Poking wasps nests with chopsticks seems to be the motive behind much of US foreign policy. The cesspool that is Afghanistan needs only a couple of gentle stirs to spray its fetid lunacy and violence on everything and everyone. Case in point, burning paper turns the people bug-frack crazy:
“Afghan officials say at least two demonstrators have been killed in northern Afghanistan as protests over last week’s burning of Qur’ans turned violent.
It marked the sixth day of deadly protests over the burning of Qur’ans and other religious materials at a U.S. base. The White House has called the incident a mistake and apologized to the Afghan government but demonstrations have continued.”
The US relationship with Afghanistan seems to be suffering multiple personality disorder. Drone attacks that butcher civilians get little mention, but burning the Koran gets an official apology? It makes no sense. You don’t do PR in an occupied country, you just get the job done because by now any notion of good intent or nation building is long gone. All that remains is the national interest, the more discretely it is handled the better.
“The administrator of Iman Sahib district in Kunduz province says Sunday’s protest turned violent as demonstrators tried to enter the district’s largest city. He says people in the crowd fired on police and threw grenades at a U.S. base nearby. NATO said initial reports indicated no international service members were killed.”
Ignorant people with access to small arms and explosives, how could anything go wrong?
“A gunman killed two U.S. military advisers with shots to the back of the head Saturday inside a heavily guarded ministry building in Kabul, and NATO ordered military workers out of Afghan ministries as protests raged for a fifth day over the burning of Qur’ans at a U.S. army base.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack at the Interior Ministry, saying it was retaliation for the Qur’an burnings, after the two U.S. servicemen — a lieutenant-colonel and a major — were found dead on their office floor, Afghan and western officials said.”
Whoops. Underestimating the resolve of your enemy is always a recipe for trouble. U.S/NATO forces will be forced to reevaluate their security procedures after this incident.
“The two American service members were found by another foreigner who went into the room, which is only accessible by people who know the correct numerical combination, according to the Afghan official, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose details about the shootings.
They were shot in the back of the head, according to Western officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the information. Authorities were poring over security camera video for clues, the Afghan official said.”
I wonder if the American Administration is getting the message? The slow-motion withdrawal is only going to cost more lives. Admit defeat, and get on with the program already, there are others in line just waiting to be invaded and oppressed.
bleatmop
The Intransigent One
Mystro
The Arbourist
14 comments
February 27, 2012 at 7:10 am
tildeb
Is that what you really think, that the US ‘invaded and oppressed’ Afghanistan?
Wow. After 9/11, Afghanistan as a nation sympathetic to the Stone age barbarism and aggression of the Taliban is fortunate it wasn’t turned into one giant smoking hole in the ground. You’ve mistaken who your real enemy is; for all its admitted faults and tendency for bullying, the goals of the US government is not to force you – or Afghans – into submission as a serf to its totalitarian regime. The same cannot be said of the Taliban in any honest comparison.
You need to give your head a shake and start comparing apples to apples if you want your criticism of the US to be a valid comparison and stop presenting it (and its people as a whole) to be some kind of willing minions of some giant evil empire. Stop mistaking the offensive twigs to be synonymous with its roots; the US and its people deserve better from us.
LikeLike
February 27, 2012 at 12:05 pm
The Arbourist
Afghanistan as a nation sympathetic to the Stone age barbarism and aggression of the Taliban is fortunate it wasn’t turned into one giant smoking hole in the ground.
So because a nation is backwards by our standards we’re allowed to invade their nation and kill their people? We’ll just this point for now because I’m not really sure how you are putting your point to me.
Another way you can read what you’ve said is because Afghanistan harboured Osama Bin Laden we have the right to invade and destroy that country. So, by your reasoning, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia also currently should be under siege as they, to much greater extent, fostered and supported OBL.
You’ve mistaken who your real enemy is; for all its admitted faults and tendency for bullying, the goals of the US government is not to force you – or Afghans – into submission as a serf to its totalitarian regime.
Bullying? Is that what we’re calling imperialism these days? How quaint.
But to address your point, which let me rephrase is, the US while pursuing its humanitarian policy goals, is just misunderstood, or has naive good intentions that go astray as it attempts to mold the world in their image and for their benefit. Or, the US is much less evil than the Taliban so we should endorse the killing it does for its interests, as opposed to those of the Taliban. When you’re victim of either regime, dead is still dead.
You need to give your head a shake and start comparing apples to apples if you want your criticism of the US to be a valid comparison and stop presenting it (and its people as a whole) to be some kind of willing minions of some giant evil empire.
Oh so you mean ignore our filthy little bit of history and condemn those other ‘evil doers’ when they do bad things in the world?
In a word, no. It doesn’t work like that, just because we happen to be on the home-teams side does not excuse us from being critical of the actions and history of the nation. Being a lighter shade of evil, does not excuse our actions at home and abroad.
Stop mistaking the offensive twigs to be synonymous with its roots;
Seriously? Perhaps we should ask the people of Iran, Pakistan, Honduras, Chile, Cuba,Nicaragua, Vietnam, and Iraq about offensive twigs versus rooted evil and injustice.
I’m guessing the history you’ve read, and the history I’ve read are two very different animals. For more information on where the historical and political stands I take please see this post.
LikeLike
February 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm
tildeb
because a nation is backwards by our standards we’re allowed to invade their nation and kill their people?
Come on! This statement is dishonest and you know it.
because Afghanistan harboured Osama Bin Laden we have the right to invade and destroy that country.
Again, this is dishonest and you know it. It’s not the country we remove by force but every vestige of the authority that ruled it and allowed direct support to an enemy combatant of the US – a NATO ally in case you’ve forgotten. But coupled with this intention to root out and destroy the Taliban was also the responsibility to then put into place a functioning government and all this would entail. My preference would have been to send in a million strong army and completely and utterly remake the country from the ground up removing any and all vestiges of authority of what had come before. You can call this foreign policy ‘ imperialism’ if you wish; it worked for Japan and it worked for Germany, both of who have returned to the ranks of civilized nations after initiating a similar kind of aggression and suffering an unconditional defeat as a result.
You have the luxury of vilifying exactly that which allows you the freedom to be a responsible citizen who can criticize it without fear of physical and economic retribution. This is as it should be. But part of responsible citizenship is recognizing that which has come before, that which has brought this legal recognition of your rights and freedoms into being. The responsible agency is not government, nor courts. It’s not officers of these public agencies nor police forces. It is the military, which is us. We choose to serve and we choose to fight not to spread ‘imperialism’ as you seem to believe but to defend that which we value on an individual level, values of secular liberal democracy. One of these values is transparency from those who govern in our name, and it is this value that allows you to find all kinds of examples of abuse exercised by secular liberal democracies. This, too, is as it should be.
But when you then vilify secular liberal democracies for exporting these values that you know pertain to all people and try to misrepresent them as tyranny, then you’ve stepped over the very line that justifies your legal right to express these criticisms. You excuse what you hate – those who would take away your rights and freedoms – and then vilify those who have purchased what you most value because of abuses these rights allow you to find. This makes you a hypocrite and I know you’re better than this.
By all means criticize abuses of power carried out in your name, in the name of values you hold in the highest esteem. It is right and proper that you do so. But don’t allow yourself to be sucked into believing what isn’t true in fact: that secular liberal democracies like the US are rotten to the core. They’re not: they are founded on ideas that supercede the governments formed in their name, that transcend culture and language and religion and politics and gender and race and all the other TRIVIAL differences between us. The abuses are not equivalent to nor revelatory of these values. The national expressions of these egalitarian values are what is at stake in this never-ending battle with those who would mistake the national expressions for the values themselves, and who do so – like you – for reasons they believe are good. This is the trap I think you’ve fallen into so busy are you painting a caricature of these states to your liking about how WE are the Evil Empire while misogynists who throw acid in the faces of little girls who dare to go to school are the poor victims of our wanton empire-building brutality, forgetting somewhere along the way that values upon which these secular nations are founded remain mankind’s last best hope against the OVERT tyranny of ignorance and stupidity that empower its alternatives… like the Taliban. And we forget this fact at our peril.
LikeLike
February 27, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Reneta Scian
Spoken like a true patriot, and I do sympathize. But to there is something missing…
America’s track record of “overthrowing tyranny” is riddled with failure. And everytime we try to oversee, or act within other sovereign nations and “route out corruption” we are subjecting ourselves the the venom that comes with a “warfare state”. The Global War on Terror is the most malignant cancer on the breast of all American Freedoms because the truth is that democracies are overthrown on the premise of “Crisis Management”. All that has been done is that we have attempted to “fix” other peoples nations while subjecting ourselves to the worm of corruption. A warlike state always has reason to be warlike, reasons to assert it is peaceful and always have voices and fingers that will toot its war banners; however, this does not in and of itself make the actions justifiable.
However, Iraq and Afghanistan were human rights fiascoes, and to a degree there is some justifiable level of intervention. The human rights abuses of Iraq and Afghanistan pale in comparison to those of other nations, so why the difference in policy? Self-interest and Self-righteousness are to blame I am afraid. The moment you think you are right you should re-evaluate your motives. By the very policy based measures of this “campaign” we have jeopardized our rights as citizen and that is a travesty and quite against what our founding fathers intended. So you ask, were we right to attack Iraq and Afghanistan? To a degree yes, and to a degree no.
The action in and of itself is hypocritical and totally self indulging. We are only doing good and stamping out injustice, totalitarian regimes when our personal interests are at play. A waltz is always a waltz no matter how many times it is played. And the degree to which our actions will be considered wrong in future generations will lie in the fact that our “exportation of democracy” will ultimately fail when usurping by force. This is the track record of other attempts, and if US policy is any indicator “war-driven states” derive power and power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
“A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference”, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent” and “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. The security we have gained will and has already costing our freedom in laws that can be used by tyrants to rule with an iron fist. In the security created by our exportation of democracy, our “kindness” will be repaid with more bloodshed.
In the end, if we stay the course our democracy will die by the hands of those who know how to exploit a crisis to usurp the power of the people. Blindness to this does not change the fact, and that is unjust wars can be fought under the premise of the best of intentions. Exporting democracy via war is ludicrous, exporting human rights via death and throwing the systems into chaos, and exporting ideology via missile is the surest way to turn kindred into calamity. War restructuring only works under the premise that the cultures are ideologically similar.Ultimately any attempt to perform this in near theocratic regimes will fail, and result in more death.
It is the nature of the beast. Lead by example not by fist. The US doesn’t have the resources to fix the world and in doing so it will be her undoing. A nation invested in the business of war can not also be invested in the business of peace because they preclude each other.
LikeLike
February 28, 2012 at 1:43 am
VR Kaine
“This is the trap I think you’ve fallen into so busy are you painting a caricature of these states to your liking about how WE are the Evil Empire while misogynists who throw acid in the faces of little girls who dare to go to school are the poor victims of our wanton empire-building brutality, forgetting somewhere along the way that values upon which these secular nations are founded remain mankind’s last best hope against the OVERT tyranny of ignorance and stupidity that empower its alternatives… like the Taliban.
Unfortunately most on the far left have no real perspective or understanding of what words like service, risk, honor, or success mean and because of that, thugs who throw acid in the faces of young women will always get their sympathy while soldiers who fight and die trying to protect them will receive their contempt and scorn.
However, although their lives are typically more dull and less purposeful, the detachment from life and purpose the far left has offers them the ability to be more objective than those who are actually in the middle of things. You know, the place where timely decisions must be made with imperfect information and carried out with imperfect tools, whether those people be soldiers, those on the front lines of medicine, or to a far, far, far lesser extent, those in business. Although detached and often driving me nuts, however, as far as that objective opinion goes in general I think we need it.
Unfortunately, though, they too often this “enlightened”, objective opinion way too far to the point where their self-declared perfection and moral superiority overtakes the sense of compassion and understanding they often pretend to have. For instance, they’ll admit they’re not perfect, but then their words will clearly convey how they think they’re more perfect, or more compassionate, or more whatever than you are.
They’re the kinds of armchair critics who will declare that “We’ve lost!” while soldiers are still fighting and dying, or will say things like “Advise and Assist” is the best military role America should take – not having a clue that this largely political position puts not only our people, but Afghan civilians, at far greater risk. ( See http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2012/02/15/why-advise-and-assist-is-a-bad-idea/ for example.)
Of course to try and understand this topic better, they’d actually have to either serve on the front lines or relate with somebody who has, but therein lies a word they hate, which is “risk”. In this case, why would they risk possibly being wrong? Heaven forbid any on-the-ground intel actually conflicts with the next Chomsky paper or Michael Moore film they filter it through, or heaven forbid they find out that their self-declared perfection or moral superiority was really only based upon what they could see looking in the rear-view mirror (and from the back seat at that.) Their entire perspective will be only what they see 180 degrees behind them and yet ironically, they’ll be the ones accusing you of being ignorant and not having a full view.
I have my own set of criticisms of America’s policy same as anyone does, but for now all you’ll hear from me is a SINCERE thank you to both you and anyone who has served or is serving. For one, you’re getting in between those acid-throwing, derka derka suicide-bombing scumbags and for another, I’m not conveniently naive enough to think for a second that Canada has gone untouched by terrorists simply because its citizens are “polite”.
Either way, the day my judgment or my own sense of self-righteousness becomes more important than anyone else’s military service (especially those on the front lines), that is the day I don’t deserve to either vote or be here in my opinion and in the meantime, I’ll take losing one of their so-called “soldiers” over one of our real ones any day. May the soldier with the greater ROE’s win! ;)
LikeLike
March 11, 2012 at 2:03 pm
The Arbourist
Again, this is dishonest and you know it. It’s not the country we remove by force but every vestige of the authority that ruled it and allowed direct support to an enemy combatant of the US – a NATO ally in case you’ve forgotten.
And how is that removal going? Oh, still a ‘work in progress’. The US was busy nation building in Vietnam dropping more munitions on that country than the sum of tonnage used in WW2. When will the benevolence end?
My preference would have been to send in a million strong army and completely and utterly remake the country from the ground up removing any and all vestiges of authority of what had come before. You can call this foreign policy ‘ imperialism’ if you wish; it worked for Japan and it worked for Germany, both of who have returned to the ranks of civilized nations after initiating a similar kind of aggression and suffering an unconditional defeat as a result.
So, if China were to launch an invasion and remake oh say, Canada from the ground up, it would be okay? This sure sounds like whoever has the biggest stick gets to make the laws argument. And yes, for the record that would be imperialism, please see the pleasant aftermath in Africa and of course the lovely set up for the first world war.
How could more of the same be better?
But when you then vilify secular liberal democracies for exporting these values
So which vales are we exporting by the indiscriminate drone strikes in Afghanistan? I see a lot of revenge, hatred and racism going on. Not exactly the “in my name stuff” that I would be proud of.
that you know pertain to all people and try to misrepresent them as tyranny, then you’ve stepped over the very line that justifies your legal right to express these criticisms.
Oh I see. I should focus on our fundamental goodness and the mind-deading salve that we are just doing good in the world, but we’re misunderstood.
I will not stop in my criticism of unjust actions, just because they are/were perpetrated by *us* does not change the nature of said actions.
You excuse what you hate – those who would take away your rights and freedoms – and then vilify those who have purchased what you most value because of abuses these rights allow you to find.
So killing the evil-doer’s – as judged by our standards and motivations – is all fine and good. When countries act unilaterally we get the horror that is war. Concomitantly,the promise that when a power greater than ours comes about, which it will, the same justifications can and will be used to explain our slaughter.
isn’t true in fact: that secular liberal democracies like the US are rotten to the core. They’re not: they are founded on ideas that supercede the governments formed in their name, that transcend culture and language and religion and politics and gender and race and all the other TRIVIAL differences between us.
The evidence would point to a different conclusion that what you postulate. Democracy, in its current form in the US/Canada is but a sham, mere window dressing to keep the proles in line. Oh certainly we are pandered to during election time, but past that, we’re fed whatever line is necessary to keep us quiet, stupid and unaware all the while the interests of the elite are carefully nurtured and attended to ( and supplanted into the common consciousness – the tea party for example).
The national expressions of these egalitarian values are what is at stake in this never-ending battle with those who would mistake the national expressions for the values themselves, and who do so – like you – for reasons they believe are good.
The egalitarian values we possess are not intrinsic properties of the state. Every *inch* toward the progressive, egalitarian state you espouse so highly was bought with the blood of the common people of those nations. It is only through the people’s collective action do we move toward the idea of a ‘shining city on the hill’. It has been a most ponderous, pained struggle, as the secular liberal democratic nations have been and still are hell bent in favour of stripping us of our rights and freedoms. The progressive egalitarian notions we cherish today were bloody battles fought against the state by the people, who understood that that ‘national interest’ was not their interest, but of those who where in charge.
You don’t get to equate progressive values as an intrinsic feature of liberal democracy because in our democratic tradition they weren’t. So when we get to discussing the notions of doing “good” in the world and interests of the state are entwined, it is most likely that we’re not doing good at all on any sort of humanistic level, but rather the self serving interest of the state. Realpolitik at its finest.
This is the trap I think you’ve fallen into so busy are you painting a caricature of these states to your liking about how WE are the Evil Empire while misogynists who throw acid in the faces of little girls who dare to go to school are the poor victims of our wanton empire-building brutality, forgetting somewhere along the way that values upon which these secular nations are founded remain mankind’s last best hope against the OVERT tyranny of ignorance and stupidity that empower its alternatives… like the Taliban.
Then we need to act like the “good-guys” rather than just portraying to ourselves and the world that we are. The West talks a great game about spreading freedom and democracy, but then acts with the same brutality and terrorism that we so fiercely decry. So, are we better than the Taliban? Sure, you bet. I think where we differ is on how much better we actually are than they are, because the end results of our many of our methods looks the same.
LikeLike
March 11, 2012 at 2:49 pm
tildeb
Arb, I think you mistake effect for cause. I understand and appreciate how much you dislike killing and destruction. On this we are in agreement. I understand and appreciate blaming those responsible for committing these acts. Here is where we begin to diverge. I do not think you appreciate the difference of intent between the doctor and the butcher when the end result is blood and death. You begin to attribute all kinds of misdirected malfeasance onto nations whose laws are indeed intrinsic to values you espouse because of the selected effects you see. But this is the cost of defending these values in real life, with real blood and real destruction. It takes a willingness to do this, a courage based on convictions that values of equity and fairness are worth it. I do not read anything you write to suggest that the US as a nation whose authority comes from the governed subject to laws based on Enlightenment secular values, can do anything anywhere in any fashion that you will not condemn. You only see negative effect and think your assertions about malicious causation are therefore always correct. I think you see only what you believe you see and not what’s really there.
LikeLike
March 11, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Reneta Scian
I’ll believe that we have intrinsic egalitarian values when women get paid equally, when racism is gone, and when the majority doesn’t oppress the minority, or the minority oppressing the majority. I’ll believe it when all people have equal rights, not just the rich, white, heterosexual, cisgender, well-to-do, able-bodied, wealthy men. Our government is laden with corruption and political processes that in our current age and state of technology actually undermines democratic process… Under the systems of delegates, superdelegates, political lobby, a lack of campaign oversight, the electoral college, and first past the post styles of election which inevitably lead to 2 party systems seizes the power away from the people and gives it to the Gerrymanders, Big Business, or anyone with a big enough pocket book to use it to get into to power even though the American Public did not want them.
Many of the systems that exist now were created during a time when they were necessary but have now outlived their usefulness and are the veins that breed corruption. Choice? You have none, but by the graces of may be a handful of noble men and women who still have the power to toe the line. War has been declared on American soil, and the toll will be the rights, labors, blood, sweat and tears of the American people. All that you know will be lost if we don’t fix our system and now is the time. We didn’t ask for the war, those in charge wanted it and have to power to create whatever illusion they want to believe. The system is designed to give you the illusion of choice, and democratic freedom, but it in all actuality is just the wool pulled over your eyes. So if you don’t have a choice, then who is pulling the strings, and why?
LikeLike
March 11, 2012 at 9:38 pm
tildeb
The values are intrinsic in the authority for law. Put another way, would you be willing to exchange places in national law with a woman from, say, Saudi Arabia or China? Why or why not?
If you are honest, you will admit that rights and freedoms of the individual in the west are greater in comparison. Why is this? Well, because you have individual authority recognized in law that is not equivalent in many other places. There is a qualitative difference. This is not to say the west IS egalitarian; it’s an admission that the fundamentals are in place to evolve into full egalitarianism. This is why civil rights remain a work in progress as more and more biases and discriminations are recognized as counter to the intrinsic spirit of egalitarianism from the founding documents. This is why there even IS a Bill of Rights: based not on community or ethnicity but on individual autonomy.
That abuses take place is not the point. That are STILL inequalities is not the point. That there is some corruption is not the point. What you seem unwilling to admit in the face of the unfairness you DO see is that the framework for egalitarianism is already in place even if subverted to serve the interests of a few. In other words, there is something good, something valuable, something rare at the heart of the nation you seem so willing to blame for all its shortcomings. But balance that blame with appreciating the intentions of many good people to honour and serve what is best about our way of life. You should remind yourself of this from time to time… and give thanks to those who have allowed you to exercise this privilege.
LikeLike
March 12, 2012 at 7:35 am
Reneta Scian
I do… I recognize that we have come a long way, but I see the current pattern of laws to be subverting those rights… Of coarse we have more rights than in China; however, there is still a threat related to the current. I am well aware of that, and I have been. I am speaking only to the subversion and the need to reform certain parts of the system where old parts clutter the road to progress… What’s the point of gaining freedom for one thing if it’s shunted away through transition to a police state. That being said, the US is a good country to live in. But my point is that I want to see it stay that way… I don’t want to see the freedoms we fought for and inscribed into laws disappear.
Yes, the framework is there, but there is currently a pattern of behavior that if it persists with undermine that. That is all I am saying. Simply because it’s better here, or because we have a framework, or because we do still have the ability to strive for equality verses other places in the world it doesn’t mitigate the harm being done through “Patriot Acts” and “Broad definition” declarations of war on US soil. The things that are happening that jeopardize our freedoms aren’t excusable because “it could be worse”. That is what I am saying. I stand up as a person who sees a good system but with cancer growing on it that once incised away it will be great.
I am not calling for revolution yet, I believe in the ideas which our constitution stands for, but I just see those things being destroyed by special interests, lobbyists, wealthy big business, and all of the other “bad guys” I have previously defined.
LikeLike
March 12, 2012 at 8:44 am
tildeb
Then we are in general agreement.
I, too, think we always need to be vigilant against any encroachment of our rights and freedoms and need to constantly strive to promote legal dignity for all. I also think we need to criticize and expose abuses. In fact, I think this is part and parcel of responsible citizenship.
But we need to balance this critical review on the premise of what empowers it, and that is respect for the values imbedded into these documents. Does this policy or that governmental action maintain the spirit of these values? If the justification used recognizes this basis, then we are left arguing about the efficacy of how this is demonstrably accomplished. If not, then the policy itself needs to be changed.
What I find disconcerting is how often this approach is completely undermined by those who assume in response to problems of policy that the state itself is broken, corrupt, and the impediment for social good. This assumption is completely backwards and counterproductive for it attacks by caveat the values that support human rights, human freedoms, and human dignity. This is why I charge Arb with confusing effect for cause. We NEED the values intrinsic to our founding documents to empower us to promote policy change. In this way, we’re all on the same side. To go after the state as if it were an evil entity is to divide us unnecessarily. The truth is we’re all in this together and we all have a stake in doing our part to bring about the fulfillment of these values into action. This is our patriotic duty and the one many people serve even when the effects produced by actions with this intent look like they’re not. Vilifying people who serve these values will not now nor ever produce the fulfillment of these values on a national and international level but undermine their promotion at every turn. This attitude will always be counterproductive and this is my criticism to those who vilify states to be part of the problem and never any part of a solution, for what they are trying to tear down is exactly what they need in their quest to build a more egalitarian world.
LikeLike
March 12, 2012 at 11:29 am
The Arbourist
I do not think you appreciate the difference of intent between the doctor and the butcher when the end result is blood and death.
Now this is interesting, as this is a very important point to raise. I think it may come from the variation of points of view we hold when we analyze intents and outcomes. It may surprise you but my differences are largely based on many of the egalitarian principles that germinated in the enlightenment and have become embodied in many western societies. I think, on many fronts, we are doing great. Rights of women, workers, minorities despite some set back of later were doing awesome and have the sociological data to prove it. I’m all good with things here.
One egregious problem though that is going to continue to haunt us with tremendous consequences though is somehow thinking that because of our system or our values we get to play above the rules. If everyone played by the rules the US does, it would not be fun place to live. For instance, Nicaragua the victim of a sustained terrorist war would have the right to invade and bomb the US in order to capture those who perpetrated against them. The same would be fair for Chile as they experienced the first 9/11 and should therefore be on US soil invading and seeking justice for the US sponsored coupe that threw their country into bloody darkness of the Pinochet era. But this doesn’t happen.
It can’t (at least not yet). Because we have the big stick, we get to have events and history go our way. So it breaks down to this, good treatment for 2/3 of North America, and the beat-stick for the rest of the world when it comes to our interests. International institutions like the UN and the International Court of Justice have little traction when it comes to US policy (consider that the US was ruled against in 1984 and continued on its path of destruction). So, it would seem that the enlightenment principles that are highly touted, even amplified, for the citizenry of the rich North America stop at the borders and then the exceptionalist/imperialist notions kick in when it comes to foreign relations and foreign policy.
How is this different than the British Empire as they embraced their solemn mission to civilize the world, with sword and maxim gun in hand?
I do not read anything you write to suggest that the US as a nation whose authority comes from the governed subject to laws based on Enlightenment secular values, can do anything anywhere in any fashion that you will not condemn.
Well, if secular enlightenment vales were consistently applied then I would have much more trouble condemning the US for its actions. But as it stands, it is disturbingly easy to do so as we neglect even the most basic tenets of what the egalitarian nature of the Enlightenment embodied. Until we understand that life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness must apply to everyone in the world, the division and the manufactored distortion of values will thus remain and the US will continue to act above and beyound international law because it has the big stick. Things will continue until someone with a bigger stick comes along and imposes their version of “freedom and democracy” on the world.
You only see negative effect and think your assertions about malicious causation are therefore always correct.
I argue with certitude here necessarily because I am consciously aware of where my historical point of view falls on the spectrum of acceptable views of history. I realize what I propose sounds outlandish and just plain ole’ wrong to the vast majority of people I interact with (just ask Vern) however, the narrative I propose is based on what I have evaluated to be valid historical evidence and thus the conclusions I draw are fact based. (Yes, circularity is there, but we have not been discussing historical facts and narratives, if more persuasive historical analysis comes about I will change my views accordingly). Thus, do I agree that the US is the current pinnacle of human social/economic/political development? I do, but with a large list of reservations, because if ‘we’ are the gold standard of democratic secular enlightenment vales we have a still have a long way to go.
LikeLike
March 12, 2012 at 1:24 pm
VR Kaine
“I realize what I propose sounds outlandish and just plain ole’ wrong to the vast majority of people I interact with (just ask Vern)”
I just never seem to see any specifics in what you’re proposing. Alternate viewpoints, fine, but at the end of the day I think the fact remains that wars have to be fought, and considering anyone who actually fights them, the US military is by far the most humane in how they conduct themselves in a large number of respects. They have “turtle cops”, for crying out loud!
To that point, what bothers me is that instead of people saying, “Here’s how it can be better”, many try to take some hypocritical moral high ground by calling the US “evil” while they sit back and enjoy the spoils trying to call themselves “good” just because they didn’t need to get their hands dirty.
There just was a report of a US solider killing a number of civilians. Tragic, yes, horrible, yes, but to me by no means a reflection of US policy. Who’s the far left going to side with on this one? Will they say “poor, misunderstood victim” to this soldier like they do with wacko Ahkmed who flies a plane into the WTC? What I find is no, they instead say that this is just more proof of the US’s “evil”, and continue to spew their hypocritical righteousness once again.
The US isn’t perfect. They make their mistakes, but they learn their lessons and in the meantime they have helped to create a standard of living for all of us that people should be more grateful for, in my opinion, with what I believe are ultimately for the most part good intentions.
People are free to criticize (that’s the only way we improve), I just think it should be balanced out at least one time with people expressing praise for the many good things the US has done by fighting our battles for us. Where you think I may be light on that criticism, at least the criticism has been there whereas I’ve never seen the praise.
LikeLike
March 12, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Reneta Scian
The biggest problem I have is as you said not that our founding documents, but our current power structure is corrupt and does not have the values it instills in their minds, only power and greed. It is only because the document is what it is that it has yet fallen to such attempts, and to be honest if we fired all the crooked politicians at this point we’d be without a running government. The big business feels entitled to profits hand over fist because of the distortion of “individual”, and the a political system without checks and balances to counter their greedy influence.
The people with power are in their back pockets, which needs to change. Our policies while might have seemed like a good idea at first are part of the problem, these things piled on top of the constitution, against it’s good nature and insufficiently challenged in political discourse. Democracy, or a good well founded democracy doesn’t die over night, it dies via slow erosion of it’s power. Our constitution prohibits the governing of individual rights, but with the way it is now that is being abridged. I wish I could run because I personally would smash it all. However, it is likely that they’d probably assassinate they person who would take their power first.
But that is part of the problem… Our election system isn’t designed for fairness anymore, and ordinary Americans stand no chance of campaigning and winning on their own. This is where foresight into the nature of American Values as represented in the Constitution is important… Because it allows us to remake and rebalance policy to ensure the rights of everyone, not just the rights of the few are protected. Either be it tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the minority, it’s still tyranny.
LikeLike