For Americans who may have some misgivings, or feel the stirrings of some gentle questioning of their government’s policies, the choices are somewhat limited.
For example, few Americans can truthfully say that they would welcome the invasion and occupation of the US by a foreign country, if pressed, most will be obliged to acknowledge that they would indeed resist such an occupation, and would have little sympathy for their neighbors who signed on with the invaders and for a few coins, hauled off their sons for “interrogation.”
Bush himself made it clear, when he repeated after his earpiece, “you are with (the US) or with the terrorists.”
That pretty much sums it up. Anyone who opposes the US is by definition, a terrorist, and every American, just like every Frenchman, every Arabian, every Palestinian, every Swede, must pay their money and take their choice.
For most folks outside of the US, it’s a no-brainer. They can afford to say, “well, hey, I oppose military aggression, I opposed it when Germany did it to Poland and France, I opposed it when the USSR did it to Czechoslovakia, and I oppose it when the US does it to all their various targets. Invasion and occupation are wrong in my book, no nuance, no gray, just wrong. And if any country invaded the US, you can bet I would be 100% behind Americans who resisted and did whatever they could do to drive those foreign invaders from those alabaster cities and amber waves of grain.”
But what is an American to do? If he opposed Germany, and the USSR, and supported the Resistance to those invasions, with what integrity can he now oppose the Iraqi Resistance?
And if he supports the Resistance, is he not opposing his own country?
Well, that depends on what he perceives his country to be, and which he holds dearer, his own moral sense of right and wrong, or the principle of “my country right or wrong.”
And what does he gain, in either case, and more importantly, what does he lose?
If he supports his government against his own conscience, he sends a message to that government that they are the master, not only of the lands and resources they wish to seize, but of his own conscience. Their moral values, they must acknowledge, are forged not in their hearts, but in the conference rooms of Halliburton.
Is it not their right to forfeit that freedom? Of course.
They have every right to weigh the consequences and cast their lot as they see fit. Some may call them hypocrites, but they do not need to bear such slurs in silence. They can stand proudly with Winston Churchill, Andrew Jackson, and Leopold, King of the Belgians, to name just a few, and proudly profess their faith and pledge their liege to the doctrine of Manifest Destiny.
They can claim a divine mandate as did the kings of old. The burden may not exist in the reality based sense, but it is real to their hearts. So what if they are called fascists, imperialists, colonialists? If that is their creed, they should defend it without shame, as did their fathers before them, and accept the legacy, and pass it on willingly to their children, because has not God himself, not to mention Madeleine Albright, decreed that the price is worth it?
But what if he chooses the other path? What if he stands up and says “I support all people who resist the brutality of occupation, whether it be in Ramadi, Ramallah, or Rhode Island, and I support it precisely because I am an American, and because I do love my country.”
Well, that fellow just declared himself a terrorist. He is now officially an enemy of the United States, an unlawful combatant, and while all Americans, just like everybody else on earth, is subject to extermination and/or seizure and perpetual imprisonment by US gunmen, he has just made himself a more likely candidate for that fate.
With the possible exception of pedophiles, he will have made himself the most hated and vilified category of American, in the eyes of the vast majority of his Americans.
Remember America is the place where Abu Ghraib whistleblower Joseph Darby’s family had to go into hiding, so many death threats did they receive, while Lynndie England has fan sites.
An American who supports the struggle for freedom and self-determination in a land under siege of a hostile invading force lives the spirit of another great American not so long ago, an American who was despised, spat upon, called every ugly name in the book, thrown in jail, beaten, dogs set upon him, and in the end was murdered, this man who had a dream that one day his country would live out its creed.
Does it dry up Like a raisin in the sun?
… Or does it explode?
Langston Hughes
Also the America where many still bash “Hanoi Jane”, not a country that enjoys actually looking clearly at it’s history. And heaven help you if you look, or at least, look and speak.
And I wish you’d stop channeling Tariq Ali-it’s intimidating to my little brain…unless you are Tariq Ali?
He does not commit run on sentences, purple prose, or any of my sins, but thank you for the compliment.
I wrote this because it seems like every time I think about it, I come up with something else that Washington has stolen from the American people.
I have to admit I’m most disappointed Mr. Fatwa. I had only wished to Recommend your diary, and give you a “4”, but based on your comments related to the rating system, I dropped my work at hand to contribute to your musings in some fashion. (Small tho the contributions may be) Yet, in return, the same individual who said they would prefer comments over ratings, chose to rate me and move on.
(I try to give and give and give. . .heavy sigh. . .I can see the T-shirt now “Fatwa wrote another Great Diary and all I got was this Lousy 4”)
That is a compliment.
And with that . . . I’ll. . . step. . . away. . . from. . . the . . . ledge. Any links to the other road in which this diary traveled? Appears to have disappeared already.
at it
Barely Legal, All Nude Colonialists Gone Wild
Thanks Fatwa. Your link referred to the appropriate subject, but I ultimately entered the land of your “ratings” diary. (Which I had already perused on my own for the kicks and giggles) Any bladders still around peeing on Colonialism?
the right link
I seem to be going through a technical glitch phase. I blame the planetary alignment.
Thank you – again. I made it through the first ten or so comments and realized I’m simply too tired to fully enjoy the discourse that ensued. Thread creep? (She asks, while laughing heartily inside) Given the in-depth discussion that appears to have taken place, I’m sure I have nothing to say that hasn’t already been touched upon. But I look forward to a great read when I wake up in the morning – and for that, I thank you. (Thread creep. . .:^)
Thank you, as always, for sharing your views. I’ve given up on many discussions in which people are unwilling or unable to understand the full ramifications of this preemptive war and the resulting actions of some Iraqi factions. Would I resist? I believe I would.
Many years ago, a very right wing friend explained to me his rationale for bearing arms. And his explanation required a great deal of thought on my part. You see – he armed himself not so much for break-ins, but more so for the potential of government take-overs or invasions. And at that time, it was too much for me to absorb. Not so much anymore.
bunch does not offer much in the way of discussion. There is really not much one can say to that, maybe not much one should say.
I tried posting this over at kos, which was a mistake. It was quickly seized by a couple of overactive bladders, with whom I, feeling mischievous, foolishly toyed, and between us we managed to scare off everybody else.
There are some holes into which nuance-shaped pegs simply will not fit, and war, any war, is one of them. By its very nature it reduces the lives of the fighters into the simplest, most primitive black and white jungle print available in the human experience collection.
A war of aggression takes it even a step further. At what point does the support of troops who have obeyed at least one illegal order cross the line into contributing to crimes against humanity?
Colonialism does terrible things to the target country and its people, leaves gaping wounds and ugly scars that will take generations to heal, if they ever do.
What is talked about less is that what it does to the people of the colonizing nation is in many ways worse.
“I tried posting this over at kos, which was a mistake. It was quickly seized by a couple of overactive bladders, with whom I, feeling mischievous, foolishly toyed, and between us we managed to scare off everybody else.”
You did get some excellent testimonials for your collection though. =/
And on a more serious note, you’re absolutely right about colonialism.
I put it up right away 😀
One of the simplest ways to explain how I can be patriotic and still abhor many of my country’s actions is taken from Al Franken’s “Lying Liars…”. He says (and I paraphrase here) that Republicans love their country like a four year old child loves his parents. He can only see the good things his parents have done, and cannot believe that mommy and daddy can do anything wrong.
Democrats, on the other hand, love their country as an adult comes to love his parents. The adult sees the mistakes his parents have made and loves his parents enough to help them rectify, overcome, and not repeat them.
I know it’s a trite explanation, but I think it fits sometimes, at least.
Highly recommended.
Opposing war without seeming unpatriotic can be difficult, but I think there is a critical difference between saying that we should not be involved in a war and saying that we are on the wrong side. A lot of people hate Jane Fonda not simply because she opposed the Vietnam War but because she seemed to be on the other side. I think that we were wrong to go to war against Iraq, that we won the narrow victory of toppling Hussein only while throwing the country into chaos, and that, as we are no longer achieving much over there, it is time to get out. I do not, however, support the Iraqi resistance because its goals go far beyond simply resisting the occupation. The resistance seems intent on destabilizing Iraq, and at least some of them have the goal of establishing a theocracy. Is my position inconsistent? I don’t think so. Actually, I find it more consistent than the John Kerry/Wesley Clark/Howard Dean approach (we were wrong to go in, but now that we are there we must finish the job).
Both your position and theirs are based on the conviction that what kind of government the Iraqi people want is subject to approval by the US, and that the US must shoulder the Burden of Manifesting the correct Destiny to them.
That is a very popular view, in the US, anyway, obviously not in the Majority World :). In fact, I did a whole diary on it.
I’ll need to revisit the above linked diary when I have fresh eyes and mind (the basic requirements before engaging in any of your writings). Until then, I must submit that the U.S. Government is now responsible for what they created. (Break it/buy it mentality from this typist) They created the havoc, they created the breeding ground for terrorism, and I feel they are responsible for the potential of additional civilian casualties resulting from said conditions. Both in the arena of Iraq – and as those conditions relate to the safety of the world at large.
not to mention the safety of the US itself, the last, best, only, and only possibly still extant hope is for the US to immediately cease aggression, disarm, and repatriate their gunmen.
The pottery barn argument is a really good one, the only problem with it this:
If I break into your house, tear up your stuff, kill some of your family, beat up your kids, lock whoever’s left down in the basement while I steal your wife’s jewelry, then it will be better for me to stick around and make sure you are running your household the way I think is best.
Now few home invasion victims will think that’s a very good idea.
And few would suggest that once Germany had invaded Poland, the Nazis had the obligation to stick around and make sure everybody’s swastika’s were turned around the right way.
So you are back to a consistency problem, which may not be a problem – as long as you are basing your argument on classic principles of colonialism.
Failing that, there is absolutely NOTHING the US can do to “help” Iraq, even if there were a desire to do so, which there clearly is not.
Few people are “helped” by crimes against humanity, with the notable exception of certain key US business interests.
The US has done enough in Iraq. And the rest of the world. More than enough. Really. No more “help,” please.
But when said gunmen are brought home, someone else is still calling the shots upon their arrival. And should they come home now, it’s only to rest up for the next home invasion. Still leaving the U.S. citizens wide open for any number of events. (Invasion, fires, lack of first responders. . .)
Very interesting position you present. . .but does it hold water when tipped at all angles? (I’m certainly in no position to quality control the container right now, but my mind is telling me that your theory isn’t fully realized)
So. . .who should be cleaning up the homes now that everything is broken?
you are saying that once the gunmen are brought home, shots are being called in Iraq by entities that displease the US.
That may be, and I will bet you dollars to donuts that in the US, shots are being called by entities that displease the Iraqis.
Should they come occupy the US for a while to set you straight?
This is the essence of all those buts and pottery barns and opinions about what kind of government Iraq has.
Those are only consistent if their proponents also are in favor of Iraq, or Iran, or Tonga, whoever, sending their army over if the US form of government is not to their liking.
Unless, again, the proponent’s argument is that the US is operating under divine mandate in its capacity as owner of the earth and all it contains, which I acknowledge is the basis of US foreign policy, and is very popular with most Americans.
My point is that it has just never caught on globally.
Should they come occupy the US for a while to set you straight?
I’m not sure what I said to provoke such a comment. I merely indicated that this administration would just send our troops to another locale if they pull them out of Iraq. No where did I say I supported either of those events.
I respectfully request that you switch to decaf. As for me, I think it best that I log off. Good night.
And the context has nothing to do with any comment you made, it is merely an illustration of why some popular arguments are inconsistent, unless they proceed from a basic faith in colonialism.
Well it came off as grounded in hostility toward me – given it was positioned as a response to my last comment. And with that, I truly must say good night.
so hopefully you can see that there is no hostility:
Suppose a man wishes to marry a woman. As they talk and get to know each other, he indicates that he will wish to control what his wife does, what clothes she wears, her comings and goings, who she talks or writes to, what she says and does.
The woman asks if she should also control what he does, wears, says, etc, and indignantly he replies, of course not!
Why then, asks the woman, do you say you should have such authority over me?
Because, says the man, if I do not, you might wear, go, speak, write, things I do not approve of.
Now this man’s argument cannot stand alone. It needs to be founded in some basic principle or belief in order to make any sense. For example, maybe according to his religious beliefs, women should be subjugated to the will of their husbands.
Now with that, the woman cannot argue. She can, and probably will, conclude that they are not a good match for each other, and wish him well in his search for a compatible marriage partner, but there is little likelihood that either will be successful in evangelizing the other to change their religious beliefs. Nor, in my opinion, should they try.
If the man will ever see things differently, it will not be simply because a woman he is interested in tells him, hey that is wrong, I don’t agree with you.
Maybe as he goes through life, he will be moved or inspired by the joy of families who have a different belief, and his heart, and his faith will change own its own. Or maybe not, who knows?
Now the above analogy is not as good as the one about Iraq. Countries do not relate to one another in the same way that individuals do, but the point is that most arguments need some underlying principle to make sense.
To return to Iraq, if I have diffused the concept enough, if I argue that the US should not involve itself in the affairs of Iraq, much less invade it, even though I do not state it, I am basing that argument on the underlying principle that Americans are not superior to Iraqis, nor are Iraqis superior to Americans, in any way, shape or form, and thus neither has any business telling the other what kind of government it should have, and neither one should be sending armies over to invade and occupy the other.
That is the basis of my argument, that is my core belief, my personal value system, on which that argument rests, and while you may not share it, may disagree with it vehemently, you cannot really argue with it any more than you can (productively) argue with a devout Christian that Jesus was crucified.
And if it is true for my argument, it is also true for arguments that require the buttress of colonialism.
I hope that you will have the time to read my previous diary on that subject, as I do offer what I believe is a reasonable compromise that can accomodate both the spiritual and reality-based sides of the unbridgeable gap.
Just a quick drive by during a break between client projects. I guess I don’t understand why you continue to ‘splain things to me. I never disagreed with you, and I understand your point. (Prior to the multiple analogies)
My only question to you, is now that everything is broken, who can be trusted to clean it up? The citizens of Iraq are left in the most hostile environment and need support in keeping things safe – not setting up a government – that should be a nation’s own choice, and one which was not initiated by in invasion by occupiers.
I need to get back to work – and after pulling an all nighter last night, I need to get to sleep shortly after. Good night.
“Now few home invasion victims will think that’s a very good idea.”
even if,
the mother is a whore,
the father is a drunk,
the kids are deliquents
and they
are not upstanding citizens,
never go to church on Sundays or any other day
and they pretty much have a screwed-up notion of what’s best for their family.
The aggressor dictating the victims’ morality standards?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” – Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
I wonder if you have misinterpreted my remarks.
Even within the context of current US political practice, criticism is permissible. In fact, I acknowledge that many politicians, mostly Democrats, but also some Republicans, have been very candid in expressing the view that they believe the crusade should be run differently, and during the 2004 “campaign,” the subject of whether, to whom and how much of the wetwork should be outsourced was a frequent topic of very lively debate.
Not rebutting you, rebutting the righties that say shit like this: “Anyone who opposes the US is by definition, a terrorist.” I guess I should have been more clear, because I think we actually mostly agree.
You raise an interesting dilemma. How do you oppose the invasion or support the right of Iraqis to resist without being traitorous to the United States. My response is that my country is not the same thing as my government, which is what the Teddy Roosevelt quote was intended to demonstrate. My country is my fellow citizens, and when my government acts against what I perceive to be the best interests of the citizenry, then it is my moral obligation and patriotic duty to protest against those actions and policies.
The current GOP are unabashed practitioners of the tyranny of the majority (I would even argue that their majority position is a phantasm, as their extreme policies and positions are far from having support from the majority of Americans– but I’ll save that for another day). That tyranny includes the vilification of good, loyal Americans who do nothing more than their patriotic duty of expressing a dissenting opinion. The truly treasonous are those who say we have no right to dissent.
The use of jingoism is one of the 14 facets of fascism. The use of “national defense” as a smoke-screen for militarism and invading another country is a facet of fascism. The marriage of corporate interests with government interests is a facet of fascism. The right is guilty of all these things and more. The PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is a fascist manifesto if ever there was one. We have an obligation to speak out against such things.
The sooner we realize that we do not rule the world, the sooner we can stop worrying about how many people out there want to do us harm. We are the biggest target because we have made ourselves the biggest target through our arrogant, imperialistic, corporatistic foreign policy. If we want to win the war on terror then we need to spread liberal values like the concept of a common humanity shared by all people, global citizenship, human rights, freedom of religion, equality, and respect for differences, and we need to be the exemplar of those values in our dealings with the rest of the world. Is it treason to want the U.S. to be a good global citizen? Is it sedition to say that we should abide by treaties like the nuclear non-proliferation treaty before expecting others like Iran or North Korea to do the same? Is it anti-American to say that our government was hypocritical to use the fact that Saddam failed to obey the U.N. as an excuse for our own government to defy the U.N. to invade Iraq?
Is it treason to say that the Iraqis do have a right to fight against an occupying army? Does such a statement mean we want our soldiers to die? No. It means we want our government to recognize that the Iraqis have the right to fight us and that we should never have engage in this illegal war in the first place. Are we to stand by and say nothing while my fellow citizens die for corporate greed in an illegal war? The government has put the soldiers in the predicament of being an occupying force without adequate supplies, arms, armor, equipment, and personnel, and at the same time acts to cut veterans benefits for those coming home, yet we are accused of hating the troops because we say every person — be they Iraqi, French, Nigerian, Canadian, Native American, Smurf, or Muppet — has a right to defend their homeland, their nation, and their family from an invading force? As Teddy Roosevelt said, to stand by and say nothing would be “morally treasonable to the American public.”
And the principle of putting principle first 🙂
I think that is what Teddy R. Was talking about.
If someone is opposed to invasions and occupations on principle, it does not matter what country is the occupier.
“The sooner we realize that we do not rule the world, the sooner we can stop worrying about how many people out there want to do us harm”
Sometimes it is the simplest concepts that are the most difficult to express. You did a superb job on that one!