Independence Day approaches, and we're in the danger zone of overinflated patriotism. Can one be too patriotic? This post and comment exchange at Peach Pundit lead me to conclude that indeed, one can love one's country too much.
The article concerns a Mike Luckovich cartoon depicting American soldiers training Al Qaeda members to torture. The cartoon was - in an unfortunate and hurtful editing decision the paper should apologize for - printed on the same page as a photo showing two American soldiers brutally killed in Iraq. The printing of the cartoon itself has drawn outrage from some on the right, who insist the paper should be reprimanded for allowing such content—and not surprisingly, due to its being highlighted on right-wing RedState, the cartoon received an unlikely number of negative votes.
The cartoon brings some questions and issues to light:
- Can one be patriotic and also critical of his country's strategy?
- What limits - if any - should define American reaction to terrorism?
- What limits - if any - should there be on free speech?
- What's the goal of the "war" on terror? And is the fight against terror really a war?
Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber—a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.This explanation ignores history and distorts the truth about our enemy. No-one should take Osama Bin Laden as an unintelligent or uneducated man—and his letter to America in 2002 states the truth clearly within the context of history. It begins- begins!! - with a profoundly simple statement:
Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple: (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us. a) You attacked us in Palestine...The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals.Though the letter expresses many other concerns, the first three reasons listed in this letter concern Israel—and for Americans to ignore that many Muslims resent America's involvement in the creation of the state of Israel is equivalent to burying our heads in the sand and ignoring what we do not wish to hear. If one attempts to reconcile the statements of Bush and Bin Laden, one could conclude:
- America is exercising its freedoms in its support of Israel;
- Muslims do not believe America has the right to interfere in Palestine on behalf of the Israelis;
- therefore, Muslims are fighting against American freedom.
![Just the Facts: Documents of Destiny - Nationalism [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SS4QA2XBL._SL120_.jpg)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
You seem to miss the point that the creation of Israel might not be an acceptable reason for attacking the US. If that's the root of the problem, then there isn't any solution, because the problem lies not with us, but in the racism and hatred of militant Muslims, and nothing reasonable which we can do will address that complaint.
Dave
2 - JP
Dave, that's my point--where I said "If we are going to continue blatantly ignoring the fact that our enemy considers the creation of Israel as the starting point of the conflict..."
The implication I intended, but perhaps did not make clear, is that currently we're ignoring that fact by masking it with the euphemistic "they hate us for our freedom." You can't fix a problem by ignoring it. I'm not sure what--if anything--America can or should change with its policy, but let's at least call a spade a spade.
3 - Andy Marsh
JP - Israel may be one point of contention with people like bin Laden...but do you really believe him and his buddies don't hate the freedom we have? It may not be the primary cause, but it's one of them...these islamists won't be happy until the entire world is under shria law! Deny that and you're burying your head in the sand.
4 - troll
let's put it differently - 'they hate use' for our ignorance as concerns the requirement to submit - call it freedom if you like
troll
5 - Dave Nalle
Amd as I said, if they hate us for things like not wanting the people of Israel exterminated and not wanting to submit to Islam, then we can pretty much ignore those issues and focus on the ones we CAN address, because we're not going to budge on those ones.
As for hating us for our freedom as a concept, it's as good a way to boil the issue down as any other. If we didn't believe in freedom and self determination we never would have supported the right of Jews to have a homeland in the first place, so it still comes down to Western values vs. those of Islam.
Dave
6 - JP
Dave, I expressed the point that we're not likely going to budge on support of Israel or submission to Islam. Again, "boiling it down" is one thing, but I still prefer clearer and more direct language.
Andy, no, I think "they hate our Freedom" is too simplistic and vague. If that's what it means to you, than Christians who support Israel as the key to bringing about the Rapture actually hate the Islamists' freedom. This is a silly argument.
7 - JP
Dave, here's a snippet from OBL's "Declaration of Jihad" from back in 1996 that you might find interesting:
To me, this is a pretty clear indication that he believes Israel was an unnatural development, and that the ground surrounding Jerusalem should be returned to its "normal path" (pre-Israel).
Again, I think it's a mistake for America to ignore clear language such as this when trying to get a handle on the problem--regardless of whether or not our country would or could change its strategy, failing to acknowledge simple reality is disturbing.
8 - gonzo marx
well now, who hates what is too broad a Question...let's just deal with the simple ones first..like the maggots who attacked the U.S
you know...al Qaeda
bin Laden made it very plain prior to the attacks that his problem with America was he wanted the military bases removed form the "holy lands" of Saudi Arabia , which include the holy places of Mecca and Medina...it was years later when he added the afterthought of the Palestinian problem
obviously, by all accounts this was a minor concern, and more used to solidify recruitment among non-saudi arabs
remember kiddies, almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis...NONE of them were Iraqi
now, after the attack, the US has correctly determined that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, run by al Qaeda's spiritual leader, Mullah Omar (possessor of the "cloak of Mohammed") was fronting for al Qaeda proper, sponsoring their training camps and hiding bin Laden and his upper echelon
so we invaded Afghanistan, backed by the entire woprld...hell even Russia and China said "go for it, need any help?"....ousted the Taliban regime and killed a lot of folks, sent a bunch of others to GITMO....but we still did not catch bin Laden
side note here, bin Laden and the upper folks in al Qaeda were trained and funded by the CIA during their 80's war as mujahadeen against the USSR...so everything those folks know about terrorism, public relations psy-ops, cell structure, ordinance, covert finances and trainng/recruitment comes from Uncle Sugar via the CIA
that's ONE faction we are in conflict with...and what they wanted was us out of Saudi Arabia...from current news reports...those bases are being closed to be replaced with permanent bases in Iraq
weird, eh?
but still...no bin Laden captured, hell POTUS and DoD never even talk about him...much less the fact that Mullah Omar and the Taliban are having their own little insurgency in Afghanistan again, fueled by outside agents and opium money
so, who else we got? Iran? well now...some Iranians(younger ones mostly) want to go secular and join the 21st century..but they are fucked by the Mullahs who run the country....and why do the mullahs run the country?
good Question, could it be as a reaction to the CIA overthrowing the democratically elected President of Iran and installing the Shah who then broke out the secret police and acted like a real asshole to his people while BP and Shall each took 40% of the oil revenue and the Shah go the other 20%?
just a Theory, mind you
then you have the Paestinians..who are having difficulty with their Jewish neighbors...bad shit from both sides there, driven by Ideology and real estate disputes...that Tale is so convoluted and byzantine that i ain't even gonna try and get into it...but let me say, i think the best way to settle some of it could be to put the entire city of Jerusalem under a glass dome and not let anybody in there until after a solid dose of radiation expends it;s half life....
ok..i know that's not a good Answer either, but it's better than the current "let's just bomb and kill and rocket each other every day" that they are currently doing to each other...which just helps destabilize the entire region...the US caught up in it because we correctly backed Israel from day one...but time is coming for a full sit down to settle the shit once and for all so everyone can live with it
the active word there is "live"
Excelsior?
9 - Dave Nalle
Going back to #7 - let me get this straight. You're telling me that we should take anything bin Laden takes seriously? We should base our policies on his notions of right and wrong?
Abandon Israel - nuke it into the sea - and all will be well in the world?
That goes beyond mere cowardice into a realm of stupidity for which there is no real gauge.
Dave
10 - Dave Nalle
could it be as a reaction to the CIA overthrowing the democratically elected President of Iran and installing the Shah who then broke out the secret police and acted like a real asshole to his people while BP and Shall each took 40% of the oil revenue and the Shah go the other 20%?
Every Iranian I know - and that's quite a large group for various reasons - agrees on one thing, that Iran was better off under the Shah than it has been before or since. Some of them actively blame the US for not backing the Shah and keeping him in power. Most of them despise the current government and think of them as lunatics. When I recently asked one what about the secret police he commented "so what" and went on to explain that they didn't bother normal citizens, only political radicals and criminals. He then went on at length about the social freedoms that disappeared when the Shah left and how he had to move to America to keep practicing his profession.
Make no mistake, the Shah of Iran was one of the good guys, secret police aside. A benevolent dictator is a HELL of a lot better for the people of a nation than a malevolent theocracy.
Dave
11 - Dean
Dave,
Interesting twist in replacing Iran with Iraq…
Every Iraqi I know - and that's quite a large group of Sunnis for various reasons - agrees on one thing, that Iraq was better off under Saddam than it has been before or since. Some of them actively blame the US for not backing the Saddam and keeping him in power. Most of them despise the current government and think of them as lunatics. When I recently asked one what about the secret police he commented "so what" and went on to explain that they didn't bother normal citizens, only political radicals and criminals. He then went on at length about the social freedoms that disappeared when Saddam left and how he had to move to America to keep practicing his profession.
Make no mistake, Saddam was one of the good guys, secret police aside. A benevolent dictator is a HELL of a lot better for the people of a nation than a malevolent theocracy.
12 - gonzo marx
i can agree he was better than the current theocracy
but SAVAK was as atrocious as any of the killing squads employed by the various tin pot dictators the US has propped up over the years
i fairly certain that it has not escaped yoru Notice that the vast majority of these regimes have turned aroudn and bitten us in the ass down the road...
like Saddam, Noreiga, and the Afghan mujahadeen for examples...
sorry, say what you like about the Shah...we outsted the LEGALLY elected government to put in place a puppet monarch
that is reprehensible, and contrary to the Ideals and principles of our Nation....
period
might i add it's none of our fucking business as well?
but the point i was making is that in each of the circumstances i cited, you can get a much better picture of the origins of Conflict by knowing the history
you might have liked the Shah...i could care less, but you have to admit that a good part of the reason the Ayatollahs were able to take over was due to the anger that the Shah and his secret police has fostered over the years, and old resentment over the secular, legally elected government being ousted by outsiders...namely, U.S.
so i stand by the assessments made in comment #8 and make the point that much of our problems come from cleaning up our own messes with a dash of ideological criminals using that resentment to recruit and motivate for their own purposes
Excelsior?
13 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
At Dave @ #19.
There is no gainsaying that the Iranian economy was far better under the Shah than it is under the current idiots. There was lots and lots of trade and tourism along with whatever is going on these days. But the shah was NOT one of the good guys. While he stashed aside a hefty fortune for himself, he attempted to emulate Attatürk in modernizing his country. But Attatürk had something that the shah never had and could never get. Credibility from being a national hero. Attatürk was the most successful general in the Ottoman army and he drove the Greeks out of Anatolia and Smyrna (now Izmir) in 1922-23. The shah was an American puppet, put there to serve American corporate interests - oil execs, for example.
The shah's own SAVAK created a wave of refugees in the early 1960's, BTW. I got to know an Iranian kid in school that way.
14 - Dave Nalle
Dean, your attempt to substitute Iraq for Iran was brilliant, because you can read it and immediately see how completely invalid your comparison is, since the things I said about Iran don't even begin to make sense when applied to Iraq. Good job.
As for the Shah, I agree that he wasn't an Attaturk. After all he didn't allow several million people to be genocidally exterminated.
And yes, there was resentment against his reign, but look who it was from and look what they have become. Perhaps in retrospect you can truly judge him by the enemies he made. If he pissed off the mullahs and the radical socialistic mujahedin he must have been doing something right.
I do agree with gonzo that the act of putting him on the throne in the first place was part of a very questionable methodology, but remember that we were trying to encircle a very dangerous Soviet Union with strong, anti-communist states for our own protection, and Iran was a lynchpin in that plan. Looking back now we realize that we could have let Iran go the way of Afghanistan and turn into a disastrous fundamentalist nightmare 30 years earlier in response to a soviet invasion, but ultimately that would probably have been less humane though perhaps even worse for the soviets.
Dave
15 - gonzo marx
#14 sez...
*do agree with gonzo that the act of putting him on the throne in the first place was part of a very questionable methodology, but remember that we were trying to encircle a very dangerous Soviet Union with strong, anti-communist states for our own protection, and Iran was a lynchpin in that plan.*
now..if anyone else had typed that i would immediately think them either ignorant of the facts or revisionist in their commentary
i don't think either of those apply as part of a conscious effort
but let me remind you that we were talking about a democratically elected government of a secular nature...hardly communist by ANY means...
this was done purely for one reason only...oil, as ALL reputable historians, and any who were involved with the Company at that time will tell you
the duly elected government had plans to nationalize the oil fields (not the actual wells or pipelines/refineries..but the oil itself) as a National resource to finance governmental projects like education and roadways etc...
this did not sit well with certain interestests, most notably British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell...and of course those who constructed the wells, pipelines and refineries...Haliburton
after the coup, the Shah received approximately 10% of the revenue as personal fortune,making him one of the richest men in the world at the time....BP got 40%, Shell got 40% and Haliburton got 10%
this arraingement went on right up until the overthrow of the Shah
i would also like to remind folks that the Ayatollahs ran the revolution, but it was a "popular" one , due to the atrocities fo SAVAK and the top heavy distribution of wealth
the mullahs were able to stir up the "faithful" but it was young men...college students...who did the majority of the work...including taking the American embassy hostage
so your assertation that a secular and democratically elected government would *go the way of Afghanistan and turn into a disastrous fundamentalist nightmare* is bullshit...and the next statement...
*in response to a soviet invasion,* is an unfounded bit of speculation based on no available facts that i am aware of
one would think an historian would not let partisan blinders affect historical accuracy and analysis
Excelsior?
16 - Victor Plenty
Oddly enough, there are still Russians crazy enough to think invading Iran would be a brilliant strategic move. I'm no historian, and even I've heard about that.
17 - gonzo marx
true enogh Victor..fortunately those weren't the folks in charge...and as i have stated...such line of argument is pure speculation at best
as opposed to the actual historical data presented
Excelsior?
18 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, my hypothesizing was that Iran would have turned into a fundamentalist nightmare IN RESPONSE to a soviet invasion, which likely would have come if we hadn't strengthened the country. There WAS a socialist, pro-soviet fifth column there and it likely would have eventually been used as a justification for invasion by the soviets, something which could only be stopped - in the logic of the time by putting a strong dictator in power.
Today we realize that Russia would have made a terrible mistake to have invaded and would have been faced with Afghanistan squared, but no one understood that at the time that the Shah was put in power. That would have worked even better for our geopolitical objectives but far worse for the people of Iran in the short run.
Trying to analyze this sort of thing in hindsight is a pretty speculative proposition, but it IS possible to understand the reasoning of leaders at the time who saw good sense in installing the Shah, beyond just the issue of oil. Speaking of revisionism, remember, back then we were still pumping oil freely here in the US with no end in sight and gas was selling for 29 cents a gallon. There was no imagining that the oil supply was a matter of national security.
Dave
19 - Victor Plenty
In fairness to Dave, the Soviets actually did invade Iran, in 1941. They were assisted in this by pro-Soviet Iranian communist fifth-columnists, just as Dave mentions. The Soviets were slow to leave Iran at the end of WW2, as well.
Combined with their actual invasion of Afghanistan, it's not such a stretch to speculate the Soviets might have tried to create a Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, if the American Cold Warriors had paid as little attention to Iran in the 1950s and 60s as they did to Afghanistan in the 1970s.
If that had happened, the Soviets might have put much more energy into keeping Iran than they ever put into keeping Afghanistan, simply because Iran is a much more valuable possession in the thinking of geopolitical strategists.
20 - gonzo marx
again...this vague possibility is justification to depose a legally elected government in order to install a monarch for the financial benefits fo foreign corporations?
i fail to understand how it could ever be in America's interests, or even business as a government, to go and depose a democratically elected government to install a dictator
i also fail to understand the need to defend speculation as opposed to historical fact...
i could just as easily speculate that if the duly elected President had been left alone...or , dare i say it, actually supported diplomatically by the US, then Iran would today be a 21st century secular democracy and stauch ally of the US as opposed to the mess it is in now
one can easily argue that the validity of my speculation is of a higher order of probability than any of the others so far
but speculation is bullshit in this case...we DO have the actual history
i just wanted to show that as much as some can guess that things could have gotten worse due to Soviet interference (as opposed to actually having gotten worse due to US interference)...that if we had actually helped and supported the democratic government that had been in place...there is a high probability that the Soviets woudl have left it alone completely rather than suffer direct confrontation with not only the Iranians, but their democratic allies in the US
do you see the Irony here?
we are currently sufering the ramification of a pre-emptive invasion whose best excuse is to spread democracy to the Middle East after having ourselves DEPOSED a democracy in the middle east which is now on the brink of being a theocracy with nuclear weapons
how can this be defensible in any rational or sne sense?
Excelsior?
21 - Victor Plenty
The Soviet invasion of Iran is an actual fact. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is an actual fact. Both happened in the real world, not in some imaginary universe of vague speculation as you seem to be claiming, Gonzo.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying the American meddling in Iran from 1954 to 1979 was justifiable. It's quite possible history would have turned out better for everyone had the Americans supported the Iranian regime elected in 1954. You could be right about that.
However, given the facts of the actual Soviet military invasions in the region, it is equally reasonable to suppose events could have turned out much worse for everyone, with a Soviet invasion of Iran making life hellish for Iranians for decades, and leading to great suffering for Soviets and Americans as well.
Always in motion, the future is.
22 - gonzo marx
Victor, my apologies if i was unclear...
i understand that both of those invasions were indeed historical facts...
just as you concede that AFTER said invasion a democratically elected government was in place which the US deposed
hence my contentions that any scenarios after 1954 are sheer speculation and not perinent to the discussion at hand, but rather distractions from the point
the vague speculations i am talking about are any assertations that occured AFTER that Iranian election up until the present day...that's all
and as for the oil points in comment #18...look carefully at who made the money...it was BP and Shell, neither of which are american oil companies...the only american company involved was the one which built the infrastructure for the oil industry
but again, my Point is that i cannot fathom ANY justification for deposing a democratically elected government rather than supporting it as far as American National Interests are concerned
no where in historical or military intelligence has there ever been the case made that said legal government presented a "clear and present danger" to the US....so....why?
not that it matters now...the damage is done
all i was doing was pointing out the History involved and trying to show part of the causality of why there is such tension between the US and Iran...historically
yet i also readily agree that the current regime in Iran is far from satisfactory by any account
Excelsior?
23 - Victor Plenty
Much of Cold War doctrine was similar to Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive action. Rather than wait for any "clear and present danger" to emerge, America's Cold Warriors decided to act when they thought they were seeing early warning signs of future danger. Of course this led to many morally questionable acts. I don't dispute that.
All I'm saying is that I can understand the reasoning of the Cold War thinkers who were caught up in the doctrines of geopolitics, even as I disagree with many of their actions. They believed they were serving the long term interests of America and the rest of the free world, by doing whatever appeared necessary to contain Soviet expansionism.
Securing access to Persian Gulf oil probably did play a large part in their strategy, but I don't accept the claim that this was the only reason for American intervention in Iran after the 1953 election of Mossadegh. (It seems I was mistaken about the year in my prior post; 1954 was when the Americans helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Guatemala, which I also find morally reprehensible.)
In pointing out the complexity of these cases, I am not saying the Cold Warriors were morally justified to do what they did. Instead, I am saying they show us what our present moral duties are. We in the West owe a powerful debt to the peoples of places like Iran and Guatemala. In effect, agents of our government tricked or forced entire nations into acting as human shields against the Soviet threat. The resulting mess in such countries is something we played a large role in creating, and therefore we have a moral responsibility to help clean it up.
24 - gonzo marx
Victor sez...
*In effect, agents of our government tricked or forced entire nations into acting as human shields against the Soviet threat. The resulting mess in such countries is something we played a large role in creating, and therefore we have a moral responsibility to help clean it up.*
Quoted for Truth
i could not Agree more
my Thanks for the intelligent discourse on the topics Victor...rare indeed these dark days
but it does show me the glimmer of Hope
Excelsior?
25 - Dean
Victor, you are right.
“The resulting mess in [Middle East] countries is something we played a large role in creating, and therefore we have a moral responsibility to help clean it up.”
We played a large role in creating the mess that we have now in the case of Israel and the Palestinians that we have a moral responsibility to help clean up.