A couple of points on a dreary, rainy afternoon in the Midwest of the U.S.A.
Kakki wrote, in response to the article Kate Bennett posted: "I would ask first if the professor is a Marxist, and if he is not I would refer him to this article and then ask him which side he wants to live under." To which I reply: WHOA!!! Are you saying that one has to be, or is likely to be, a Marxist to criticize American foreign policy in the way that the author of the article has? If so, I must respectfully but strenuously disagree. While I have never purported to be anything other than a good old-fashioned, died-in-the-wool liberal, I am certainly no Marxist, economically or politically. However, I agree with a good many of the professor's points. My favorite is probably, "Stay away from the ridiculous claims that we are hated because we respect individual liberties. In the Muslim world, over and over again, we consistently HAVE NOT respected individual liberties but rather supported tin-pot dictators." I think that this is, unfortunately, all too true, especially in Latin America, as well as in the Middle East. But, as that much-maligned Robert Fisk article from a while back pointed out (correctly, I thought), when we in the U.S. speak glowingly of "individual liberties," we're really talking about the liberties of *American citizens,* and not those of the nationals of other countries who may well make it possible, directly and indirectly, for us to maintain our American lifestyles. And, too often, we're referring to the liberties and lifestyles of only *some* American citizens, at that. Kate Bennett then wrote in response: "All of this to say that what concerns me the most, in this war against terrorism, is that it is being reduced to some kind of Batman type of scenario of good vs evil. It is far more complex than that. And that kind of good vs. evil rhetoric is off putting to me. I know I am not the only one that feels that way." Kate, this has worried me greatly, too. I am not a pacifist. I do believe firmly in our country's right to defend itself in light of the attacks of September 11, although, as far I'm concerned, the jury is still out on the efficacy of military action against this amorphous, multi-national new enemy, organized terrorism. Yet when President Bush stated in his speech of September 20 or so that the Taliban hates us because of "what they see in these two chambers" (i.e., a democratic government), and then proceeded to produce a laundry list of the curtailment of individual liberties in Afghanistan, I couldn't help but wonder. How is "they hate us because of our devotion to the great principles of democracy" conceptually different, in any way, from "they hate us for our devotion to the tenets of holy Islam?" Both statements laud the speaker's group for something recognized by the intended audience as a good, and both demonize the Other. Both statements appear designed, at least in part, to gear up those audiences for a long, protracted fight. Tellingly, however, both neglect to mention the down-and-dirty, rough-and-tumble political and economic realities that may have contributed far more to this conflict than either side's devotion to its respective Greater Good. Finally, Kate wrote: "I do believe that in order to "fight" terrorism we need to understand why it exists. I don't mean trying to understand Osama, but trying to understand why he appeals to his followers. And why others who do not support his terrorist acts still relate to him. What are the conditions that have created this situation. And what are the conditions that could alleviate this for future generations?" I agree completely. Let's be united, and let's protect our nation from this horrifying threat in the best, most efficient way we can. But while we're doing so, let's remember that it is NOT unpatriotic to admit that our country has sometimes done wrong. After all, it is composed of and led by men and women who, while they may have a great many admirable attributes, are also only flawed human beings. Nor is it unpatriotic to consider that, although there can be absolutely no justification raised for the terrible, violent acts of September 11, 2001, the question of justification for the *anger* that fueled those acts is much, much more complicated. Who was it who said, "those who do not master the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it?" I fervently hope that we will not be so doomed. Off my soapbox--back to my listening corner. Mary P., Madison. P.S. The view outside my window is starting to look positively Hejira-like.
