| |
|
RE: Grant Morrison's reaction/essay
I think Grant is an intelligent man, and he makes some very valid points here about the fact that the U.S.'s hands are hardly clean. The US has done many things in its handling of Middle East situations and 'behind the scenes' black ops stuff that could certainly be categorized as wrong.
And I also agree that mindless, bloodthirsty, mob-mentality retaliation is not the way to go here.....not if we want a world left standing and remotely peaceful for our children.
BUT..... it is not so cut-and-dry that "The U.S. are the real bad guys here; no better than the ones they call 'enemies'." I don't think it's right or humane to say "It's shit on the US time!! Grant is basically saying "They got what they desereved" .... how is that different from the people who are rejoicing over this??!
The world is not so simple, there are grey areas, MANY grey areas, on both sides. One might say we tried to help Israel because they're a democracy, they were created by the UN (I think) in the 50s, because no one else would help them, and otherwise they would be annhilated by the Palestians. One might say we tried to help stop genocide in Kosovo for no selfish reason other than a desire to see some stability in that volatile region of the world.
One could say that we attacked Iraq because they invaded another country, and one could say are we supposed to do nothing as countries attack each other? (Witness the folly of the Great Appeaser in WW II: "OK; Hitler, you can have these countries, but don't take any more, OK?")
If we do nothing in response to what is surely an act of war on the US, what message are we sending? That this kind of mass destruction is OK? That we've learned our lesson and will now stay out of the Middle East entirely? That we recognize our wrongdoings and apologize for them? Let's be realistic; peace is not the answer here. I wish it were, though -- believe me. I just don't think there's any way to salvage this through just mediation and politics alone.
One could say we bombed Afghanistan because we had good evidence that we were bombing a training camp for terrorists, because we had to have some kind of response to the almost simultaneous bombing of our embassies around the globe. The idea that bin Laden or his camp were there must have been somewhat true, since reports say universally that "bin Laden got out 20 minutes before the bombs hit", which means he was there beforehand. Bin Laden has repeatedly spoken of his holy war on the US. But I'm not saying he's the only one involved here.....of course not.
I realize that to the average citizen, of Iraq, Afghanistan, or the United States, bombs and bombs, and destruction and deaths of loved ones are just that. But would you say "Well, many innocents were killed in WW I and WW II who were not Nazis or fascists, therefore those wars never should have taken place, the Allies shouldn't have formed or taken action because someone's going to get hurt?"
Someone is ALWAYS going to get hurt. Both sides are ALWAYS going to seem evil to each other.
Now, I'm aware that we supported bin Laden when the common enemy was Russia. I'm aware that we essentially put Saddam Hussein in power years ago, and that we gave the Taliban money to stop drug production/trade. I'm NOT saying those were all smart ideas. I'm not saying America doesn't have corruption and many bad calls, mistakes, and arrogance in its government. But you know what? Show me a country who doesn't have any of those things in its government. I'll be waiting. Grant, show me this list that the UK has never made any mistakes of this magnitude.
I simply hope and pray that cooler heads prevail, thinking strategy, tactics, and intelligence gathering good information and evidence of which groups did this, and whatever military response tries as much as humanly possible to minimize civilian casualties on BOTH sides. I don't think the US is out to destroy the lives of average people in ANY country who have nothing to do with the acts of their government, clearly unlike the terrorists who planned and executed Tuesday's bombing.
Are you aware that the US and the UN enacted what is called "soft sanctions" to prevent the starvation of the Iraqi people? They had a system where the sanctions were only for military items and not for food. (I'm not clear on the details of this, but I know I read about it many times in the past.) This was only to prevent the Iraqi government from stockpiling more weapons and creating biological weapons. Do you all remember the simple request of the UN Inspectors? Do you recall how that was flatly denied?
Let's not forget the Taliban is the gov't that needlessly destroyed Buddhist statues while the rest of the world sat back and did nothing. Let's not forget the Taliban implemented the system where members of other religions had to wear ribbons identifiying themselves as such -- Nazi Germany, anyone? Let's not forget Americans are under trial (last I heard) for preaching Christianity, and where conversion to Christianity is an offense punishable by death. Let's not forget all the terrorist attacks on us in the past years. Let's not forget how Iraq invaded Kuwait. Are we evil because we not only wanted to send a message that it's not OK to just invade any country whenever you feel like it, but that we also had an economic interest there and needed to protect it?
I realize all of the above has nothing to do with these attacks. What I am saying is the US may not be a boy scout, but I think our track record is at least a little better than many other countries. I don't think the US' record is "state-sponsored terrorism", as it's often spoken of in the Middle East.
Also take into account that the US has struggled with the question of "How much should we police the world? How much, to what extent, should be help or defend other countries?" The other day (before these attacks) I read about how Clinton was criticized for not stopping 4 other genocides that were taking place in Europe. We try to stop one and we hear "why didn't you stop these others?" "Why don't you solve world hunger?" "Why don't you defend us more over in Europe?"
When other countries go through natural disasters, we give LOTS of help, food, economic aid, and such. We helped rebuild countries that were our enemies in the major wars. But when floods, tornadoes, etc. hit us, do we get $3 million in aid from other countries?
I worry that if today's media existed back during WW II, CNN would be flooded with images of injured, dead and bleeding Nazis, as Hitler pointed out the slaughter of innocent Germans and such. I worry that people would begin to think "Well, are the Nazis so horrible that we need to annhiliate them?" "Many countries around the world violate human rights." "Our record isn't so hot either." "I don't want any innocents hurt." "What if we can't win?" "What if we don't win?" "Let's stay out of affairs that don't concern us, adopt isolationism and let whatever happens happens in Europe."
I notice that the responses to Grant's essay seem to be either totally "No, we have to go to war, this was evil and the US has never done anything so horrid" and "The US is just as horrible as any other country and all this is to bolster Bush's ratings."
I fall in the middle. There are grey areas, here, folks. But one could also say Germany followed Hitler because they were still resentful from being shafted by the League of Nations' treaty at the end of WW I, where their land got divided up among other (victorious) countries. One could say "The US was indirectly one of the many causes of WWII." One could find a reason against America for any action we've ever taken. Likewise, one could say "it's their fault, they did such and such first" about ANY country.
Let's recognize the world is not black and white.
And I seriously do not believe bolstering Bush's ratings is the goal of this whole thing. What a sick, horrible thing to even suggest this is "Wag The Dog." Would the current administration have preferred peace and the public making fun of Bush throughout the rest of his term? I certainly fucking well believe so.
Tony Wolf |
|
|
