Why do they hate us? Perhaps an answer is embedded in this visceral insistence on innocence as the defining note of the American character.
The foregoing is the penultimate paragraph of an op ed in today's Boston Globe by James Carroll, entitled Forever the victims. We again approach an anniversary of 9-11, and as Carroll notes at the end of his opening paragraph,
American ears still ring from the blow we took on that crisp morning, and whenever the images of smoldering New York reappear on screens, the worst aspects of the trauma reassert themselves. The enormous injustice of that day comes back, and with it an unsatisfied longing for recompense.
Is it that longing for recompense, along with our national sense of victimhood, that is prolonging the agony of Iraq? Is this why we misunderstand what has happened, and what is happening now?
Please keep reading.
Carroll's piece of course recognizes how the administration took us to war, using - as it continues to use - our sense of loss over the events 6 years ago to take advantage of "an unfocused impulse toward revenge." IT was a sense of righteous anger, ginned up into a justification for attacking nation which had nothing to do with the attacks that engendered that anger. We all know that. So why should I focus on this, of all the possible reflections because of tomorrow's 6th anniversary?
Carroll is a perceptive writer, shaped both by his father's experience as a lifetime military officer and a founder of the Defense Intelligence Agency and his own personal life experiences, which include a period o time as a Catholic priest. He thinks deeply about the consequences of words and of actions, as is seen in both his books and his columns, perhaps one reason I so often find myself wanting to share what I read from him in the Globe.
Six years ago We often, as Carroll notes, heard the question repeated in this title. Perhaps we as a nation are too arrogant to understand the reaction of people in other nations. Carroll reminds us of our thinking then:
The question assumed our innocence and good will. Didn't our enemies know what we stand for? The United States is the last best hope of Earth, the city on a hill, a freedom-loving people. Our virtue is as self-evident as the truths we hold. When we finally caught our breath in 2001, it was to ask how anyone could have so wished to hurt us?
And I remember that six years ago, most of the world responded to what had happened not with hate, but with an outpouring of support like we had never seen. Of course that is long gone, a result of the arrogance of this administration, and in the willingness of too many in the Congress, the media, and the nation to continue to support the actions flowing from that arrogance.
This column will not be a comfortable read for many. Carroll is critical not only of those who argue we must stay to prevent disorder but also of those who say - as do some of our Democratic contenders for president - that if the Iraqi people cannot make progress towards a political settlement and stop the sectarian violence, we should not be spending American treasure and lives on their behalf. You may disagree with Carroll's analysis, but in three sentences he brings things together, ending with a punch to the gut of our perceptions:
The US fighting force may have made an honest mistake with its invasion, but events that followed rendered America's blunder morally irrelevant, as truly wicked forces were unleashed not only in Iraqi cities and villages, but in Iraqi breasts. Whatever kept them quiet before, that nation's devils have been loosed, as various factions, tribes, and clans have set to blowing each other up. The sum of all evil now is "sectarianism." Never mind that, from the Iraqi point of view, sectarianism is what you do to protect your loved ones when a foreign power has destroyed the multiethnic civic culture that once kept your family safe.If the debate is whether the Iraqis are "worthy" of further American sacrifices, the question misses the point and both sides are wrong: to return to Carroll
The war-prolongers say yes, the out-now people say no - but most accept the moral divide between good Americans and bad Iraqis.This results in statemets like that of Thomas Friedman last week, who wanted to argue that the violence in Iraq means that Iraqis love their children less than do we Americans
even as we ship our children off to that blood-drenched hospital.
We face a serious debate this week, one that unfortunately will be manipulated not only by the administration but by some of its opponents. We will have jets flying over New York as a "reminder" even as the purpose may be to politically intimidate. We are already hearing that David Petraeus wants at least another Friedman Unit (six months) before we begin withdrawal of troops. We will argue about how we should draw down the American presences, as eventually we must given the limitation of the levels of our military personnel. We will debate the method of drawdown, and how we should withdraw. There will rightly be debate on these and related issues.
But we have not acknowledged as a nation our complicity, the wrongness of much of what has happened. Even for the Abu Ghraibs there has been little accountability. For the Hadithas there has been even less. We see no courts martial for incompetence or for venality. The highest ranking officer charged so far in Iraq basically got off. No one assumes responsibility in the military.
And as a nation we have not truly assumed responsibility. Could it be that one reason others might find occasion to hate us is our unwillingness to acknowledge our own failings?
Let me present you with a clear statement from Carroll as he expresses it in his final paragraph:
If the United States finds a way, eventually, to withdraw from Iraq without ever having reckoned the war as an expressly American evil, then the world will be at risk for its savage replay. That is why this week's debate matters. It must be informed, above all, by clarity as to who the victims are, and who the perpetrators are. Six years ago, having suffered, we cloaked ourselves in victimhood, which made us dangerous.
Peace??? Towards the end of the Vietnam debacle we were seeking peace with honor. There can be no honor without honesty. True honor means accepting responsibility for our wrongful actions and failures of judgment. Even if we can possibly justify some misjudgments,regardless of how we arrived at them, rationalizing and "doubling down" on the commitments flowing from those misjudgments is all the evidence others need of our arrogance, our unwillingness to accept the wisdom of Bobby Burns, which I remind readers is from a poem entitled "To a Louse"
O would some Power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,
And foolish notion:
What airs in dress and gait would leave us,
And even devotion!
Why do they hate us? Do we still really need to ask?
Peace.
peace.
I'm tired of "why they hate us" contemplation. We know why. We invaded and completely destroyed a country for no valid reason at all. We've occupied the middle East for decades just to protect our interest in their oil.
Any editorial that posits our assault on Iraq as possibly a "mistake" isn't worth the paper it was written on.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention, teacherken.
And Occam's razor is not universally applicable, FWIW. Like all rules of thumb, it has its limitations.
And the answer to that is the usual, as expressed by you. But before 9/11 the hatred was based on our aid to Israel. Speak to Arab Americans and they may couch their language carefully, very carefully, but you can hear as much overt hatred of our financial and military support (advanced weaponry) to Israel as you tacitly hear from rednecks on the subject of race--"they're not all bad, but..."; or, "look at how they use their food stamps"; etc.
Sure, there are other long standing issues, but they pale when compared to the hatred of Israel. This is and was fueled by their schools' teachings to their youths, by our occupation of Iraq, and our pushing policy with an underlying message of "Christian Crusade."
Other countries have wealth aplenty, and overt displays of that, and were not blasted to the degree we were. We, however, add to the fires of hate with our national religiosity. But overall, in all the Arab and Muslim messages, the hatred of Israel comes through and was intensified by the actions of Lieberman, Wolfowicz, Crystal, Perle and Adelman, and our President's support of them. Guess what the informed Muslim community thinks when they see THOSE names behind the Iraq invasion and occupation, topped off by a Christian crusade, no less! Is it any wonder they gain their converts to terrorism, especially after Bush added to their hatred by making such a horrific mess of our foreign policy and created the havoc in Iraq?
As a minor humorous postscript, I'll mention Sean Hannity's remark made on radio during the runup to the war (or shortly thereafter). He told a caller "Who cares why they [Arabs states and other countries] hate us? We're stronger than them."
But the theme of the evil masses stops with rich, white, dominionist males, and the women and minorities willing accept their dominance. If you're a rich, white, dominionist or if you're willing to bow down to their power, you're inviolable, your absolute innocence is pre-ordained and eternal.
Of course, if you question Bush Republicans, to quote Tom Davis, you're "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", the constitutional definition of a traitor.
So, why do they hate us? It depends on your definition of us, and they.
If you actually understand and live in the real America, the open, honest, worthwhile and virtuous America that errs, learns, grows and strives for a more perfect union, then they hate us for the very real damage we've done in the rest of the world. If, however, you have blind faith in the authoritarian dogma of the far right, and you're willing to servilely accept any and every lie, failure and power grab as part of God's work through his anointed servant in the White House, you'll no more understand the source of their hate than a fish understands water or a pig understands sh*t.