|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Meet the New Boss… |
Current rating: 0 |
by Mark Drolette
Email: mdrolette (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified!) |
14 May 2004
|
|
Why are so many Americans oblivious to their country's arrogant, sometimes brutal behavior, actions that are so easily recognizable to the rest of the world? For the answer, read on. |
I’m not sure how many Iraqis have ever heard The Who’s old war-horse “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” but you can rest assured they know the tune. Contrast that with the millions of Americans (all of whom have heard the song at least one billion times each; I have the proof right here) who have expressed shock over the nature of the Abu Ghraib prison horrors, and it’s clear they never once got The Who’s simple message: When it comes to abusing power, the name of the abuser doesn’t matter a whole hell of a lot to the abusees.
The cacophonous condemnation, both by Americans and everyone else on the planet, of the heinous treatment of Iraqi detainees by U.S. Army reservists is entirely well deserved. But when Americans then insist that these despicable deeds are anomalous and “not something that Americans do,” they display ignorance both of their own history and human nature. Because, wouldn’t you know it, it’s Americans in those photos taken at Abu Ghraib who, sure enough, are doing exactly those very things that Americans don’t do. Same as the old boss.
To many Americans, we are somehow supposed to be above it all, because our country is God’s gift to the world, the bright, unwavering beacon of liberty that unselfishly, wearily, repeatedly attempts to show all other nations the Right Way to live. These same Americans then wonder, slack-jawed, why we’re globally reviled and other peoples rebel when we kill a few thousand of them and destroy their countries to make them more like us. To top it off, we are shocked, shocked we tell you, when “un-American” images like those from Abu Ghraib appear.
Except that that sort of behavior is as American as, say, mass extermination of indigenous peoples, slavery, and lynchings. You want pictures? Plenty of them exist depicting whole towns of folks who’ve just finished torturing and lynching fellow Americans, photos showing smiling families—including children brought along for this most American of pastimes—posing next to their dead, contorted victims, a bloodthirsty ritual that continued for decades.
Despite these evil deeds performed by Americans, we aren’t inherently evil. We are, however, inherently human. Americans’ self-righteousness stems from our false belief in the manifest destiny of the United States and automatically blinds us to our deeply-flawed humanity and the terrible things of which any of us are capable. So Saddam Hussein’s infamous torture chambers and rape rooms are in use once again, only this time under the auspices of good old Uncle Sam. Meet the new boss.
There’s a whole universe of difference between ideals and idealism, and Americans have always been lousy at separating the two. Are liberty, civil rights, and democracy things worth striving, even dying, for? Absolutely. Has America’s government always put these values first in every action it takes? That’s obviously a rhetorical question. Yet, far too many Americans continue to believe the myth, preventing them from engaging in the only activity that will help us propel this nation forward in the proper direction and quit messing with other peoples’ lives: honest, critical self-analysis of who we are and just what it is we do and why we do it. Too many of us fail to understand a basic, yet profoundly important, principle: Our nation is not judged on what we claim it to be, but on what it actually does.
The outcry over the now-infamous killing and subsequent desecration of American “private contractors” in Fallujah—in reality, four mercenaries making lots of money off other people’s misery--demonstrates just how arrogant and disconnected we are. It was a gruesome, horrifying event, to be sure. But judging from the reaction in this country, one would think that the war had just started. Just what the hell do Americans think has been done to thousands of fellow human beings from day one of this wretched lunacy, fully financed by our current and future tax dollars? Is it the hanging of bodies from a bridge that sparked the outrage? It’s excruciating for the families to see, without a doubt, but the slain are no less deceased. What about the similar pain of thousands of Iraqi families? Somehow, that’s not as important. No, the furor really stems from the fact that those four people were AMERICANS, and nobody but nobody, does that to Americans. Of course, the natural American response has followed: Retaliation with overwhelming, amazingly disproportionate firepower to show the sub-human vermin who’s boss, killing several hundred Iraqis (including more than a few civilians), displacing thousands, and decimating homes and personal property in the process. (The recent beheading of American Nick Berg ensures an encore performance.) Who couldn’t love us now? But if I’m a surviving Iraqi relative, I certainly know my loved one is just as dead whether killed by a Hussein henchman or an American missile. Same as the old boss.
Or how about Rush Limbaugh’s amazing (even for him) statements likening the Abu Ghraib events to "a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men" (it sounds like Rush had quite the time while attending university) and “blowing off steam”? As much as I can’t stand Limbaugh, one thing is certain: He’s not stupid. So that means he has finally just flipped out (narcotics withdrawal can be awfully tough). I’ll go out on a very short limb here and assume his reaction would have been a smidge different had the nationalities in those photos been reversed. But, since it’s an American holding the leash, it’s OK, because it’s all in the intent, you see. Too bad Iraqis have such a hard time grasping nuances. We don’t get fooled again.
It’s also mind-bending to hear Americans, the alleged creators and utmost defenders of human rights, claim the reservists at Abu Ghraib were “just following orders.” Do the Nuremberg trials ring a bell? The world didn’t buy the Nazis’ feeble rationalizations for crimes against humanity then, and the judges’ guilty verdicts were clear: Soldiers have a duty not to follow orders that are clearly inhumane. Every American responsible for the Abu Ghraib savageries and those committed elsewhere, from the rankest grunt to the highest officer (and any of those ubiquitous private contractors), should receive the severest punishment possible. But talk about hypocrisy: Far more righties than lefties have supported the Iraq debacle from the beginning, and one of the things on which conservatives incessantly harp and for which they ridicule their political opposites for (falsely) not supporting is “personal responsibility,” a principle from which they are now apparently retreating, led by their incoherent cheerleader Limbaugh, in a flat-out run. Same as the old boss.
Another justification for the Americans’ criminal actions at Abu Ghraib is that their behavior pales in comparison to that of Hussein’s regime. Is this now how far down the scale we’ve slid, using Hussein’s barbarism as a measuring stick for our own actions? As long as we’re engaged in such surreal conversation, then, is it too gratuitous to remark here that when it came to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, it was Hussein, rather then Bush, who was telling the truth? And still Americans remain mystified as to why other governments are so reluctant to help us out with our little mess in Iraq. We don’t get fooled again.
I’ll wager Hussein is having quite a chuckle to himself (that is, if he’s overheard the clamor through the panties on his head). He merits zero sympathy, but the irony is pretty thick (a trait shared by plenty of administration skulls). Phony rationales for the invasion of Iraq have been substituted often enough to fill an over-sized scorecard, but the ones that were last penciled in declare that the war was necessary to democratize Iraq and oust Hussein so there would be no more mass graves, torture chambers, and rape rooms.
Whoops. That democracy thing is a little hard to iron out when one’s country is occupied and in flames. We’ve covered the torture chambers and rape rooms. So we’re left to ask: Just how many dead Iraqis does it take to fill “mass graves”? If it’s ten thousand or so, the mark has been attained, and to use a favorite Bush term, we’ve hit the trifecta. Meet the new boss.
As noted earlier, Iraqis—and the rest of the world, for that matter—have no trouble recognizing the same old song; it’s Americans who take the prize for not understanding the lyrics. If Americans really want their country to be respected for sincerely manifesting the truly honorable ideals set forth by its founders 228 years ago, then it’s time to honestly face the music. |
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
To Jack |
by Mark
mdrolette (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 May 2004
|
Hey, Jack,
Two wrongs do not make a right. I would think the following would be obvious, but let me just state for the record: To any civilized person, beheading someone is an atrocity beyond words for which no rationale could possibly be given.
Re Mr. Limbaugh: If I’ve quoted him out of context, tell me then what the following words REALLY mean: “I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You heard of need to blow some steam off? This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time." To imply that “no one was hurt by these stupid stunts” is patently untrue: people were assaulted, beaten, and sexually humiliated (perhaps the worse form of abuse one can afflict on a Muslim). To call them stupid stunts is to deny what they actually are: violations of the Geneva Convention, which precludes “‘physical or moral coercion’” against prisoners, ‘in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties’” (05/15/04 Sacramento Bee). Also, to imply that Rush was somehow led on by a caller is simply not believable. He makes a fantastic living at pushing his message and has been doing it professionally for years, so he certainly is not some people-pleaser incapable of disagreeing with someone.
“I believe that we are in a war against sub humans. They need to be detained or killed quickly.” Well, God, nice to finally meet You.
“Why do you condemn all of our soldiers for the sins of a few?” Where in the piece at all do I condemn the entire U.S. military? This indicates to me you missed the whole point, which is that Americans are not morally superior beings but rather just plain, old humans, and capable of committing the same disgusting things as all other humans. The corollary is that we then make ourselves huge targets, morally and physically, by shouting to the whole world just how good we are while behaving atrociously. Do all soldiers behave this way? Of course not, but once you’ve set yourself up as the guiding light of the world, you’ve also set a standard impossibly high to attain (it’s that darn humanness factor creeping in again). Are American PRINCIPLES wonderful? You bet! That’s why we should spend more time actually living them than preaching about them.
“They are protecting you.” Wrong. If they were all over in Afghanistan, helping to bring to justice all who were/are involved in the 9/11 attacks, then I’d say you have a most salient point. The war in Iraq is something else entirely, and our soldiers are tragically nothing more than disposable pawns in an effort to prosecute a fantastical, bizarre, unattainable America-as-unchallenged-military-superpower scheme put forth by people such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Richard Perle, William Kristol et al so that, in essence, the world can be made as safe as possible for American corporate interests. Please open the link below for more information. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Mark |
|
Re: Meet the New Boss… |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 May 2004
|
Hey Mark,
You seem like an intelligent person on this website. Although we completely disagree politically and as you will note, my stuff is always hidden for that very reason, I will attempt to address your points.
First, You use the term "beheading". Allow me to disagree with you here. The Japanese, during WWII beheaded people. They used their sword and took pride in doing it with one swift blow. After, it was not uncommon for the company surgeon to remove the liver so it could be eaten by the officers in charge.
This was something different. This was "sawing" with a dull blade. Both described above and are inhuman acts of complete cowardice. Can we agree on that???
Regarding Mr. Limbaugh: did you listen to this show? I will be honest and say that of the three hours, I listened to about one hour and fifteen minutes. However, I did hear this particular call. The caller brought up the part of the Fraternity Hazing. Rush simply used Skull and Bones as a joke. Both Kerry and Bush happened to members of this organization.
Regardless, I truly think he was pointing out the vast differences between the naked pyramid and the chain, and the dogs vs. people who saw the head off of a person and sing " God is Great" while it is being done.
He also took great pains to say that what those soldiers did was harmless, it was stupid because we are not supposed to act like that.
My personal opinion, is that it is alot easier for us to sit in our comfortable homes and judge the wrongdoings of some soldiers who are along way from home and have in their custody people who may be responsible for the deaths of their brothers in arms.
As for your contention of the Iraqi war being wrong, I can only say, that you and your friends on this site fail to understand the totality of the War on Terror. The point is that Iraq is but a single front on the war on terror. You may not agree with it, but after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions, it was past time for us to get tough.
If the Clinton Adminstration, who also believed that Saddam had WMD as did Kerry, had done more during his eight year reign, perhaps this war would have been won. But, Alas this was not meant to be.
The soldiers who you mock are indeed protecting you. Let me ask you this Mark? Do you think that Libya would have given up their WMD's if they did not think per chance that they themselves were not on the list. d
Do you think that the North Koreans would be negotiating now if they did not think they were on the list. They are and they better comply, because this communist state will not stand.
Iran, will be dealt with from within. Sryia, will be dealth with from a democratic Iraq or from within. The rest of the Middle East will fall in line when they see the wealth and the voice that the people of the surrounding countries get. They are not stupid and they will realize that they can follow their god without hating the US.
You and I, simply disagree. No problem, I believe you can be taught the truth.
Jack |
|
For Jack |
by Mark
mdrolette (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 May 2004
|
Hi, Jack,
Re Berg’s murder vs. Abu Ghraib actions: It seems like you’re arguing that because of this atrocious crime (Berg’s beheading, the sawing off of his head, whatever you wish to call it), that somehow mitigates the criminal acts committed at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. As a famous Vulcan once said, this is illogical. Nick Berg was heinously murdered, but if I now go out and rob a store, I’m still breaking the law. I doubt a judge will look too kindly upon my “Yes, your honor, I stole that money, but I figured it was OK because just look at what those animals did to Nick Berg. That was much worse!” defense. Both acts are wrong, and appropriate punishment should be meted out if those responsible are captured or arrested. But, no, in anticipation of your next argument, this doesn’t mean the U.S. is now justified in killing as many civilians as it needs to (as happened in Fallujah) in its effort to track down Berg’s murderers.
I didn’t listen to Rush, but you’re barking up the wrong tree with this argument. Nothing you can say will convince me he was just joking; his track record is FAR too long to think that his remarks were somehow said in jest.
What the soldiers did was not harmless: Iraqi detainees (who had not been convicted of anything) were beaten, assaulted, and sexually humiliated (probably the worse sort of abuse one can apply to a Muslim), and the Geneva Convention precludes “‘physical or moral coercion’” against prisoners, ‘in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties’” (05/15/04 Sacramento Bee). Tell me: What would your reaction have been if it had been Iraqis beating, assaulting, and sexually humiliating Americans, including women? Would you be as sanguine about that?
Iraq is a front on terror only because Bush invaded it and made it one. Iraq was a third-rate, finished country, and posed zero threat to us. Where are the WMDs? If there are any, where are the delivery systems? Its air defense systems in the “no-fly zones” had been bombed regularly for years and the country had been crippled by years of sanctions. The sheer speed with which the U.S. rolled into Baghdad and the fact that no WMDs were used during that phase of the war should by itself be enough to convince those who still believed that Iraq was some sort of danger that it was actually toothless. This war was prosecuted solely to establish U.S. military bases in Iraq, secure its oil deposits, and make the world as safe as possible for American corporate profits, a subject near and dear to just about everyone in this administration’s hearts. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfled et al don’t give a flying fig about the welfare of the Iraqi people. If they did, they would have used it as the primary reason to try to justify the war rather than offering it ex post facto after their lies about WMDs and al-Qaida links became so apparent that even they couldn’t deny them anymore.
I have not mocked our soldiers. I have the utmost respect and concern for the men and women in our military; that’s why I’ve been trying my hardest to prevent the waste of their lives, limbs, and minds from the start. Re Libya: Just like Reagan taking credit for bringing down the Berlin Wall, Bush tries to take credit for Libya now playing nice. In both instances, they happened to be in the White House when the end result of processes that had been marching on for years occurred. Did their actions hasten these events? Maybe, but they would have happened anyway.
Who knows what North Korea thinks? Theirs is a weird, wildly inconsistent regime. I hope you’re right about Iraq becoming democratic, but I sure wouldn’t count on it. Besides, do you really think the U.S. wouldn’t hesitate to step in if truly democratic elections resulted in a government America deemed unpalatable? I don’t, which means that Iraq will never be truly democratic.
The most productive thing that could happen in the Middle East would be for the U.S. to apply the unique pressure only it can apply regarding the Israeli/Palestinian mess to help bring peace to that area. As long as the slaughter there on both sides continues, the U.S. will continue to have little or no credibility in the Arab world, and little elsewhere, in no small part because the U.S. gives Israel about $4 billion annually, half of which goes to the Israeli military that kills Palestinians on a regular basis (and no, I do not condone Palestinians blowing Israelis up, either), while Palestinians see no similar largesse. And yes, I know the Palestinian Authority is rife with corruption and can’t be trusted; that’s why if the U.S. really wants to throw its weight around in a good cause, it boxes both the Israelis’ and Palestinians’ ears and gets down to serious business with BOTH parties, playing no favorites.
I agree that disagreement is no problem. In fact, healthy, respectful discussion about differing viewpoints is the very lifeblood of democracy. So I thank you for taking the time to read what I write and even more, respond; I truly do appreciate it.
Mark |
|
