Originally posted by stavro
So what DO ordinary Muslims think about America? To be honest, I think they are ambivalent. There will always be a hard core who hate America and the West. But if you talk to Muslims in person, the vast majority are at worst guardedly curious, and at best friendly and interested, about the West. Yet almost universally, they deplore US foreign policy. Someone has mentioned most of the major irritants - biased support for Israel, ineffectual sanctions against Iraq, troops deployed in Saudi Arabia.
But there is something that I think has only been touched upon. The US is not a responsible global citizen. It vigorously asserts its rights, but does not uphold its responsibilities. This makes its foreign policy truly hypocritical, and this grates on the nerves of everybody. (The US is, of course, not the only country to have a hypocritical foreign policy - but as the world's only hyperpower, it comes in for far more attention and, yes, criticism than other countries.)
I keep seeing this comment and I offer the same response: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RESPONSIBLE GLOBAL CITIZEN.
There are only nations whose governments only responsibility is to look after the interests of that nation. Any government who places the interests of other nations before it's own citizens is, by definition, a bad government and should be replaced as soon as possible.
If some nations currently appear to be "responsible global citizens" then it is due to an inability to significantly impact global events rather than any altruistic motives.
Please do not interpret this as a flame, or as my personal preference for a world model. It is simply the way things are. I am merely concerned about the tendency to point at the U.S. while ignoring our own nations failings.
Has Canada been treated unfairly by the U.S? Sure. Softwood lumber. But to concentrate on this is to ignore all the other agreements, treaties, and relationships we have built with the U.S. Basically, as a neighbour, I wouldn't trade the U.S. for any other country on the planet, so apparently the responsible behaviour of all those other nations doesn't amount to much, at least to me.
This is a rather mundane example of everyday hypocrisy. But the same line of hypocrisy can be linked directly to the war on terror. George Bush has pledged to destroy terrorism wherever it can be found. America is 'good' and anyone who disagrees with its moral crusade is now officially 'evil'. But let me ask you this: is an American life worth any more than an Afghan life? Is the death of an Afghan shepherd, killed by a stray US bomb, any different from the death of a New York office worker, killed by stray shrapnel from an exploding airliner?
I suppose that someone will turn around now and tell me that 'it had to be done' and that the Afghan's death was 'collateral damage'. I'm sure the Afghan's family will be very pleased to learn that their family member's death was in the service of a greater cause, and that because Osama bin Laden is so evil, the Afghan's right to exist had to be temporarily abrogated. Yes: the US is fighting a war. But it is not a rogue terrorist group. It is a liberal democracy and must be held to more stringent standards than al-Qaeda. If it does not need to respect the human rights of non-combatants, why is it even fighting against terror?
I must admit that this point of view is so alien to my thinking that I'm not sure I can understand it or respond to it intelligently.
To parse this attitude logically, you basically come up with the following:
1) I am not willing to accept the death of a single innocent in a war.
2) Since, in war, the death of innocents is assured, I am not willing to accept a war.
That's basically it, isn't it?
I blame the media and their focus on the pretty light show from the Gulf and the Balkans. They focus on these smart weapons and somehow come to the conclusion that mistakes are never made anymore. That the death of innocents has somehow been removed from warfare.
War is not about avoiding the death of innocents. It's about pursuing the goals of a nation beyond diplomacy.
There are only two ways to avoid unnecessary casualties in war:
1) Don't fight one.
2) If you have to fight one, end it as quickly as possible.
So now we get down to the crux of the matter:
Do you, or do you not, believe that the U.S. was justified in declaring war in response to the attack on the World Trade Center?
If your answer is yes, then you should have no further complaint. The U.S. fought the war with sufficient skill and strength to end it quickly. In that, they probably saved many more lives than if they have pussy footed around and only poked at the problem.
The also removed a regime that would have continued to cause suffering and strife in the region for years to come.
One final thought: There is another option open to the U.S. They could have sent in small groups of assassins to take out the Taliban leadership. The old .223 calibre migraine. The Israelis have been doing this for years. What would have been your opinion of this strategy? I suspect it would not be positive. Ignoring the fact that this would probably not remove the Taliban from power and would get a lot of Americans killed, it does have a better chance of avoiding the death of innocents.
Regards,
/bruce
Far easier when the Second Falklands War comes around to simply turn a few missile keys
)
