Just as a sort of afterthought to the vlog below, have you ever noticed that there’s a radical disconnect, according to the mainstream hawk narrative, between how we react to attacks, and how our opponents are imagined to react? If someone attempts to attack or intimidate us, as we all know, this invariably backfires, for the American people merely become more resolute and determined to defend ourselves and/or strike back. We don’t back down. It’s dangerous to attack us.
But apparently, we’re supposed to be unique in this way. If, as Ron Paul did last night, you suggest that people elsewhere in the world might react similarly when we intervene in or attack other countries, it is offensive and crazy to even suggest that this may fuel their animosity or make them prone to retaliate. I guess we’re just special here.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Bill // May 18, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Well, to be fair, most American hawks would also allow Israel to respond to attacks in a resolute and determined way. So that’s two of us.
2 mattsteinglass // May 18, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Also Britain. The upper lip thing. And don’t forget Gondor.
3 Micha Ghertner // May 19, 2007 at 12:05 am
Damn you and your William Blake references!
4 James Hogan // May 19, 2007 at 1:37 am
There are two books that I wish every American would read.
The first is “Charlie Wilson’s War”, written by George Crile. Mr Crile was a producer for CBS’ “60 Minutes”. It is about the exploits of a group of people, including the Texas congressman, Charlie Wilson, who thought it would be a very good idea to arm radical Islamists in a war against the Soviets in the 1970’s and beyond. This group included Zbiginew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, and most of the Reagan Administration. It would be truly an eye-opening experience for most people. This is where Osama bin Laden got his start. Zbig is said to have remarked that he wasn’t worried about a few “stirred up muslims.” To be sure there were a few of them (19) and they were stirred up. We called it 9/11.
The second is “Ghost Wars,” written by Steve Coll, a former associate editor of the Washington Post. This book describes several other clandestine wars fought surreptiously, ostensibly in the name of the United States.
The bottom line is that none of these wars have helped us in the least. In fact, they have helped make the US one of the most–if not THE most–despised countries in the world.
We desperately need to take another course.
5 Brautigan // May 19, 2007 at 7:26 am
And Poland! Don’t forget about Poland!
6 thoreau // May 19, 2007 at 9:54 am
Damn good point, Julian. Damn good point.
Although if terrorists respond to Iraq the way that we responded to 9/11 they won’t attack the US. No, they’ll attack France instead.
7 The Black Monk // May 19, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Speaking of Charlie Wilson’s War…
Aaron Sorkin (the man behind The West Wing (seasons 1-4), SportsNight, and A Few Good Men) has turned it into a screenplay. The movie should be out around Christmas. Keep that in mind if you’re a slow reader.
8 Glen Whitman // May 21, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I quoted most of this post on my blog, and now there’s a fairly vigorous debate going on. Maybe you’ll want to go defend yourself!
http://agoraphilia.blogspot.com/2007/05/blowback-for-thee-but-not-for-me.html
9 Barry // May 23, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I’ve heard a mention that it’s considered to be normal in the Poli Sci field that ‘enemies’ are rarely imputed to have positive motives or features. E.g., US Marines take casulaties, fight on when wounded – they are brave, patriotic, noble, etc. Enemy forces do the same – they don’t value human life we do, they don’t feel pain like we do.