounces on it, and we are all utterly mortified by it - whenever a soldier is revealed to have committed an atrocity. No one here is celebrating that action, despite what the rest of the world might think. And, significantly, that is the simple reason such atrocities receive such heavy media coverage, and rightfully so.
10:11 PM
Surprisingly rational answer for a right-wing Yank, mate. But you forget that it's not rational people in charge of your country. It's blood-thirsty empire-builders like your Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton... and the list goes on. They are all about power and intimidating the rest of the world. And they issue your propaganda through the mouthpiece of the worst thing ever to spew forth from the Lucky Country -- Murdoch.
As for our Diggers being allied with your forces, that's unfortunately true. Australia has a sad habit of sending sacrificial lambs to be slaughtered as they tag along with their latest imperial master. Started with the Brits in the Boer War, hit a low point at Gallipoli and the Somme, also included Korea and Vietnam under your auspices. Whilst we're grateful for America's assistance in WW II, you've gone off the rails recently. As for the soldiers now serving in Iraq, you'll notice that now that the Japs have decided to bugger off home, we're headed for the relative safety of the Syrian border. Only had one Aussie killed so far (probably a suicide) and our troops will be returning before it becomes an issue that Labor can beat Howard over the head with in the 2007 elections. That's going to leave you and the Poms to slug it out, mate...
11:22 PM
Check it out - Bukko and I are international diplomats! I'm hard pressed to disagree with anything in his last response. But thanks for reminding me that you Aussies stuck us with Rupert Murdoch. That should merit a full-scale invasion.
Fortunately, the Bush Administration probably disagrees with me.
I know I've got some work to do when I've left a visitor the impression that I'm right-wing. If only all my other posts were so convincing.
5:36 AM
I promise, last comment...
I read this just yesterday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700018.html
It seems appropriate for this discussion, for whatever reason.
8:41 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home